Liverpool FC Forum

[account deleted by request]

why are the Taliban and Al Qeada labelled as terrorists anyway? is it because they are against the supposed babyface USA? for example, take a look at Nelson Mandela. he became leader of the ANC's armed wing which held sabotage campaigns against military and government targets. and then there's the Hamas who are known for their numerous attacks on Israel. and William Wallace, Gandhi, etc etc etc. my point is, all these people or groups had a plan for how they wanted society to develop and they have their own ideology of how the state should be governed. at some point, all the mentioned names above were considered rebels or terrorists. now that they have got for they fought for after so long, they are considered freedom fighters. could the same be said of Al Qeada should they achieve their objective?

It might have something to do with Al Qeida deciding to use fully-loaded passenger airliners as missiles to bring down major financial and military targets in highly populated areas?   I recognize that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter in many cases but I think you'd struggle to find a clearer cut case of terrorism than 9/11 (unless you're one of those "inside job" conspiracy nutjobs ).

I don't think the answer is quite as simple as that Bob. Many recognised states and governments have done much worse, so while its an easy label to apply because of their horrific crimes on 9/11 are they in truth any worse than many nations have done in the past? Or is their terrorist status based on how successful they were?

Sadly todays Terrorist is often tomorrows "war hero" or part of a new government. You only have to look at the IRA to see that.

No mate , I think Judge and Ciggy are a little closer to the mark on this one. Rent a terrorists like Al Queida have no possible justification because they are not just fighting for their own freedom in their own land, but are fighting for a "cause" around the world............and maybe they are " nutters with their pre-historic views on life " as Ciggy says.

It really is that simple to me, mate.  If you target civilians in order to incite terror and drawn attention to your "message" you're a terrorist.  Whether it's state sponsored or not, it's the tactic that makes it terrorism.  I'm not talking about "collateral damage" here...I'm talking the targeting of civilians.  Subsequent politicking may attempt to conceal terrorist acts behind a veil of rhetoric in order to expedite the peace process but it doesn't change the fact that certain "war heroes" or "members of government" used to engage in acts of terrorism.

That I can agree with completely 

I thought before you were using the scale not the act as a measure.

[Kharhaz]

The Repetition of History

Iraq has a history - an ancient one (Babylon lies some sixty miles south of Baghdad), and a modern one, in which we British feature rather heavily. Heres the view from 1922. Spot the the similarities:

The whole of the Islamic world is in a distracted state. Turkey, Arabia, Persia, Afghanistan, Turkistan, and India are all fermenting with unrest. Great Britain has a special reason to fear a great Islamic combination throughout Asia directed against the West. Iraq, for its geographical position may be regarded as a key position...the existence there of a strong Arab state, friendly to the British government, breaking the chain of possibly hostile influences, may be of immense importance to us in the difficult times ahead.

British Colonial Office memo, 11 December 1922

If you replace the words 'Great Britain' with the word 'America', you have todays solution to a problem we thought we'd solved eighty years ago.
What is striking about the whole Iraq adventure is the constant parallels with history, together with the refusal of any of the major players to learn from it. As weve discussed, for Tony Blair history is not something in the past to be learnt from, but something in the future that will judge him favourably. Is he on the same medication as Dick Cheney?
Iraq was created by the British during the break-up of the Ottoman Empire in the 1920s. Formerly part of Mesopotamia, it had never previously been a country. Rather, it was a collection of tribes: Kurds, Marsh Arabs,Shiites, Sunnis, Turcomans, Jews, Assyrians. Mostly they detested each other, so you would think it would be a tough job for Britain to unite them.
But we did it. Less than three years after we took over in 1924 they all got together and threw us out.That revolt was put down by British troops, but the Arab tribesmen and the Kurds kept on causing trouble. How did we deal with that? The same way Saddam Hussein dealt with the same problem sixty years later: we bombed them.
The RAF had a big airbase at Habbaniya, outside Baghdad, from where they sent Handley Page biplanes to blitz the tribesmen at the first sign of trouble. In fact, there didnt need to be any trouble at all before a place was bombed. Perfectly peaceful villages got the treatment if the tribesmen were thought to be slow paying their taxes. This was the first systematic bombing of civilians in history. And who was the man behind this policy? The Colonial Secretary, Winston Churchill. He said,

I look forward to the country being in the condition of an independant native state, friendly to Great Britain, favourable to her commercial interests, and costing hardly any burden on her Exchequer.

That last bit was certainly true, as the Iraqis not only endured the effects of the RAF's bombing raids but were forced to pay for the privelage. But as for the policy itself, the Secretary of State for War, Sir Laming Worthington-Evans, had his doubts, stating,

If the Arab population realized that the peaceful control of Mesopotamia ultimately depends on our intention of bombing women and children I'm very doubtful if we shall gain that aquiescence of the fathers and husbands of Mesopotamia to which the Secretary of State for the Colonies looks forward.

Shame he never met Donald Rumsfeld.
Churchill didnt agree. On 29 March 1919 he ordered:

Gas bombs are required by the 31st Wing for use against recalcitrant Arabs.

At the Air Ministry, Lieutenant Colonel Gossage worried about the effects of the gas on the innocent. But those qualms were not shared by Churchill, then Secretary of State for War and Air, the future Colonial Secretary, Prime Minister, and Greatest Briton of All Time.

I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilized tribes.

Churchill felt what was required was to arouse in the local population what he called, 'a lively terror'.
Which is a neat phrase, bearing in mind the ongoing War on Terror we're now fighting. But there were still worries at the Air Ministry:

I understand that the Secretary of State has approved the general policy of using poisonous gas on uncivilized tribes. So far, although considerable time and trouble was expended on research during the war, we have not yet evolved suitable and practical gas bombs for use from aircraft.

So there we are, another good idea goes down the tube. Not because we didn't have the heart, but because we didnt have the technology.
The intention throughout the 1920s was to create an independant country and leave with honour. Where have we heard that before?
In the end, the British didn't leave Iraq, with or without honour, until 1958, when we were finally kicked out by Arab nationalists, and the king, the crown prince, and the prime minister were all slaughtered. So much for constitutional monarchy.
Having thus seized power, the new ruler, Abd al-Karim Qasim, began a bloody and repressive regime. But that was OK because Iraq was still a buffer against the Soviet Union, so we tolerated the killings and turned a blind eye to the bloodshed. It was only when Qasim changed his alegiance the following year and started to deal with the Russians that the CIA finally sat up and declare Iraq 'the most dangerous spot in the world'.
With enlightened self-interest in mind, it was time to step in again and engineer a little regime change, and a CIA plot was hatched to assassinate the prime minister. The man at the centre of the plot being a twenty two year old thug, described as having no class. After a series of bungled opportunities, the attempt ended in farce. The young assassin killed the wrong man, winged the prime minister, and was accidentally shot in the leg by a fellow gunman. He then had to be bundled out of Iraq and shunted around Beirut and Cairo under CIA protection. So who was the CIA's bungling henchman and would-be assassin? Saddam Hussein. Whatever happened to him?

Its a recurring characteristic of American foreign policy that, having installed or shored up a foreign dictator, the relationship then goes sour and they have an awful lot of trouble getting him out. It happened in Somalia with Said Barre, in Haiti with Baby Doc and in Panama with Noriega. And so it was with Saddam.
Of course, it would be wrong to think that in the past the West has always been Saddam's friend. On 15 February, George Bush said,

There is another way for the bloodshed to stop, and that is for the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands, to force Saddam Hussein to step aside.

That was George Bush senior by the way, speaking after the first Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm) on 15 February 1991, when he was in the White House, Saddam was in retreat and George W. didnt know where he was. The Iraqi people duly rose up, but they'd reckoned without Dick Cheney and the US State Department. No sooner had the 1991 uprising started than the Americans began to equivocate, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher stating,

We do not think that outside powers should be interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq.

The American administration wavered about whether or not Saddam should be allowed to use his helicopter gunships against civilians. Saddam had no such doubts and used them to crush the rebellion. Tens of thousands of civilians were killed and nearly two million forced to flee while American troops were ordered not to intervene. The White House refused to be drawn, repeating,

We cannot police whats going on in Iraq.

And George Bush became angrier. Not with Saddam, but with the Kurds and others who accused him of turning his back.

I have not misled anybody. I don't think the Shiites or the Kurds ever felt the United States could come to their assistance to overthrow this man.

In Britain, John Major was equally offended:

While I hope very much that the military in Iraq will remove Saddam Hussein I do not recall asking the Kurds to mount this particular insurrection.

The US-inspired (but sadly not US-backed) uprising duly crushed, Saddam survived, until 1995, when the CIA backed another attempted coup. Well, we say backed, but on the eve of the raid the Americans smelt trouble and ordered their key man out. He returned to the United States where he was promptly arrested by the FBI for conspiracy to murder a foreign leader. Which is, of course, exactly what he thought he was supposed to be doing.
He was later released, but the others weren't so lucky. The coup failed and many were killed. But memories die hard, and that of Saddam taking his revenge while the Americans looked on goes a long way to explain the reluctance of Iraqis to trust Uncle Sam in 2003, when, in his State of the Union Addressm George W. Bush told them, as his father before:

Your enemy is not surrounding your country. Your enemy is ruling your country. The day he is removed will be the day of your liberation.

To which the Kurds must have responded, 'By us and whose army?'

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A bit long but an interesting read so I thought id pop it up on here. Taken from the book You Are Here by Bremner, Bird and Fortune.

[Bad Bob]

That I can agree with completely 

I thought before you were using the scale not the act as a measure.

Glad I clarified, then, because the scale's immaterial...it's the tactics that define terrorism, IMO.

[account deleted by request]

That I can agree with completely 

I thought before you were using the scale not the act as a measure.

Glad I clarified, then, because the scale's immaterial...it's the tactics that define terrorism, IMO.

So would you say that Britain, Canada and to an extent the USA were guilty of terrorist acts during the second world war, with their bombing of towns and cities with no military value, or is there some other defining option?

[Bad Bob]

That I can agree with completely 

I thought before you were using the scale not the act as a measure.

Glad I clarified, then, because the scale's immaterial...it's the tactics that define terrorism, IMO.

So would you say that Britain, Canada and to an extent the USA were guilty of terrorist acts during the second world war, with their bombing of towns and cities with no military value, or is there some other defining option?

That's a bit of a tougher question because, obviously, both sides did it and it's harder to keep away from civilians in the context of total war.  My gut says it's still terrorism, even if committed in war time, if it's focused on civilians.  Many Americans, no doubt, would object to that and argue that, for instance, the H-bombs dropped on Japan were designed to save lives by forcing Japan to surrender.  Still, those bombs were dropped on whole cities and that makes it a form of terrorism in my book.

[account deleted by request]

That I can agree with completely 

I thought before you were using the scale not the act as a measure.

Glad I clarified, then, because the scale's immaterial...it's the tactics that define terrorism, IMO.

So would you say that Britain, Canada and to an extent the USA were guilty of terrorist acts during the second world war, with their bombing of towns and cities with no military value, or is there some other defining option?

That's a bit of a tougher question because, obviously, both sides did it and it's harder to keep away from civilians in the context of total war.  My gut says it's still terrorism, even if committed in war time, if it's focused on civilians.  Many Americans, no doubt, would object to that and argue that, for instance, the H-bombs dropped on Japan were designed to save lives by forcing Japan to surrender.  Still, those bombs were dropped on whole cities and that makes it a form of terrorism in my book.

Yeah thats where my lines start get a little hazy, tbh I hadn't thought of Hiroshima , which throws a whole new question into the equation.

I suppose intimidation (N.Korea) could be considered as another form of terrorism, where the threat is there but hasn't yet been actioned.

I think the sad thing is that if questioned all sides would think they were morally justified in their actions, and see themselves as defenders of whatever.

[Emerald Red]

That I can agree with completely 

I thought before you were using the scale not the act as a measure.

Glad I clarified, then, because the scale's immaterial...it's the tactics that define terrorism, IMO.

So would you say that Britain, Canada and to an extent the USA were guilty of terrorist acts during the second world war, with their bombing of towns and cities with no military value, or is there some other defining option?

That's a bit of a tougher question because, obviously, both sides did it and it's harder to keep away from civilians in the context of total war.  My gut says it's still terrorism, even if committed in war time, if it's focused on civilians.  Many Americans, no doubt, would object to that and argue that, for instance, the H-bombs dropped on Japan were designed to save lives by forcing Japan to surrender.  Still, those bombs were dropped on whole cities and that makes it a form of terrorism in my book.

If the dropping of the Atomic bombs on Japan during WW2 were "designed to save lives" as you say, then why is is widely recognized by historians that the battle of Iwo Jima was the Japanese' last stand? Save lives? You mean American lives? I've always seen the dropping of those bombs as nothing more than the greatest act of terrorism the world has ever seen, yet it's always justified as their was a war on, yet the war was already won.

[tonyeh]

I think it would be a mistake to think that the Taliban are just a bunch of looneys who simply go around blowing up donkeys and kids. Besides, there's plenty of that to go around on all sides.

Remember, there is a core body within that were trained in the 80's by the CIA and they are well versed in using the terrain to the best advantage. These are the fighters who saw off the might of the Red Army, arguably the strongest army in the world at the time and they were there in much larger numbers too.

The Taliban's fighting organisation have proven to be very skillfull fighters and have shown that they are capible of taking on modern mobilised war machines to great effect.

I dont think they are loonies..their ideals and overall agenda is worthy of loonism though...but they would feel the same about us..just because its our culture to act a certain way and do certain things does not make it right!

Just because something is not how you do it does not make it wrong..it makes you look like you lack understanding!(Im not talking about you,im talking in general)

We need to sit down..show them respect and listen..and they do us!!
Then again its their country..so why should they respect us?
Told ya...sticky situation

But this is the problem. We don't have a real clue what their "overall agenda" is, nor do we know much about "ideals." Nor do I know what the feel about "us".

We really only have agit prop from the US for our image of the Taliban. These were the same people who told us that the Mudjihedeen were "freedom fighters" in 1985.

These are also the same people who turned their back on their war in Afghanistan to put the Iraqi project into effect. As far as I'm concerned, the word of an American administration is worth a hill of beans.

Someone famous once said that "Propaganda is the art of convincing your enemy, while not quite convincing your friends." In other words, be careful what you choose to believe from your allies in a time of conflict.

I'll tell you one thing about the Taliban...they are Afghans and those people have had to put up with invasion after invasion by multiple Nations over hundreds of years. What they want more than anything else is to be left alone.

[tonyeh]

why are the Taliban and Al Qeada labelled as terrorists anyway? is it because they are against the supposed babyface USA? for example, take a look at Nelson Mandela. he became leader of the ANC's armed wing which held sabotage campaigns against military and government targets. and then there's the Hamas who are known for their numerous attacks on Israel. and William Wallace, Gandhi, etc etc etc. my point is, all these people or groups had a plan for how they wanted society to develop and they have their own ideology of how the state should be governed. at some point, all the mentioned names above were considered rebels or terrorists. now that they have got for they fought for after so long, they are considered freedom fighters. could the same be said of Al Qeada should they achieve their objective?

It might have something to do with Al Qeida deciding to use fully-loaded passenger airliners as missiles to bring down major financial and military targets in highly populated areas?   I recognize that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter in many cases but I think you'd struggle to find a clearer cut case of terrorism than 9/11 (unless you're one of those "inside job" conspiracy nutjobs ).

If that's the case Bob, then why aren't the Yanks bombing the crap out of Pakistan?

That country is the main harbour of Al Quieda sentiment, not Afghanistan.

[dawson99]

havent Pakistan got nuclear capabilities?

[Number 9]

Not just based on the war, but Ive seen some films The Kite runner, Khandahar, and some documentrys about Afghanistan.

The women and children are torchered, one woman was shot dead in the old football stadium for wait for it.............................




































Nail varnish on her toes    Horrible b@stards.

The kite runner rocks!

[Number 9]

why are the Taliban and Al Qeada labelled as terrorists anyway? is it because they are against the supposed babyface USA? for example, take a look at Nelson Mandela. he became leader of the ANC's armed wing which held sabotage campaigns against military and government targets. and then there's the Hamas who are known for their numerous attacks on Israel. and William Wallace, Gandhi, etc etc etc. my point is, all these people or groups had a plan for how they wanted society to develop and they have their own ideology of how the state should be governed. at some point, all the mentioned names above were considered rebels or terrorists. now that they have got for they fought for after so long, they are considered freedom fighters. could the same be said of Al Qeada should they achieve their objective?

It might have something to do with Al Qeida deciding to use fully-loaded passenger airliners as missiles to bring down major financial and military targets in highly populated areas?   I recognize that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter in many cases but I think you'd struggle to find a clearer cut case of terrorism than 9/11 (unless you're one of those "inside job" conspiracy nutjobs ).

I don't think the answer is quite as simple as that Bob. Many recognised states and governments have done much worse, so while its an easy label to apply because of their horrific crimes on 9/11 are they in truth any worse than many nations have done in the past? Or is their terrorist status based on how successful they were?

Sadly todays Terrorist is often tomorrows "war hero" or part of a new government. You only have to look at the IRA to see that.

No mate , I think Judge and Ciggy are a little closer to the mark on this one. Rent a terrorists like Al Queida have no possible justification because they are not just fighting for their own freedom in their own land, but are fighting for a "cause" around the world............and maybe they are " nutters with their pre-historic views on life " as Ciggy says.

It really is that simple to me, mate.  If you target civilians in order to incite terror and drawn attention to your "message" you're a terrorist.  Whether it's state sponsored or not, it's the tactic that makes it terrorism.  I'm not talking about "collateral damage" here...I'm talking the targeting of civilians.  Subsequent politicking may attempt to conceal terrorist acts behind a veil of rhetoric in order to expedite the peace process but it doesn't change the fact that certain "war heroes" or "members of government" used to engage in acts of terrorism.

Bang on!!

[Bad Bob]

That I can agree with completely 

I thought before you were using the scale not the act as a measure.

Glad I clarified, then, because the scale's immaterial...it's the tactics that define terrorism, IMO.

So would you say that Britain, Canada and to an extent the USA were guilty of terrorist acts during the second world war, with their bombing of towns and cities with no military value, or is there some other defining option?

That's a bit of a tougher question because, obviously, both sides did it and it's harder to keep away from civilians in the context of total war.  My gut says it's still terrorism, even if committed in war time, if it's focused on civilians.  Many Americans, no doubt, would object to that and argue that, for instance, the H-bombs dropped on Japan were designed to save lives by forcing Japan to surrender.  Still, those bombs were dropped on whole cities and that makes it a form of terrorism in my book.

If the dropping of the Atomic bombs on Japan during WW2 were "designed to save lives" as you say, then why is is widely recognized by historians that the battle of Iwo Jima was the Japanese' last stand? Save lives? You mean American lives? I've always seen the dropping of those bombs as nothing more than the greatest act of terrorism the world has ever seen, yet it's always justified as their was a war on, yet the war was already won.

I'm not disagreeing with you, mate--just reporting what I've heard some Americans say.  I know it's a controversial subject, though.  The Smithsonian had an exhibit on the Enola Gay a few years back that was designed to inject some of the horrors of the H-Bomb detonations into the historical discussion about the mission.  It was met, I understand, by stiff resistance from US Veterans, who didn't want the history interpreted that way.  Much easier to believe that it was a necessary evil that saved lives (even if the focus was on saving American lives) rather than an act of terror.

[tonyeh]

That I can agree with completely 

I thought before you were using the scale not the act as a measure.

Glad I clarified, then, because the scale's immaterial...it's the tactics that define terrorism, IMO.

So would you say that Britain, Canada and to an extent the USA were guilty of terrorist acts during the second world war, with their bombing of towns and cities with no military value, or is there some other defining option?

That's a bit of a tougher question because, obviously, both sides did it and it's harder to keep away from civilians in the context of total war.  My gut says it's still terrorism, even if committed in war time, if it's focused on civilians.  Many Americans, no doubt, would object to that and argue that, for instance, the H-bombs dropped on Japan were designed to save lives by forcing Japan to surrender.  Still, those bombs were dropped on whole cities and that makes it a form of terrorism in my book.

If the dropping of the Atomic bombs on Japan during WW2 were "designed to save lives" as you say, then why is is widely recognized by historians that the battle of Iwo Jima was the Japanese' last stand? Save lives? You mean American lives? I've always seen the dropping of those bombs as nothing more than the greatest act of terrorism the world has ever seen, yet it's always justified as their was a war on, yet the war was already won.

On the question of dropping the atomic bombs, the overwhelming reason they were drop was to perform a wartime test on the targets they were designed for. By the Summer of 1945, Japan was finished and completely blockaded. They hadn't a hope of prosecuting the war to any real degree. In fact, they had made moves to call an end to the war, but wanted assurances about the retention of their Emperor. These approaches were intercepted by the Americans using the purple codebooks. The US had been reading the Japanese code for years.

But a surrender would mean that the a bomb would remain untested in wartime conditions.

Dropping the bomb on a city like Hiroshima ( a city the had not been attacked before) yielded important results for future US weaponry, such as the Hydrogen bomb.

It also sent a very strong message to the Soviet Union, whose friendship was no longer needed, once the Germans had been defeated in May 1945.

[tonyeh]

havent Pakistan got nuclear capabilities?

Bingo.