I Guess They Do Support Terrorism
One can always count on Jim Fetzer to provide idiotic quotes on any of his radio appearances. We have been arguing whether the CTs support the terrorists. Well, now I guess we find out who they think the terrorists are. From today's show, during a discussion of the current events in Israel and Lebanon, at the 36:53 mark:
Maybe even acknowledge that there are situations in which terrorism may be the only recourse. Witness the colonists fighting the Revolutionary War against the British. If we weren’t able to resort to terrorist actions we could never have defeated them.
OK, I am a bit of a history buff. Could anyone please explain to me how we defeated the British through the mass use of terror. Were there some cart bombings I never heard about?
posted by James B. @ 8:54 PM
35 comments
35 Comments:
OK, I am a bit of a history buff. Could anyone please explain to me how we defeated the British through the mass use of terror. Were there some cart bombings I never heard about?
Pick up the Professors sometime. You'll see several members of academia making the exact same analogy.
I mean the analogy is totally apt, besides the patriots not wantonly killing civilians to get your way.
Moral equivalence, though, has become a virus on the campus.
Got any books for those of us that heard Horowitz makes no sense?
ive always likened the american revolutionary fighters to veitnamese guerillas
Got any books for those of us that heard Horowitz makes no sense?
Do you believe everything you hear?
Apparently I don't believe Horowitz' BS.
LOL! First time I read it I thought, why is he saying "cart bombings" instead of "car bombings".
Didn't the Americans put hot tar onto people who sided with the Bush?
Just heard some rumors. I don't think the Revolution War was exactly 'honorable' and 'noble'. Winning independence isn't exactly clean work.
Repalce bush with British :P
The revolutionary war was done back when both sides had honor.
The last, true paintball-only war.
Terrorism is inherent in any kind of insurgency. A more technical definition for a terrorist group would be an insurgent group that heavily or solely relies on the "Urban Warfare/Terror" strategy of insurgency.
One can study these subjects in more detail by reading Bard O'Neil's Insurgency and Terrorism 2nd edition.
The American revolutionaries were indeed insurgents, but massive attacks on civilians were either A. Not possible due to technological limitations, B. Psychologically damaging to their own cause, C. Probably totally ineffective given the unique situation at the time.
It should be remembered however, that terrorism is generally considered the use of military force against civilians in order to create political change. By this defintion the US has committed its fair share of terrorism.
Why Fetzer is talking about "rebels" and terrorists is beyond me however, because people like them seem to doubt that terrorists even EXIST!!
Apparently I don't believe Horowitz' BS.
Well lucky for you the book is sourced. Oh doesn't that stink he doesn't just pull stuff out of his ass?
Yes,
I would certainly love to hear how the Colonial militias killed British civilians.
I must have missed that day in History class.
Jesus Christ, it was the killing of civilians by the Redcoats (is it PC to say Redcoats?) in the Boston Massacre that was one of the precursors to the declaration of independance.
The closest thing to terrorism was probably the Boston tea party.
When Hamas, Hizbullah, or Al Qaeda start "attacking" us by dumping tea into the harbor, I'll start accepting their grievances as valid.
And a little OT, but not to much:
Sign a virtual IDF Shell:
http://tonasrallahwithlove.blogspot.com/"
There is a difference between guerilla warfare and terrorism. Insurgents in Iraq aren't considered terrorist because they attack US convoys and then hide, but because they blow up mosques, drop mortars on markets, and behead journalists.
The idea that the colonials defeated the British with militiamen hiding behind every rock and tree is largely a myth anyway. The militias were pretty much militarily ineffective. The continental Army itself was pretty much useless. Washington's great accomplishment was that he was able to keep everything from collapsing long enough to get them into shape.
Eventually, largely with European help, particularly the French, they were able to train and equip an effective force. In fact when the British finally surrendered, it wasn't due to some guerilla action, it was when their 8,000 troops at Yorktown were surrounded by over twice as many American and French troops supported by the French Navy.
James is correct, the guerilla warfare of the colonials is largely exagerrated (with exceptions like Francis Marion, who is one of the fathers of the tactic). When there were battles, they tended to go the absolutely ridiculous route of the Napoleonic line fashion, and the Americans almost always lost.
James, terrorism is part of many insurgent strategies. Of course most insurgencies rely on several strategies. The main insurgent strategies are:
Conspiratorial: This is usually in the form of a military coup d'etat, a conspiracy of people that already hold some amount of power.
Protracted Popular War: Developed and refined primarily by Mao Tse Tung. Has proven to be the most successful form to date.
Military Focus: Utilized by Che Guvera and some parallels have been drawn to the American Rebels in the Civil War.
Urban Warfare/Terrorism: IRA, PLO, etc., generally utilized when it is not possible to wage protracted popular war in the countryside. It is rarely decisive. However, groups using other strategies inevitably must resort to terrorism at some point or at least on a limited scale, e.g. the urban NLF in Vietnam.
The Iraqi insurgents seem to rely on urban warfare/terrorism, but it is likely that they will progressively attempt to take the battle outside of the urban centers where a decisive struggle can be waged. They are still "insurgents" though they often resort to terrorist tactics.
I know that doesn't play well into the American "good guy/bad guy" frame of mind but that's just the reality of life. The fact is that their country was invaded and they are waging a war to drive out those invaders. I don't particularly approve of their methods but that is their business and their problem.
I don't remember which person it was but one of the leaders of the American revolutionaries admitted after the fact that the Boston massacre was indeed provoked. I'll get the name and the quote later today and post it tomorrow if anyone is interested.
The fact is that their country was invaded and they are waging a war to drive out those invaders
A majority of the insurgents are not Iraqis. Most of these people are waging a war to install an Islamist theocracy.
I don't remember which person it was but one of the leaders of the American revolutionaries admitted after the fact that the Boston massacre was indeed provoked.
The Bostonians did throw things at the British, I'm sure that pissed them off.
Actually Shawn, you are wrong. The Pentagon has repeatedly released documents stating that "foreign fighters" are a small minority of the insurgency. Al Qaeda in Iraq(formerly Al Tawhid wal Jihad) has always been around 200 people. The majority of the insurgency is Iraqi Baathist/Nationalist in nature, as has also been repeatedly admitted by military officials.
Seymour Hersh(I know your throwing a fit right now over that) documented this, from US military sources, in his book Chain of Command. It has also been released periodically in several newspapers including the Arizona Republic.
In fact if you take the time to examine the actual groups in Iraq, or find their websites, you will see their ideology is distinctly pro-Baathist, Iraqi nationalist.
To believe that such an insurgency would last so long based primarily on foreign volunteers is ludicrous anyway. Nice try though.
I know your sic throwing a fit right now over that
Good, you know I don't like bull[crap] artists. (Though I do like his exposing My Lai.)
To believe that such an insurgency would last so long based primarily on foreign volunteers is ludicrous anyway. Nice try though.
Emphasis mine.
Have you ever heard of Chechyna?
I see, Seymour Hersh is a "bull-crap artist" because he revealed some facts that are inconvenient to your narrow worldview. Of course My Lai was true!! But all that other stuff about recent events must be made up, despite the fact that his methods of research haven't really changed.
My Lai: He used sources from the military.
Iraq Insurgency: He used sources from the military.
AGAIN, the nature of the Iraqi insurgency has been revealed repeatedly by US military sources on numerous occasions; in addition to this, an analysis of the various groups involved, and their own propaganda sites clearly state their ideology and make-up. Baathist, Iraqi, home-grown.
As for Chechnya, if you analyze the history you would have seen that the orignal insurgency consisted primarily of Chechens, with a pro-Chechen nationalist/tribal ideology. It was in this period that they achieved their greatest victories, when their cadres were mostly Chechen, and had the benefit of prior training in the Soviet army.
After 1996 when Wahabbist started to arrive, the insurgency went downhill. The state of the insurgency in the past few years, with the exception of a few very tragic attacks, has died down greatly and the insurgents have not been able to achieve strategic victories of any sort.
Compare Chechnya in the past five years to Iraq.
I see, Seymour Hersh is a "bull-crap artist" because he revealed some facts that are inconvenient to your narrow worldview.
He said Americans raped little boys. Then he said that sometimes he fudges what he says. Are we to just believe him because he says so? And YOU of all people should be saying facts inconvenient to anyone. You pretend the Soviet Union was the "good guys" in the Cold War and that America was the aggressor, when that couldn't be further from the truth. On almost every thing you take the stance that shows America in the poorest light, when I have no such qualms.
After 1996 when Wahabbist started to arrive, the insurgency went downhill. The state of the insurgency in the past few years, with the exception of a few very tragic attacks, has died down greatly and the insurgents have not been able to achieve strategic victories of any sort.
The most famous events in the war were by the faction of Islamists. The theatre and school massacres being the two best examples.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Where did Seymour Hersh say EITHER of those things, and how does that relate to the fact that he obtained the information we are discussing FROM the US MILITARY and its officials, and that this information is substantiated from other sources as well? Could he have "fudged" My Lai then?
Besides, you're still pretending that this hinges on something Seymour Hersh wrote when this has been backed up by other press releases and sources within the US military- AND THE INSURGENTS THEMSELVES!
Also your comments about Chechnya reveal more ignorance I am afraid. These two terrorist attacks, while very public and terrible in nature- do not represent success for the Chechen insurgency. In fact it represents their failure to affect the strategic situation in the area in dispute.
Their insurgency has been plummeting downhill ever since the Wahhabist showed up on the scene: Khattab was killed, and I recently read that Basayev has also been killed recently. The Chechen insurgency is far less active than that in Iraq.
Where did Seymour Hersh say EITHER of those things, and how does that relate to the fact that he obtained the information we are discussing
Check the Wikipedia page on him.
Also your comments about Chechnya reveal more ignorance I am afraid. These two terrorist attacks, while very public and terrible in nature- do not represent success for the Chechen insurgency. In fact it represents their failure to affect the strategic situation in the area in dispute.
How is it ignorant? It brought the most attention to Chechnya, which is the point of these attacks. Why do people in the West continue supporting Palestine when they purposely target people in discos and pizza parlors or school busses?
Their insurgency has been plummeting downhill ever since the Wahhabist showed up on the scene: Khattab was killed, and I recently read that Basayev has also been killed recently.
Yes, the Russians nailed him (thank goodness). Even before the Islamists came on the scene, they were going downhill, that's WHY the Islamists (and the influx of foreign fighters) came. The Chechens were pissed about a pro-Moscow regime being installed.
Wikipedia? Please. Again, the sources on the nature of the insurgency come from the US military- not simply Hersh. Not to mention the insurgents themselves. If you trust Wikipedia look up "Iraq Insurgency" then.
And why did those attacks suddenly bring attention to Chechnya? Because the insurgency had been so INACTIVE and impotent, as it is now.
The fact remains that Chechens achieved tactical and strategic success on the battlefield WHEN the insurgency was local and popular; whereas it has declined significantly as Wahhabist started to crowd in.
Some Liberal Lying...Military officers!
"Major General Joseph Taluto, head of the 42nd Infantry Division, said that "99.9 per cent" of captured insurgents are Iraqi.[8] "
The estimate has been confirmed by the Pentagon's own figures; in one analysis of over 1000 insurgents captured in Fallujah, only 15 were non-Iraqi. [9] According to the Daily Telegraph, information from military commanders engaging in battles around Ramadi exposed the fact that out of 1300 suspected insurgents arrested in five months of 2005, none were non-Iraqi, although Colonel John Gronski stated that foreigners provided money and logistical support: "The foreign fighters are staying north of the [Euphrates] river, training and advising, like the Soviets were doing in Vietnam"[4]
Kenneth Katzman, a Middle East expert with the Congressional Research Service, stated in June 2005: "I still think 80 percent of the insurgency, the day to day activity, is Iraqi - the roadside bombings, mortars, direct weapons fire, rifle fire, automatic weapons fire...[but] the foreign fighters attract the headlines with the suicide bombings, no question."[5][6]
On September 7 2005, an Iraqi Army Captain claimed that Iraqi forces arrested 150 non-Iraqi Arabs in Tal Afar.[7] But other accounts of the same battle do not mention these arrests[8], and U.S. Army commander Colonel H. R. McMasters said the "vast majority" of insurgents captured there were "Iraqis and not foreigners."[9]
Clearly these and other military officers want to depress US soldiers and cause them to die.
Well I'm gonna do something you didn't do when you were shown up with your "America being the Cold War aggressor" nonsense - I was wrong.
Funny you use the idiotic "omg liberal officers" - since I'm a classical liberal.
I honestly don't care if they're foreigners or not (since the foreigners are the ones who are blowing up car bombs to kill civilians). A majority of Iraqis think that the overthrow of Saddam was a positive. In the Arab world liberation is something to be celebrated, but occupation is not.
I didn't "admit I was wrong about the Cold War" because history shows I was right. When did Warsaw Pact attempt to invade Western Europe, either NATO or neutral countries? When did they undermine a sovereign government by recognizing independence of constituant states as NATO did in Yugoslavia, which was previously A. Neutral and B. Friendly with the west?
If NATO was defensive, there would be no reason to expand it after the "threat" it was formed to defend against evaporated. Ergo, yes- the West was the aggressor all along.
As for your claims about Arabs; no, the majority actually DON'T think that overthrowing Saddam was a good thing. They never asked the US to overthrow Saddam, and Iraqis CONSTANTLY point out how much better things were under Saddam, even under sanctions. Do not forget that Saddam was the one that kept all these foreign terrorist suicide bombers out.
Just admit that this insurgency is Iraqi and clearly enjoys some measure of popular support- both passive and active.
Just admit that this insurgency is Iraqi and clearly enjoys some measure of popular support- both passive and active.
Do you even read polls? Most Iraqis don't like the American occupation - but most say the overthrow of Saddam was a positive. Now who's ignoring facts based on their preconceived notions. I said nothing of the Arab world at large.
And still, you cling to the fantasy of NATO being the offensive force. The Warsaw Pact alone proves my point. The Berlin Airlift proves my point. The Korean War proves my point.
When did they undermine a sovereign government
Err the Soviets had a history of suppressing democratic movements in Eastern Europe. Are you for real?
Oh, and the Cuban Missle Crisis was nothing.
Jp, revisionist history is the realm of people like Killtown, don't fall in the trap.
Ugh...wrong wrong and wrong..
Since you added the qualifier that most of those Arabs are against the occupation- I will give you credit for that. A lot of Arabs say in a hypothetical sense that it is good that Saddam is gone but they don't approve of that method or what is going on now.
CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS? Are you insane? Did you hear of something called the Bay of Pigs invasion? Cuba was a tiny country that was, and to some extent still is- facing the military might of the only regional superpower at the time. Plus the US had put its nukes in Turkey already.
Korean War? It's already been proven that Syngman Rhee made numerous public threats about conquering North Korea, that the US postponed the referendum on unification just long enough for thousands of leftists to "disappear" in the South, and that Rhee was supporting terrorist raids into the North. That he was doing these things without a strong military just proves he was a complete idiot compared to Kim Il Sung- a popular leader of the partisan movement. ALL of this you can read in American sources from experts like Harrisman and Cummings. Even the slavishly simplistic and pro-American Complete Idiot's Guide to North Korea admits these facts to a large extent.
Aside from this, many Communists condemn the actions of the Soviet Union in the post-Stalin era in regards to Budapest, Prague, and Afgahnistan. However- the amount of military intervention is still far eclipsed by that of the West- primarily in support of military juntas and colonial regimes.
And again, after the dissolution of Warsaw Pact, NATO expanded and has engaged in aggression in the Balkans.
CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS? Are you insane? Did you hear of something called the Bay of Pigs invasion? Cuba was a tiny country that was, and to some extent still is- facing the military might of the only regional superpower at the time. Plus the US had put its nukes in Turkey already.
Oh man they wanted to overthrow an auotcratic regime? Say it isn't so! Kennedy obviously didn't put much into it, he pulled his support in the air and the invaders were trounced.
And what does it matter who had the nukes first? Nobody was worried nuclear war was gonna start with the Turkish deployment. The Soviets had been the imperial power up till then (remember they controlled Eastern Europe, completely against WW2 decisions).
Even the slavishly simplistic and pro-American Complete Idiot's Guide to North Korea admits these facts to a large extent.
Oh no, it's "pro-American"! (All Idiot's Guides are simplistic, by the way, hence the name.) South Korea was a shit country for a long time, but compared to the North it was and still is a paradise. Not to mention the North invaded the South, ergo American intervention being a defensive measure.
However- the amount of military intervention is still far eclipsed by that of the West- primarily in support of military juntas and colonial regimes.
I know you've heard of the Cominform.
The problem is, JP follows the moral equivalance model of geo-politics. To him it doesn't matter whether you're a fascist dictator or a democraticaly elected president, you have the same rights and responsibilities when it comes to international conduct. In fact, being a dictator or a mass murderer runs in your advantage because he can explain your actions away by saying they were expected, while focusing on the fact that the US president was caught jaywalking.
As far as Iraq is concerned, JP I would absolutely LOVE to hear your ideas for how to deal with the situation. I could use a good laugh.
Post a Comment
<< Home