Why is the President Lying ... again?

I wasn't aware that there was an internationally accepted defintion of terrorism - pretty sure that the UN couldn't agree one:http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.htmlThe difficulty in defining terrorism, of course, is not the glib and facile "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", but to define it such that the term can never be applied to us in any meaningful way. Even if we take what you describe as the US operational definition (think this may be the FBI definition), then what about US funding of the Contras, or the deliberate bombing of a Serbian tv station and Iraqi water treatment facilities? Was the 'shock and awe' campaign really aimed only at the Iraqi military?And how important is pure intent here anyway? Things get muddy very quickly. If I drop a 500lb bomb in the middle of a Baghdad slum because I know that there may be "insurgents" there (love the word "insurgents" - hadn't really heard it much before this war. I guess you can't call them "rebels" as that conjures up images of Luke Skywalker fighting Darth Vader) then civilians are going to die - yet somehow that is not considered to have the same "boogyman" stigma as a terrorist car-bomb. I seem to recall when a large bomb hit a village in Afghanistan because the ordinance had been punched in incorrectly (I think) aresulting in the deaths of 20+ civilians. While this wasn't intentional, it certaoinly was negligent.Surely the while point behind intent is that it means that the act of violence itself is may well be repeated, thus making it morally reprehensible? If this is the case, can we say that lessons have been learned so that coalition acts of neglect haven't been repeated? I met a US sailor the other day who went to great length to tell me about all the cruise missiles which missed their targets and landed in the Saudi desert.Personally, I don't think we can say that the negligent acts by the military have been stamped out - accidents ciontinue to happen almost unabated, which is why repeated acts of neglect are as morally reprehensible as deliberate acts of violence against civilians. "Terrorism" becomes a somewhat redundant term.PEThis message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 10-05-2004 06:39 PM

Sorry - I realise wasn't very clear. I'm saying that what ought to be a pure distinction between intentional acts of violence and accidental acts of violence blurs into a morally murky area where we have accidental, but wantonly reckless acts. Is there much moral difference between a terrorist car bomb that seeks to kill enemy soldiers or collaborators but will undoubtedly kill mainly civilians, and a precision bomb dropped in the middle of a crowded slum where it may kill the enemy, but will probably kill mainly civilians?IMO, the number of avoidable accidents which have occurred to date and continue to occur smacks to me of wanton recklessness (e.g why did they not have an extra pair of eyes to check the ordinance coordinates?). I honestly don't think there is much distinction to be drawn between wanton recklessness to this degree and the intentional targetting and killing of civilians.PEThis message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 10-06-2004 12:58 PM

Its an impression I get based on the reports I see - I gave the example of the Afghan village which was mistakenly bombed because faulty coordinates had been punched in (found a link). I've no real desire to deluge you with link after link of other accidents which have happened in the two wars on terror since I'm sure that you recognise their existence.Thge real contention is about where the bar is set and what measures are applied to prevent repeats - should a bombing raid on a civilian area go ahead if it is estimated to have, say, a 20% success probability? Do we know what the success / failure rates for civilian casualties are? If not, why not? Why are we not keeping records of civilian dead in Iraq? And the torture which goes on in the prisons but is undisclosed and not acted upon until the press get hold of the story? I know this wasn't intentional, but to have cluster bombs the same colour as food packages can't be classed as anything less than criminally insane.To me, this builds up a steady picture not so much of evil intent, but of neglect and wanton recklessness. And I'd only put a cigarette paper between this and intentional murdering of civilians.The criminal action isn't so much the act of violence in this case, not as much as in the pure meat-and-two-veg terrorist atrocity, but in the command and control systems which allow reckless disregard of innocent human life to occur. Its rather like giving a psychopath a gun on condition that they promise not to use it.PEedit: forgot to add this current news item to further illustrate my point:Page not found - All 4This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 10-06-2004 01:39 PM

I don't think its a particularly technical discussion - all I'm talking more here about what in the UK is known as the "doctrine of oblique intent" - whereby a person can be held responsible for murder even when that wasn't their' intention.Agreed that in order to make the case for this I have to demonstrate that negligent mistakes are happening repeatedly and very little that is effective is done to ensure that they cannot re-occur - this is pretty obvious to me from the news I read, but I realise it might not be for you if you see things differently. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to spell this out in any detail any time soon and research all the various incidents, and even then I'm not sure a long list of military "mistakes" would convince you. I still think that negligent disregard for non-combatant life is not materially different from murder with intent, tho' I suppose its a matter of taste really.PEThis message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 10-07-2004 01:00 PM