No Terrorrists in Iraq?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1

Being deployed, I don’t get to keep up to date on the news issues of the day very well. I can catch a few minutes of random cable news shows at the chow hall or word of mouth news about the Presidential campaigns but unfortunately, this is never enough. I did find in this week’s Stars and Stripes newspaper (the Sept. 9th issue) an interesting news article though.

Gleaned from the Washington Post the article is regarding a federal judge who ruled against the nation of Iran and awarded $2.6 billion to the families of the Marines killed in the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing.

In the decision, Judge Lamberth ruled that Iran was “legally responsible” for the 1983 Hizbollah attack in Lebanon. Iran apparently didn’t contest the charges.

From nearly the first day of boot camp I was taught that this attack was a terrorist act. Perhaps it was, but since it was directed against a military target the distinction is a little less clear cut. As a Marine I am considered a lawful combatant under the Geneva Conventions.

This fact is stated on the back of my military ID card. As well were all the Marines who were killed in the tragic attack. The family members were compensated by the Marine’s servicemember’s life insurance policies but I can understand why the families want more. The commanders on the ground in Beirut did not equip the Marines with the necessary rules of engagement to properly defend themselves.

However, the timing of the claim and the defendant is still worth a closer look. Iran is definitely not the only state sponsor of Hizbollah, not to mention that nearly twenty-four years after the attack makes the timing quite suspicious. Perhaps this is an innocent reaction from families still grieving or possibly another indictment to pile on Iran to justify a future war.

It’s no secret that support for the global war on terror is slipping among the American people. It’s always been difficult for the administration to show progress, but what they have done a good job at is to find new targets and enemies to fight.

Many politicians, on both sides of the aisle, have misused the term “terrorist” to describe the individuals (or groups) that attack the US armed forces. But the fact is that when someone shoots at me (a legal combatant) or tries to use a roadside bomb (IED) against me while I’m on patrol they are not a terrorist. They become enemy combatants the moment they target other legal combatants. You can call them insurgents, anti-Iraqi forces, anti-occupation forces, freedom fighters, or Ali Baba (our most easily translated term for bad guys) but “terrorist” is not the correct term.

There is probably more than one reason why these people refer to enemy combatants as terrorists. It could be simply because they don’t know better and don’t understand that the word means something quite specific.

Perhaps it’s because it is accepted vernacular now and since we’re waging a “war on terror” that would make “terrorist” the logical moniker for the enemy. Or maybe there is a more sinister reason. Could it be that the politicians and mainstream media (and occasionally military officials) knowingly misrepresent the enemy in Iraq to achieve a political aim?

If I were attacked by a terrorist while in Iraq, then that must mean that terrorists are in Iraq, which means it was a perfectly wise and logical decision to invade Iraq, right? Now more than ever the neo-cons need to justify their actions and agenda to the American public. A clever bit of language manipulation, most likely not caught onto by the majority of unconcerned Americans, to achieve a political end. Don’t forget that since the Sept. 11th attacks there is nothing an American hates more than a terrorist.

I won’t say that I know why the term terrorist is so easily affixed to so many legal combatants but maybe we should be more careful in how we use the term. Words still mean things.

September 19, 2007

2

Setting off a bomb in a group of pilgrims is not terrorism?

3

And the fact that the attackers were hiding in the civilian population and disguised as civilians means nothing to this author? That fact alone takes the attacks outside the bounds of the Geneva conventions.

4

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Setting off a bomb in a group of pilgrims is not terrorism?[/quote]

No. It is murder. Is every violent act considered terrorism? Is the US military “accidentally” killing “civilians” considered terrorism–or is it merely the intent to cause terror that can be labeled as such? Surely, our boys are causing certain people terror, no?

In general though, the word “terrorism” is rhetorical. It holds no real meaning due to the emotive nature of the word terror.

Further, I would suggest the goal of these “terrorists” isn’t to cause terror–it is to kill. The fact that we are scared by them is just a bonus.

I think you missed the point of this article entirely. The acts committed against military members cannot be considered terrorism. They are armed combatants in a foreign land and therefore fair game under Geneva Convention.

5

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
And the fact that the attackers were hiding in the civilian population and disguised as civilians means nothing to this author? That fact alone takes the attacks outside the bounds of the Geneva conventions.[/quote]

So Vietnam was a war on terrorists? Iraq is similar to Vietnam then?

Terrorist deliberately attack civilians in order to cause panic and fear and incite a reaction. By that definition, invading a country is exactly the kind of thing that makes terrorists happy.

6

I understood the claim but he is ignoring the elephant in the room. The terrorists ARE killing massive amounts of civilians to instill terror and cause political change.

Seemed like a rather pointless article.

7

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
And the fact that the attackers were hiding in the civilian population and disguised as civilians means nothing to this author? That fact alone takes the attacks outside the bounds of the Geneva conventions.

Beowolf wrote:
So Vietnam was a war on terrorists? Iraq is similar to Vietnam then?

Terrorist deliberately attack civilians in order to cause panic and fear and incite a reaction. By that definition, invading a country is exactly the kind of thing that makes terrorists happy.[/quote]

No - that wasn’t my point. My point was that people who hide in civilian populations don’t deserve “enemy combatant” status.

I’d agree that terrorists need to strike civilian targets - or at the very least attack arguable military targets in the middle of civilian populations with an apparent goal of maximum total damage (irrespective of civilian or military status).

8

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
And the fact that the attackers were hiding in the civilian population and disguised as civilians means nothing to this author? That fact alone takes the attacks outside the bounds of the Geneva conventions.

So Vietnam was a war on terrorists? Iraq is similar to Vietnam then?

Terrorist deliberately attack civilians in order to cause panic and fear and incite a reaction. By that definition, invading a country is exactly the kind of thing that makes terrorists happy.[/quote]

Yes, Vietnam was a war against guerilla who use guerilla tactics and sometimes they ammount to terroristic acts.

Yes, the invasion made the terrorists happy. They began striking soft targets, and put the blame on the US. Their logic being, the victims of the terrorist acts will want the US out so that the terror stops.

It was a tactic used by The Russians against the Germans in Poland during WWII. They would set off bombs and kill civilians to get the populace angry at the Germans (who were slaughtering Poles on their own btw, unlike the US who tries to avoid civilian casualties in Iraq).

It is like someone saying: “there were no suicide bombers in Iraq before the US army invaded.” It’s typical of this form of propaganda.