Today on Huffpo there are two recent posts that sum it up for me, my post and Uygur's post. Uygur's post is a thought provoking post that has some validity in that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." While I agree with that, there is not a single arrogant comment that Uygur is a Hezbollah apologist. This was Uygur's post and comments as of 11:40 EDT:
The United States and Israel love to throw around the word "terrorist." It's hard to name any of our enemies who we have not called a terrorist yet. I was led to believe that a terrorist was someone who killed innocent civilians for their military or political goals.
First, how is capturing two soldiers an act of terrorism?Are Israel's enemies not allowed to fight at all? If they have to audacity to challenge Israel in any way, do they automatically become terrorists? Is arguing with Israel also an act of terrorism? These days I wouldn't be surprised. I imagine they'll call it verbal terrorism. Sorry, I didn't mean to give them any ideas.
Why is Israel allowed to take bold and aggressive military action (let alone the US) and no one is allowed to respond? If anyone has the nerve to fight back -- terrorists!
I wonder how many of us would be "terrorists" if we were attacked and occupied by a foreign country?
Was the resistance to German occupation in France during World War II a terrorist operation? Oh no, that's right, they were on our side, so they couldn't possibly be terrorists. They were freedom fighters. Has anyone in history ever been more right than George Orwell?
But put all that aside and just answer this one simple question: How many civilians do you have to kill before you become a terrorist?
Right now, Hezbollah has claimed 17 civilian lives during their shelling of Israeli towns. God damn terrorists!
Israel has claimed 350 civilian lives in their bombardment of Lebanese towns.
I'm not making a value judgment or a statement on who started it or who had it coming. I'm asking a simple question -- when do you become a terrorist?
Comments :
You become a terrorist when the leaders of your political party, or the news media brand you as one. Americans are by and large incapable of thinking for themselves, so when they hear from Tony Snow or CNN that someone is a terrorist, they become a terrorist, facts and reasonable thought be damned.
By: porksword on July 24, 2006 at 06:21am
Flag: [abusive]
You are a terrorist when the people you intend to kill are children standing outside a nightclub or a pizza joint and your family and friends celebrate your actions and dance in the streets after you succeed. You are a terrorist when you end many lives to make a political point rather than as a means of getting someone to stop killing. Hezbollah is determined to destroy Israel. They are not intersted in any other outcome. What should be the response to such thinking? I wish someone would explain to me how to solve the matter of an implacable enemy whose only desire is to kill you?
By: nyboomer on July 24, 2006 at 06:31am
Flag: [abusive]
BRAVO !!! EXCELLENT PIECE !!!Terrorists DO NOT EXIST ... there is no such thing.
All war is terror ... that is an emotion.
The world is comprised of large armies with many weapons ... and small armies with fewer weapons ...
Guess which side is called the Terrorists ???So called "Terrorists" haven't killed .00001 % the amount of civilians as state armies have ...
"One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter"
Viva la Hezbollah !
By: zapata on July 24, 2006 at 06:55am
Flag: [abusive]
Terrorism is about PURPOSEFUL killing of civilians with the explicit goal of, oh let's see, TERRORIZING people.Creating civilian casualties during wartime, while it may be morally justified or not, is not terrorism.
Having said that, I do not feel that Israel is acting in its own best interest or in a moral way. The bombings will, at least, create more terrorists that Israel will have to deal with in the future. Israel has had to fight for decades. We cannot know this agony. Perhaps, though, this is why we may have a better perspective. I only hope this is not WW III.
By: rini on July 24, 2006 at 07:05am
Flag: [abusive]
Calling one group "terrorists" is such an immature way of handling foreign policy as well. Why don't we scrap these bullshit euphemisms and titles and call the groups what they are ... Israel versus Hezbollah Guerillas.Nasrallah is not a terrorist any more than Olmert is ... in fact he is much less.
Hezbollah is avging a ration of civilian/soldier deaths of 1:1
Israel has a killing ratio of 20:1
The U.S. and the West are like a bunch of women who can carpet bomb all they like ... but as soon as they are attacked and lose .01 % of the amount of people they kill on a monthly basis worldwide ... then they freak out and scream "armageddon" and "unfair" play.
Israel is only reaping what they have sown ...
Just like South African apartheid ... Israel's fascist theocratic apartheid state will be ended soon enough ...
By: zapata on July 24, 2006 at 07:23am
Flag: [abusive]
Go back in America's history and you can see all the terrorists fighting off invaders, the measely group of men under George Washington were "terrorists"? Oh yeah...not in America. Only in other places are "freedom fighters" called terrorists. Actually King George (the first one back in the 1700's) did call the rebels "insurgents". This is what everyone is calling a return to a form of fascism - scaring stupid people into thinking that terrorists are at your door and will kill your children if you don't allow us to fight them over there so you don't have to fight them OR miss an episode of American Idol! Bush is the worst "terror" monger. He gets to vacation in Crawford while all this "shit" (his own diplomatic word here) goes on. When will people wake up? He vetoes stem cell research because he doesn't like "murder", BUT it's okay to kill people after they're already born and grown. THAT'S okay, right George? You should know, you saw hundreds on death row in your adopted state of Texas go to their deaths, you have seen thousands (you know, "ohhh 30,000 give or take) die under your watch - but throw away an unused embryo is way better than using it for research that can possible cure future diseases or human ailments. Two words for Bush....murderous hypocrite.
By: sophie on July 24, 2006 at 08:02am
Flag: [abusive]"The U.S. and the West are like a bunch of women who can carpet bomb all they like ..."
By: zapataWait a minute, wait a minute, wait just a goddamn minute! Don't go using the word women like it's a bad word. I see very little of "women's" handiwork in this sordid mess we're discussing.
By: slim on July 24, 2006 at 08:32am
Flag: [abusive]
Lobbing rockets which are crudely guided, which actually do result in indiscriminate civilian casualties, is pure terrorism. There is no intent to destroy military targets, only to terrify civilians.Dropping bombs on military targets close to civilian facilities is a dangerous practice that usually results in a lot of civilian casualties, but is intended to destroy military targets. If it's not outright terrorism, it still terrifies civilians.
By: Doofus on July 24, 2006 at 08:40am
Flag: [abusive]
Excellent questions. The word "terrorist" has been abused and cynically used to lump together most any enemy the speaker has. CNN follows suit. All of this fighting is awful--I don't see why we don't have more peace activists on the news. There are litterally hundreds of professional peace lobbyists and think tank experts whom I would love to see balance the unspoken coverage on TV that war is suitable and moral first-choice option for solving disputes.
By: vaughan on July 24, 2006 at 08:50am
Flag: [abusive]
We're all terrorists in some way, shape or form. It depends on who you talk and the situation. It's a trite label.
By: LuaxanaEvila on July 24, 2006 at 09:53am
Flag: [abusive]"When do you become a terrorist"?
You become a terrorist when you worship money over humanity or when you worship a god whose spiritual teachings have been distorted from one of "love and peace" to one of "hatred and war".
These are the moral opiates which much of humanity has adopted in its search for enlightenment, and the same opiates that will preclude the potential for world peace.
Until humanity begins to internalize the need of a new philosophy which could save this planet and its inhabitants, there is little hope for us. When are we as a species going to start behaving like responsibly?
By: Gail on July 24, 2006 at 09:56am
Flag: [abusive]
Luke Skywalker was a terrorist.Batman was a terrorist, but so was his arch-nemesis, The Joker.
The A-Team might have been called terrorists by the military, but because they were on network TV in the 80's all they ever did was shoot the hoods and tires on the bad guy's cars and have B.A. Baracus punch them in the face, so they were not really terrorists.
V in "V for Vendetta" was a terrorist, but the jury is still out if Marc Singer was a terrorist in the mini-series "V".
Jesse James was a terrorist. Billy The Kid was not.
William Wallace was a terrorist. Robin Hood was a wuss.
The Old Testament God was a terrorist.
By: Chachi on July 24, 2006 at 10:29am
Flag: [abusive]
Let's step back here a minute and cool the rhetoric. The term terrorist is fairly modern as is the tactic used by those labeled thus. In my view, it is a group that kills civilians indiscriminately, men, women and children, for the sole purpose of making a political statement. That is unlike the American or any other national informal or formal militia which forms to rid itself of an occupying or oppressive military and engages in guerilla warfare against said military. The early American fighters that overthrew English rule were thus. So, let's keep the distinctions clear. Are there terrorists and/or terrorist organizations? Yes, in many countries, including this one (Can you say Timothy McVeigh?). Is the response to terrorists and terrorist organizations approrpriate and properly measured? No. Of course not. Witness the invasion of Iraq being tied to 9/11. Iraq was not complicit in 9/11 in any way, but the war was sold using that as one rationale. Have we and other countries, most notably recently, Israel, killed civilians while trying to engage terrorists in a "WAR"? Absolutely. That is wrong, not simply unfortunate, but it is NOT terrorism. George Bush, while I detest his political posture, is not a terrorist. He IS a warmonger. He IS a misguided prosecutor of a "War" on terror. Terrorism is a crime and should be responded to by arresting and taking to court those who are engaged in such. But, let's not get carried away in our analogies. For one thing it simply gives the right wingers, who are bad enough as it is, ammunition to say, "See,liberals and Democrats are anti-American and pro-terrorist". We are neither. We ARE against the taking of innocent life indiscriminately, whether we do it or someone else does. We ARE against war crimes. We are against violence in place of diplomacy. We are FOR military action when diplomacy fails and we are faced with no other option. In the case of Iraq, we had other options. We should be against that.
By: ReformedRepublican on July 24, 2006 at 10:45am
Flag: [abusive]
Compare this to my comments from my recent posts of which 100s were considered too abusive to publish by the Huffpo editors. And check my previous posts and Uygur's previous posts. It is pretty clear that some liberal bloggers, whoever they may be, are generally not capable of seeing this problem in any other way. The blindness by some liberals about right and wrong issues has always been apparent to me. My intent in posting about this subject was to provide some discussion about a serious problem. Just like Uyger's posts, it is just food for thought. My point has always been to bring balance to the discussion. Many liberals view events in terms of supporting the underdog. That is why we support women's rights, gay rights, and racial equality. The MSM and the political and economic exploiters have portrayed the Muslim population as a bunch of uncivilized terrorist bent on destroying the United States and Western "civilization."
Many of my friends watch the TV series 24 and they suggested that I watch it. I watched one episode and it made me sick. That series distributed by Fox shows the worst kind of Muslim stereotyping. And it is open season for even Jon Stewart, David Letterman and Jay Leno to reinforce these stereotypes with constant pictures of Osama Bin Ladin and the "death to America" punchline. So for all you thoughtful liberals who are busy focusing on wedge issues that divide the progressives and the Democrats, start protesting the racial stereotyping that is so hurtful to so many Muslim Americans.
The way to win elections and do something about wedge issues is to be thoughtful to others who are on your side and not to divide us in ways that make the enemy stronger. And if you have ever laughed at a Jon Stewart "death to America" skit, think about your liberal values.