Iranian terrorism vs. American terrorism

[Praktik]

Is that the definition of "terrorism" you're using? Anything that terrifies someone?

If not, can you please cite the exact definition of "terrorism" you're using?

I'm at the stage of offering items for consideration. Your contention would be this wouldn't qualify as terrorism then, because?

My criteria here were loosely defined, but given the accounts of that report I would consider the population to be "terrorized" - the question is whether a cost/benefit analysis on an allegedly legitimate target and the professed noble motives of those behind the drone attacks are enough to undo that feeling of terror...

Unless there is dispute as to whether the population is really terrorized? As it seems HoverBoarder is claiming based on what appears to be incredulity and juice boxes....

HoverBoarder - if you granted that the populations living under flying death robots are actually "terrorized", would you have other reasons to consider the drone attacks to not be acts of terror? If so, what criteria would push us over the threshold of acknowledging the population's terror yet refraining from going the extra step of calling a drone attack an "act of terror"?

One more narrow item for discussion: the "double tap". Is the "double tap" ever an excusable method? We have seen sequenced suicide bombers often enough in Iraq and Israel - when a drone strikes in Pakistan while rescuers are there, would there be grounds for considering the first strike legitimate, but the "double tap" itself a narrow act of terror?

 

[Praktik]

Do you think the storming of Normandy was terrorism because it would have been terrifying for the people living there?

Nope but then I don't equate a drone attack with a major event in the Western front of WWII...

So bit of a strawman there but thanks for playing!

 

[Virus]

Nope but then I don't equate a drone attack with a major event in the Western front of WWII...

So bit of a strawman there but thanks for playing!

Surely it was terrifying for the people who lived there?

Your criteria.

 

[Praktik]

You have to prove it was a proxy first.

For the sake of argument let's assume it was a proxy (after all the coup installing the government that backed the terror squads was American induced, check wiki for a brief overview for starters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala#1944_to_the_end_of_the_civil_war)

So assuming it was a proxy, would the White Hand and other such paramilitary groups in the Americas fighting for the interests of US backed regimes with US funding, arms and training - qualify as US terror proxies for purposes of this thread?

 

[Praktik]

Surely it was terrifying for the people who lived there?

Your criteria.

But not my sole criteria. We can play "gotcha" or we can have a discussion. Your call.

 

[Virus]

For the sake of argument let's assume it was a proxy (after all the coup installing the government that backed the terror squads was American induced, check wiki for a brief overview for starters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala#1944_to_the_end_of_the_civil_war)

So assuming it was a proxy, would the White Hand and other such paramilitary groups in the Americas fighting for the interests of US backed regimes with US funding, arms and training - qualify as US terror proxies for purposes of this thread?

Assuming I'm right, am I right?

 

[GlennB]

I suppose "terrorism" is a concerted, premeditated violent act intended to intimidate rather than achieve any real military objective. Like 9/11, say.

If that's a fair description, then this might fit the bill :

" Most of the victims [of this military action] were women, children, infants, and elderly people. Some of the women were gang-raped and their bodies were later found to be mutilated"

My Lai^WP

Or maybe it was collective madness and not premeditated terrorism. That's very possible.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_lai#cite_note-BBC-1998-1

 

[HoverBoarder]

To what extent would you consider proxy forces in central america (I'm thinking Nicaragua, Guatemala, Colombia) and some graduates of the School of Americas examples of American sponsored terrorism?

The issue here is the degree of separation. Apologists for America could make claims of plausible deniability given the lack of a clear, direct order from an American handler to say, wipe out a village of alleged socialists. They did that in a self-directed way even if they got guidance, $$ and arms from the Americans.

Would that support be enough for those acts to be considered American acts of terror for the purposes of this discussion?

Currently none, during the cold war, definitely.

It is ironic though how much that is used as an excuse to justify modern day terrorism by countries like Iran today though. Instead of being used as a learning point for why similar terrorism acts should be avoided, it is just being used to support more terrorism from a different side.


To be clear though, I agree with your post. I think you are correct in your assertions, and the share of blame that the US deserves for genuinely supporting terrorist acts in those countries. In Columbia, while FARC and other groups committed a number of crimes, attacks on civilians by pro-government militias should not be ignored. As should the US support for Pinochet in Chile, or the US support for the Contras in Nicaragua.

Here is an exert from a 1999 UN-sponsored report, "Guatemala, Memory of Silence," detailing the 34 year civil war there which ended in 1996, in which over 200,000 people died.

The cold war, the National Security Doctrine and the role of the United States

13. The CEH recognises that the movement of Guatemala towards polarisation, militarization and civil war was not just the result of national history. The cold war also played an important role. Whilst anti-communism, promoted by the United States within the framework of its foreign policy, received firm support from right-wing political parties and from various other powerful actors in Guatemala, the United States demonstrated that it was willing to provide support for strong military regimes in its strategic backyard. In the case of Guatemala, military assistance was directed towards reinforcing the national intelligence apparatus and for training the officer corps in counterinsurgency techniques, key factors which had significant bearing on human rights violations during the armed confrontation. 14. Anti-communism and the National Security Doctrine (DSN) formed part of the anti-Soviet strategy of the United States in Latin America...

...the National Security Doctrine, became increasingly inclusive. At the same time, this doctrine became the raison d'etre of Army and State policies for several decades. Through its investigation, the CEH discovered one of the most devastating effects of this policy: State forces and related paramilitary groups were responsible for 93% of the violations documented by the CEH, including 92% of the arbitrary executions and 91 % of forced disappearances. Victims included men, women and children of all social strata: workers, professionals, church members, politicians, peasants, students and academics; in ethnic terms, the vast majority were Mayans.

 

[Praktik]

I suppose "terrorism" is a concerted, premeditated violent act intended to intimidate rather than achieve any real military objective. Like 9/11, say.

You know this brought me to another interesting question for consideration: seems to me one of the big errors in thinking when thinking about politics and the actions of nations/entities is that there is often a desire to explain with a single motivation.

Even on an interpersonal level, I find people looking to explain the actions of others by a singular motivation.

But aren't most actions multi-vectored?

And if so, while we might find pure acts of terror that come close to that singular motivation, what about say - a Sunni radical in Iraq blowing up his suicide vest outside an American military base cause he was found out before he could pass the gates - killing 30 who happened to be in nearby cars outside the gates.... In this case there was a genuine military target but civilians got caught in the middle.

Would this not be an act of terror that also had a legitimate military component?

I guess what I'm trying to navigate here is the grey area where there may be more than one motivation to a given attack/event, one which fits a classical terror definition and another that fits the military definition.

 

[Praktik]

Currently none, during the cold war, definitely.

It is ironic though how much that is used as an excuse to justify modern day terrorism by countries like Iran today though. Instead of being used as a learning point for why similar terrorism acts should be avoided, it is just being used to support more terrorism from a different side.


To be clear though, I agree with your post. I think you are correct in your assertions, and the share of blame that the US deserves for genuinely supporting terrorist acts in those countries. In Columbia, while FARC and other groups committed a number of crimes, attacks on civilians by pro-government militias should not be ignored. As should the US support for Pinochet in Chile, or the US support for the Contras in Nicaragua.

Here is an exert from a 1999 UN-sponsored report, "Guatemala, Memory of Silence," detailing the 34 year civil war there which ended in 1996, in which over 200,000 people died.

Ya i get your point on current vs historical. If we ground ourselves in the present the only one that comes to mind is the MEK, which ironically enough, targets the Iranian regime....

Aside from that I'm wondering if there still might not be some connections in Colombia with the paras there, if not directly, then through people in Colombian government who are friendly with the US and the paras. America is still spending billions there under the auspices of the War on Drugs, even with the FARC in abeyance.

 

[HoverBoarder]

You know this brought me to another interesting question for consideration: seems to me one of the big errors in thinking when thinking about politics and the actions of nations/entities is that there is often a desire to explain with a single motivation.

Even on an interpersonal level, I find people looking to explain the actions of others by a singular motivation.

But aren't most actions multi-vectored?

And if so, while we might find pure acts of terror that come close to that singular motivation, what about say - a Sunni radical in Iraq blowing up his suicide vest outside an American military base cause he was found out before he could pass the gates - killing 30 who happened to be in nearby cars outside the gates.... In this case there was a genuine military target but civilians got caught in the middle.

Would this not be an act of terror that also had a legitimate military component?

I guess what I'm trying to navigate here is the grey area where there may be more than one motivation to a given attack/event, one which fits a classical terror definition and another that fits the military definition.

He still would have killed those civilians, knowing that they would die, and carrying out his attack anyway.

What about the Iranian supported Assad shelling or air bombing neighborhoods and killing families there, hoping that they would be sympathetic to the rebels?

Is that a military target?

 

[Praktik]

He still would have killed those civilians, knowing that they would die, and carrying out his attack anyway.

What about the Iranian supported Assad shelling or air bombing neighborhoods and killing families there, hoping that they would be sympathetic to the rebels?

Is that a military target?

I think objectively no, but subjectively yes.

To the outside world, myself included, I would say that was an act of terror almost purely, because the targets were civilian.

In Assad's mind though he was "draining the swamp" and doing this within the context of a civil war. I would argue there is a nuance there that should be appreciated if only from a game-theory perspective, even if its not an evaluation we would be likely to share with Assad.

If however he had data showing rebel attacks coming from an apartment building he targeted, that might muddy the waters a bit...

 

[HoverBoarder]

I think objectively no, but subjectively yes.

To the outside world, myself included, I would say that was an act of terror almost purely, because the targets were civilian.

In Assad's mind though he was "draining the swamp" and doing this within the context of a civil war. I would argue there is a nuance there that should be appreciated if only from a game-theory perspective, even if its not an evaluation we would be likely to share with Assad.

If however he had data showing rebel attacks coming from an apartment building he targeted, that might muddy the waters a bit...

I understand his motivation for carrying out the attacks.

Like killing the family members of defecting soldiers, bombing bread lines, abducting the 30,000 people, and bombing towns and cities that have resisted or broken free from his rule. It is definitely a "draining the swamp" strategy that has worked for the regime in the past.

Still, it definitely fits the definition of terrorism, and the question is whether that is acceptable war time behavior or not.


Since Iran directly supports those actions, is that evidence of their support for terrorism?

 

[HoverBoarder]

Ya i get your point on current vs historical. If we ground ourselves in the present the only one that comes to mind is the MEK, which ironically enough, targets the Iranian regime....

Aside from that I'm wondering if there still might not be some connections in Colombia with the paras there, if not directly, then through people in Colombian government who are friendly with the US and the paras. America is still spending billions there under the auspices of the War on Drugs, even with the FARC in abeyance.

Columbia has done a lot to clamp down on pro-government militias, and the situation is a lot different than it was a few decades ago.

FARC is now battling other drug groups as much, and maybe even more than they are battling the government. Which is one of the major reasons they have been working on reaching truce settlements with the government. Their main enemies now are the rival drug cartels, who have no qualms about being as violent as possible.


A US shift on the 'War on Drugs' is long overdue, and countries like Columbia, Mexico, Guatemala, Bolivia, Brazil, and other countries including the US itself are left to deal with many of the increased crime and other problems from our failed policy.

Still, I don't know if that is so much directly supporting terrorism and crime, as much as it is allowing it to happen through a refusal to acknowledge the inherit problems in the US's own drug policies.

 

[GlennB]

...


Would this not be an act of terror that also had a legitimate military component?

I guess what I'm trying to navigate here is the grey area where there may be more than one motivation to a given attack/event, one which fits a classical terror definition and another that fits the military definition.

Quite so. Hiroshima + Nagasaki fit into that grey area too, in my opinion.

They were not really legitimate military targets but - in the opinion of many - those bombs saved many lives by hastening the end of the war. Others (including some very high-ranking in the US military) reckoned that Japan was ready to fold anyway and the nukes were not required. Others believe it was little more than an experiment on civilian areas.

Was the WWII bombing of Dresden a legitimate military objective or state terrorism? Tough one ....

 

[Captain.Sassy]

What about Jundullah or, more intimately, the Contras?

 

[Captain.Sassy]

whoops, contras already mentioned

 

[L.Y.S.]

I smell a trap.

 

[HoverBoarder]

Quite so. Hiroshima + Nagasaki fit into that grey area too, in my opinion.

They were not really legitimate military targets but - in the opinion of many - those bombs saved many lives by hastening the end of the war. Others (including some very high-ranking in the US military) reckoned that Japan was ready to fold anyway and the nukes were not required. Others believe it was little more than an experiment on civilian areas.

Was the WWII bombing of Dresden a legitimate military objective or state terrorism? Tough one ....

In Japan, the houses were made out of such thin wood, that fires spread across the city very quickly.

Mass carpet bombing of cities there killed so many people that some bombers reported being able to smell the giant mass of burning flesh below.

 

[HoverBoarder]

I smell a trap.

I guess, we have already started a list for both sides.

Feel free to add to it if you want.