09 May 2007

New Terrorists and Old Terrorists

First, the Old Terrorists.

In Iraq, it seems that everywhere I turn around, there is some serious Coalition butt-kicking going on.

Haifa Street, in Baghdad was once a byword for violence, so out of control that US Forces were restricted from operating on it for convoy operations. Now, there are cops, a low murder rate, and a constant security presence from both US and ISF. The US commander there is now working on getting trash cleaned up.

Two and a half years ago, no one cared how much trash was on Haifa Street.

Ramadi used to be the most dangerous city in the world. Thanks to the Ready First Brigade Combat Team and the local sheiks, you just don't hear news stories about Ramadi on a nightly basis like you used to. Here's one story on the town, while On Point has a story about the mayor and the Sons of Anbar tribal alliance.

Meanwhile, there's a new police academy in Kirkuk, and even al-Qaeda admits the Iraqis popped their spokesman.

Harry Reid can kiss my pasty white ass. We are winning. Slowly.

Meanwhile, another victory is won in, of all places, France. Nicholas Sarkozy, who appears to be as palatable and pro-US as anyone who can be elected in France could be, not only won the election, but forced the French Socialist Party to show its true colors.

Prior to the election, his Socialist opponent threatened that her followers would engage in violence if he won the vote. Sure enough, they rioted. Even the Guardian admitted as much, even if they minimized the issue. Granted, it wasn't terribly good rioting, but after all, we are talking of French Socialists.

What's a terrorist? Here's three definitions:

  • One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant. The use of a civilian disguise while on operations exempts the perpetrator from protection under the Geneva Conventions, and consequently if captured they are liable for prosecution as common criminals.
    www.aeroflight.co.uk/definitions.htm
  • Use should be restricted specifically to references to people and nongovernmental organizations planning and executing acts of violence against civilian or noncombatant targets.
    www.careerjournaleurope.com/columnists/styleandsubstance/glossary.html
  • a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities
    wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

  • A radical who employs terror as a political weapon. . .

    So, would a Socialist who tries to use the threat of riots to influence elections count? Especially when her followers do in fact riot?

    In November 2004, a UN panel described terrorism as any act: "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."

    Does this mean we get invade France as the next stop in the War on Terror? I wouldn't mind invading a place with a livable climate. . .

    4 Comments:

    Anonymous Anonymous said...

    What you mean to say is "should we RE-invade France?". We did that once already on 6/6/44.

    I suspect that, within a few years, we would regret the second invasion as much as we regret the first one.

    12:49 AM  
    Blogger dracphelan said...

    (In response to anonymous) The 1944 invasion was the easiest way to get at our enemy (Nazi Germany). However, not all of France (or all of the French) are bad. The people of the French countryside are courageous (they made up most of the Resistance in France) and friendly. Unfortunately, they are vastly outnumbered by the city dwellers. The same could be said for many states in the USA.

    4:33 PM  
    Blogger tychecat said...

    I think a major definition of Terrorist/Terrorism should include the point that these criminals are not suported by a national government and are not part of any enemy government's armed forces.
    Otherwise our bombing places like Baghdad , or Berlin in WW2 would be considered acts of terrorism, which they were not.

    12:33 AM  
    Blogger tychecat said...

    I think a major definition of Terrorist/Terrorism should include the point that these criminals are not suported by a national government and are not part of any enemy government's armed forces.
    Otherwise our bombing places like Baghdad , or Berlin in WW2 would be considered acts of terrorism, which they were not.

    12:34 AM  

    Post a Comment

    Links to this post:

    Create a Link

    << Home