Man caused disasters

[RedskinsDave]

Does it scare the crap out of anyone else that the woman who runs our Homeland Security wants to rename terrorism? It is what it is Janet. Get your head out of your rump.

This was well said:

Today we learn that Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano no longer likes to talk about "terrorism." She prefers the term "man-caused disasters."
Even in the gated-community Gene Pool, a reliable redoubt for escaped New Dealers and Bleeding Heart Liberals from this and other eras, this smacks of the craven politics of pacification -- political correctness gone nuts. Bhopal was a man-caused disaster. Three-Mile-Island was a man-caused disaster. Terrorism is terrorism. What Napolitano has done is remove the moral responsibility for it.
Thus, today's challenge is to help Ms. Napolitano by giving her some additional expressions she might adopt for things that might otherwise not sound so nice. Your expression can be addressing any sort of social concern.
Here's one:
Don't say "Islamofascist suicide bomber." Call 'em "fatal disease carriers."



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/community/groups/index.html?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3aa70e3396-6663-4a8d-ba19-e44939d3c44fForum%3aa8bc6fd8-cf9f-43ca-99a4-05fdb4342697Discussion%3a6867bdf2-c0d1-4e3a-8bad-2e269673d765

[BurgundyNGold]

Does it scare the crap out of anyone else that the woman who runs our Homeland Security wants to rename terrorism? It is what it is Janet. Get your head out of your rump.

This was well said:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/community/groups/index.html?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3aa70e3396-6663-4a8d-ba19-e44939d3c44fForum%3aa8bc6fd8-cf9f-43ca-99a4-05fdb4342697Discussion%3a6867bdf2-c0d1-4e3a-8bad-2e269673d765
The plight in the Sudan is a man caused disaster. So is deforestation and the extinction of all but 5 of the 13 species of tiger. Terrorism is so named because its intent is to invoke terror for political purposes.

Folks seem to like Janet Napolitano outside of Arizona. Inside, they were glad to see her leave.

[firehawk157]

Does it scare the crap out of anyone else that the woman who runs our Homeland Security wants to rename terrorism? It is what it is Janet. Get your head out of your rump.

This was well said:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/community/groups/index.html?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3aa70e3396-6663-4a8d-ba19-e44939d3c44fForum%3aa8bc6fd8-cf9f-43ca-99a4-05fdb4342697Discussion%3a6867bdf2-c0d1-4e3a-8bad-2e269673d765
People need to learn what a terrorist is and the difference between a terrorist and an insurgent (Taliban is an insurgent organization and al-Qa'ida is a terrorist). There's a difference people!

Regardless, good ol' Janet Napolitano needs to suck a meat popsicle and STFU! There is absolutely no reason to devillify these people as they are really, truly the scum of the earth.

[CNYSkinFan]

here is the full interview

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,613330,00.html

I would not say she is trying to devillify anything. But hey if you righties want to have your panties up in a bunch over that, go right ahead. I tworked for you in the nineties, doubt people are going to buy the whole "leftys use weird speech" crap. I think her answsers in this interview is very substantive and she goes on to talk about the readicalization of younrg muslims. She seems to have a better handle on the root causes of terrorism then anyone in the previous administration has.

[RedskinsDave]

Her answer to why she never mentioned terrorism was worthless. It is what it is and it most certainly isn't some "politics of fear." It's politics of reality. I am still waiting for a decent answer as the why the person in charge of HOMELAND SECURITY won't say the word terrorism since her job wouldn't exist had we not been victims of it.

If you were able to take away something substantive from her answers then you must have been reading a different interview.

[BurgundyNGold]

People need to learn what a terrorist is and the difference between a terrorist and an insurgent (Taliban is an insurgent organization and al-Qa'ida is a terrorist). There's a difference people!
If the Taliban uses roadside and suicide bombers on civilian targets as a coercive technique, what exactly is the difference? Terrorism isn't defined by it's export value.

Regardless, good ol' Janet Napolitano needs to suck a meat popsicle and STFU! There is absolutely no reason to devillify these people as they are really, truly the scum of the earth.
Agreed.

[akhhorus]

If the Taliban uses roadside and suicide bombers on civilian targets as a coercive technique, what exactly is the difference? Terrorism isn't defined by it's export value.

Any group that uses force or the threat of force to effect a change are, per se, terrorists. Even if its a group of soccer moms taking hostages at an El Pollo Loco, executing Mayor McCheese with a chipper shredder from the nearby McDonald's to get the Jonas bros to stop touring.

[firehawk157]

Insurgent organizations, almost by definition, don't attack targets outside of the objective. If the Taliban wants to retake Afghanistan, they don't attack Russian targets, it's counterproductive. Furthermore, they are focused on tactical objectives and the control of key terrain. The logistical footprint and armed combatants for an insurgent organization is immense in comparison to a terrorist organization. Insurgent organizations aren't outside of attacking civilian targets if it meets an objective. There's a whole other conversation to be had on the actual control leadership of the Taliban has on it's force. But, in and of itself, the Taliban isn't a terrorist organization, it's an insurgent one. An insurgent organization considers the objective a success if it blows up a couple of vehicles and shuts down a LOC. A terrorist organization wouldn't give two flying f--ks about that. For a good example of a successful insurgent organization is the RUF as portrayed in Blood Diamond.

Al-Qa'ida has completely different aims that would be damn near impossible to achieve without striking at the heart of the countries they are trying to influence. Military objective are completely pointless to a terrorist, they just want media coverage. No death toll and nothing actually destroyed would be great for a terrorist organization as long as it received media play. For example, if a terrorist organization was able to infect water supplies with a non-lethal virus and warn it would be Ebola next, this is a hugely successful mission.

So while the exact definitions are a bit fuzzy and can mix and mingle an uncomfortable degree, the two methods (and typical objectives) are worlds apart.

[BurgundyNGold]

Any group that uses force or the threat of force to effect a change are, per se, terrorists. Even if its a group of soccer moms taking hostages at an El Pollo Loco, executing Mayor McCheese with a chipper shredder from the nearby McDonald's to get the Jonas bros to stop touring.
I don't agree with that unless you are able to clarify against whom said force is used. If it is against military or strategic targets, I would say that qualifies as an insurgency. When you go after civilians in an effort to affect that change, I think that is terrorism.

[BurgundyNGold]

Insurgent organizations, almost by definition, don't attack targets outside of the objective. If the Taliban wants to retake Afghanistan, they don't attack Russian targets, it's counterproductive. Furthermore, they are focused on tactical objectives and the control of key terrain. The logistical footprint and armed combatants for an insurgent organization is immense in comparison to a terrorist organization. Insurgent organizations aren't outside of attacking civilian targets if it meets an objective. There's a whole other conversation to be had on the actual control leadership of the Taliban has on it's force. But, in and of itself, the Taliban isn't a terrorist organization, it's an insurgent one. An insurgent organization considers the objective a success if it blows up a couple of vehicles and shuts down a LOC. A terrorist organization wouldn't give two flying f--ks about that. For a good example of a successful insurgent organization is the RUF as portrayed in Blood Diamond.
That's the point where insurgents cross over into terrorists. An insurgency can be an honorable thing. Terrorism never is.

Al-Qa'ida has completely different aims that would be damn near impossible to achieve without striking at the heart of the countries they are trying to influence. Military objective are completely pointless to a terrorist, they just want media coverage. No death toll and nothing actually destroyed would be great for a terrorist organization as long as it received media play. For example, if a terrorist organization was able to infect water supplies with a non-lethal virus and warn it would be Ebola next, this is a hugely successful mission.

So while the exact definitions are a bit fuzzy and can mix and mingle an uncomfortable degree, the two methods (and typical objectives) are worlds apart.
Military objectives are not inconsequential to a terrorist. AQ wants US forces out of the Middle East, specifically Saudi Arabia. That's the military objective. To that end, they wage a terrorist military campaign against "soft" targets, both military and civilian, of US and what they consider to be collaborators.

[akhhorus]

I don't agree with that unless you are able to clarify against whom said force is used. If it is against military or strategic targets, I would say that qualifies as an insurgency. When you go after civilians in an effort to affect that change, I think that is terrorism.

There's no real distinction. Killing off military targets in an insurgency is meant to harm resolve back at home.

[firehawk157]

Any group that uses force or the threat of force to effect a change are, per se, terrorists. Even if its a group of soccer moms taking hostages at an El Pollo Loco, executing Mayor McCheese with a chipper shredder from the nearby McDonald's to get the Jonas bros to stop touring.
Then I can't think of anybody who isn't or hasn't been at one point. Parents, legitimate armed forces, police forces, etc...

[BurgundyNGold]

There's no real distinction. Killing off military targets in an insurgency is meant to harm resolve back at home.
The distinction is the target. One is recognized as fair game under the Geneva convention of military ethics, the other is not. Attacking innocent civilians (and that's not limited to AQ, the Mexican drug cartels have been doing this for years) is what draws the distinction.

[akhhorus]

Then I can't think of anybody who isn't or hasn't been at one point. Parents, legitimate armed forces, police forces, etc...

Well, if you want the strict definition of terrorism, thats it. Methodology is the distinction, not goals.

The distinction is the target. One is recognized as fair game under the Geneva convention of military ethics, the other is not. Attacking innocent civilians (and that's not limited to AQ, the Mexican drug cartels have been doing this for years) is what draws the distinction.

But even a resistance group compromised of ex-soldiers in a recognized military(or uniformed soldiers operating inside enemy lines) are committing acts of terrorism attacking only legitimate military targets meant to force a change in policy. Attacking innocents is just higher level(and more direct level) of terrorism.

[firehawk157]

That's the point where insurgents cross over into terrorists. An insurgency can be an honorable thing. Terrorism never is.

Except the inconvenient fact that everybody strikes civilian targets in one way or another. It's a fact of war. A civilian target can also be used to homogenize a region, thus making it a friendlier operating environment. But this kind of jumps into a fuzzy region and it's not an easily defined subject.


Military objectives are not inconsequential to a terrorist. AQ wants US forces out of the Middle East, specifically Saudi Arabia. That's the military objective. To that end, they wage a terrorist military campaign against "soft" targets, both military and civilian, of US and what they consider to be collaborators.

Typical military objectives are. Al-Qa'ida never wanted to control Saudi and never will. They merely wanted Saudi to stop letting us in, which is political (unless you believe we are only there because we forced our way in militarily).

There's no real distinction. Killing off military targets in an insurgency is meant to harm resolve back at home.

Every good military wants to harm resolve back home. An insurgency (in theory) is a vastly different organization than a terrorist one. A lot of the American Revolution was fought by insurgents. You could hardly call them terrorists.

There are fuzzy areas and insurgent organizations that are really hybrids (see HAMAS) but in theory, they are two separate methods of armed resistance.

[BurgundyNGold]

But even a resistance group compromised of ex-soldiers in a recognized military(or uniformed soldiers operating inside enemy lines) are committing acts of terrorism attacking only legitimate military targets meant to force a change in policy. Attacking innocents is just higher level(and more direct level) of terrorism.
Unethical military conduct (killing soldiers instead of taking prisoners, for example) is a horse of a difference color. That's what the Viet Cong used to do, but nobody ever called them terrorists.

Terrorism in the modern lexicon addresses military or guerrilla actions against civilian or non-military targets for the sake of evoking political change. Insurgents can be terrorists, for sure. But insurgency != terrorism.

[firehawk157]

The distinction is the target. One is recognized as fair game under the Geneva convention of military ethics, the other is not. Attacking innocent civilians (and that's not limited to AQ, the Mexican drug cartels have been doing this for years) is what draws the distinction.
The distinction isn't the target. You can lawfully target a civilian who is working in a oil refinery since it is helps a military objective (even though a large portion of the oil will not end up in a military vehicle). Likewise, there are some military members and buildings you can't target (hospitals, field surgeons and clergy for an example).

[akhhorus]

Every good military wants to harm resolve back home. An insurgency (in theory) is a vastly different organization than a terrorist one. A lot of the American Revolution was fought by insurgents. You could hardly call them terrorists.

There are fuzzy areas and insurgent organizations that are really hybrids (see HAMAS) but in theory, they are two separate methods of armed resistance.

The George Washington yankee part of the revolution wasn't an insurgency. That was set piece battles against standing armies. In the carolinas, it was a brutal fight between two groups of terrorist insurgent groups.

As for Hamas: they use the threat of force(rocket attacks) to try and coerce Israel into policy changes. Thats terrorism.

[firehawk157]

Well, if you want the strict definition of terrorism, thats it. Methodology is the distinction, not goals.



But even a resistance group compromised of ex-soldiers in a recognized military(or uniformed soldiers operating inside enemy lines) are committing acts of terrorism attacking only legitimate military targets meant to force a change in policy. Attacking innocents is just higher level(and more direct level) of terrorism.
Honestly, as defined by just about any intelligence analyst that knows what they are talking about, terrorism has nothing to do with the use of force to obtain an objective. And goals are dependent on what you define them as. A lot of the final desired end-states for terrorist and insurgent organizations look similar, but the short-term goals are vastly different.

[firehawk157]

The George Washington yankee part of the revolution wasn't an insurgency. That was set piece battles against standing armies. In the carolinas, it was a brutal fight between two groups of terrorist insurgent groups.

As for Hamas: they use the threat of force(rocket attacks) to try and coerce Israel into policy changes. Thats terrorism.
That's true, but they are also more than willing to use insurgent tactics in an attempt to keep from losing land they view as theirs. Again, it's fuzzy.

[akhhorus]

Unethical military conduct (killing soldiers instead of taking prisoners, for example) is a horse of a difference color. That's what the Viet Cong used to do, but nobody ever called them terrorists.

Terrorism in the modern lexicon addresses military or guerrilla actions against civilian or non-military targets for the sake of evoking political change. Insurgents can be terrorists, for sure. But insurgency != terrorism.

The VC did it to try and effect public opinion in the US with results. The NVA was a standing army that didn't publicize their victories. The whole point of the VC was to draw attention to their attacks on US troops. Tet was a disaster for the VC militarily, they got creamed. But they "won" because it changed the US feelings on the war.

Its squares and rectangles. All insurgents have to use terrorism in some way shape or form. Not all terrorists are insurgents.

[BurgundyNGold]

Except the inconvenient fact that everybody strikes civilian targets in one way or another. It's a fact of war. A civilian target can also be used to homogenize a region, thus making it a friendlier operating environment. But this kind of jumps into a fuzzy region and it's not an easily defined subject.
Collateral damage as part of a military operation is not the same thing as direct targeting of civilian targets. One is military action, the other is terrorism. And the military can perform terrorist acts, as well. The firebombing of Dresden is a good example of terrorism on the part of the Allies in WWII.

Typical military objectives are. Al-Qa'ida never wanted to control Saudi and never will. They merely wanted Saudi to stop letting us in, which is political (unless you believe we are only there because we forced our way in militarily).
You need to brush up on your AQ histroy. OBL wanted to topple the House of Saud and openly called and worked for that. He surmised that he could not do that while the US has troops in the Kingdom and provides military and logistical support to the Saudi ruling family. Therefore, he decided that he had to get the US out of Saudi Arabia before he could attempt to topple the Saudi ruling family. Enter AQ.

[BurgundyNGold]

The distinction isn't the target. You can lawfully target a civilian who is working in a oil refinery since it is helps a military objective (even though a large portion of the oil will not end up in a military vehicle). Likewise, there are some military members and buildings you can't target (hospitals, field surgeons and clergy for an example).
The distinction is the target. Blowing up an oil refinery full of civilians is terrorism.

[firehawk157]

Unethical military conduct (killing soldiers instead of taking prisoners, for example) is a horse of a difference color. That's what the Viet Cong used to do, but nobody ever called them terrorists.

Terrorism in the modern lexicon addresses military or guerrilla actions against civilian or non-military targets for the sake of evoking political change. Insurgents can be terrorists, for sure. But insurgency != terrorism.
Honestly, the modern lexicon, as far as the way it's used in most media outlets, is wrong. This is fed by the desire to label all Islamic guerella forces terrorists in order to demonize them. For a good portion, they are reprehensible but now that has led for a vast majority of the public to think that if a fighter doesn't have an official seat at the UN, they are terrorists.

[akhhorus]

Honestly, as defined by just about any intelligence analyst that knows what they are talking about, terrorism has nothing to do with the use of force to obtain an objective. And goals are dependent on what you define them as. A lot of the final desired end-states for terrorist and insurgent organizations look similar, but the short-term goals are vastly different.

Political violence was one of my focuses in school, so you're in my wheelhouse here with what terrorism is. Even if I put a gun to your head to force you to get you to stop drinking bourbon, thats terrorism. Non political terrorism. Maybe extremely moronic terrorism. But terrorism none the less.

[firehawk157]

The distinction is the target. Blowing up an oil refinery full of civilians is terrorism.
No, it's most decidely not. While you may want to limit the casualties, you have to destroy the logistical nodes where possible and prudent, and that includes civilian targets.

[RedskinsDave]

Political violence was one of my focuses in school, so you're in my wheelhouse here with what terrorism is. Even if I put a gun to your head to force you to get you to stop drinking bourbon, thats terrorism. Non political terrorism. Maybe extremely moronic terrorism. But terrorism none the less.

That it's basic definition. If someone tried that with you though, I think you'd accept the bullet.

[akhhorus]

That it's basic definition. If someone tried that with you though, I think you'd accept the bullet.

I'd pull the trigger myself.

[BurgundyNGold]

Honestly, the modern lexicon, as far as the way it's used in most media outlets, is wrong. This is fed by the desire to label all Islamic guerella forces terrorists in order to demonize them. For a good portion, they are reprehensible but now that has led for a vast majority of the public to think that if a fighter doesn't have an official seat at the UN, they are terrorists.
But, by the broadest of DOD definitions, anything that is done that is not liked by the party in power in a particular region could be considered terrorism. The overthrow of the Taliban could be considered terrorism. So could the invasion of Iraq.

It does us no good to use the broad definitions put in place and refined for marketing purposes. It is better not to "demonize" as you say but rather to recognize that terrorism, as it is used in the modern vernacular, relates to civilians. In that way, we can (and should) differentiate between insurgents -- who can be legal and ethical -- and terrorists, who are not.

[firehawk157]

Political violence was one of my focuses in school, so you're in my wheelhouse here with what terrorism is. Even if I put a gun to your head to force you to get you to stop drinking bourbon, thats terrorism. Non political terrorism. Maybe extremely moronic terrorism. But terrorism none the less.
I agree, that is terrorism. But if I was told to guard a bridge against militants in the area and you killed me/held a gun to my head, then that's insurgency. If you did both, well, that makes you an alcoholic terrorist/insurgent:)

[firehawk157]

Collateral damage as part of a military operation is not the same thing as direct targeting of civilian targets. One is military action, the other is terrorism. And the military can perform terrorist acts, as well. The firebombing of Dresden is a good example of terrorism on the part of the Allies in WWII.

I agree. A better example was Sherman's March. However, every military targets non-military target (if you blow up a tank, it won't help if the military can replace it because they have 13 rolling off the factory that day.


You need to brush up on your AQ histroy. OBL wanted to topple the House of Saud and openly called and worked for that. He surmised that he could not do that while the US has troops in the Kingdom and provides military and logistical support to the Saudi ruling family. Therefore, he decided that he had to get the US out of Saudi Arabia before he could attempt to topple the Saudi ruling family. Enter AQ.

This isn't the forum to continue this particular track of this particular discussion. Check your PM.

[BurgundyNGold]

No, it's most decidely not. While you may want to limit the casualties, you have to destroy the logistical nodes where possible and prudent, and that includes civilian targets.
I've been thinking about this. I can see where a civilian oil refinery would be a military target, as in Nigeria. I'll cede the point.

However, the Taliban has led campaigns against marketplaces, schools, medical facilities, you name it. They are not the mere insurgents that I have taken you to portray them. They're not AQ terrorists, but they have employed AQ tactics and methodologies as the various groups (including the Taliban and AQ) have collaborated in the Pakistan NW frontier.

[Fathead]

Oh sure, the woman gets to call them "Man-caused disasters". Sexist.

[RedskinsReaper21]

I usually dont like to get involved in these types of discussions but I couldnt resist.

I tend to agree with BNG (although fathead's comment above is the best post in this thread).

Target and intention are what define terrorism IMO. Intentionally targeting civilians with the aim of influencing goverment policy is terrorism.

Hamas launching rockets at civilians is terrorism - the intent is to scare people from living their lives as they normally would...a disruption. Civilians dont want to live that way an in turn pressure the govt.

Bombing a checkpoint in Jericho or Hebron (west bank) is not terrorism.
The target is border patrol (well trained, armed, and in uniform) - legitimate military target.

The string of bus and cafe/resaurant/nightclub bombings (more than once a week) we had in the '90s was brutal. That was really terrorism. People were terrified (for good reason) to leave their house and to do anything but we did anyway because we knew the intent of the bombings. They wanted us to stay home, not eat out, not live our lives the way we normally do - our economy to stand still and our civilians to pressure the government. The optimism, no-fear attitude, and incredibly high tolerance of Israelis did not allow the terrorists plan to work.

9/11 had clear intentions - to destabilize the global economy and affect US (and other strong economys) government policy. World Trade Center - the name says it all. This was an attack on a civilian target meant to disrupt the worlds economy...an attack on globalization.

'Terrorism' is a term that has been overused and lost real meaning (same with 'genocide' btw).

Just my 2cents...but I have my biases as this topic hits close to home.