Death of A Diplomat

Stay safe, bud. Plame-gate is just getting rolling here, which, if nothing else, is at least related to the war, which might get even more scrutiny because of it. One can hope. Peace.

Stay safe. I just began reading your posts.

Thank you.

“insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq”.. don’t you mean “terrorist group al-Qaeda in Iraq”? Why is so much of the media seeming to soften their wording about these people? They are terrorists, killers, murderers. They are the enemy and would happily remove your head from your body. An insurgent is a rebel. al-Qaeda in Iraq are terrorists.

Also, calling them “insurgents” is not correct. Many, if not most, are foreign fighters and not even Iraqi. Ex-Baathists can be “insurgents”, but not al-Qaeda.

Wording matters.

Iinvaluable information and insight.

Iinvaluable information and insight.

@Kevin:

If wording is important, why are the Iraqi resistance not so named?

How can you have a ‘war’ against a tactic?

Who really hates us for our ‘freedoms’?

We live in a time of double-speak, my friend.

@Kevin:

I take it that you understand that there can be no way to know you have won against a tactic and that accepting such a concept as T.W.A.T. means you also accept perpetual ‘war’?

Robert,

You don’t win against a tactic, you win against a war. As long as the clerics and loonies keep the jihad alive, T.W.A.T. will continue. T.W.A.T. has existed in England, Russia and many places for a long time. It’s not a new concept, and it’s not a new war. There are just newer and more active players in the game. This is all pretty much common sense, and I’m not sure what you’re adding to the discussion. The discussion was about calling people like al-Qaeda in Iraq “insurgents” versus “terrorists”, not about the semantics of war.

And Bush is one of the loonies.

Your discussion was about semantics, yet not about semantics? I don’t get it.

To me, a homicide bomber is someone who detonates a bomb remotely and does not die. A suicide bomber dies with the bomb.

How come no one declared a war after Timothy McVeigh did his thing?

How many Americans and Europeans recognize that the Christian terrorists are the biggest killers? Mainly thanks to Hitler and his gang. And how come they don’t recognize that war is state-sponsored terrorism? With a lot more profit, of course.

I consider myself as a leftist anti-war, and I agree with Kevin. Murderers intently blowing up iraqis are not rebels. They are terrorists.

One cannot both condemn double-speak, western state sponsored terrorism, and call al-qaeda an “insurgent” group.

Susan,

Nobody declared war after Timothy McVeigh “did his thing” because he was basically acting with a small group, not under the orders or direction of a larger plan or religious edict stating we should all die. As well, he was captured and killed for his actions. I think it would be great if we declared war on right wing Christianity because ‘they’ are the ones who bomb abortion clinics. For some reason, I don’t think Bush would do that :-)

Your definitions of homocide vs. suicide bombers has a problem. The act of blowing yourself up in a crowd is NOT to kill yourself. The goal is to kill others. The killing of yourself is a side effect because of a) being a martyr, and b) it’s easier logistically to have a pawn carry and detonate explosives rather than plant the explosives do it remotely. When these guys start blowing (only) themselves up in the middle of the desert, then I’d call them a suicide bomber.

I also don’t understand when people say “war is state sponsored terrorism.” For the most part, conventional war isn’t terrorism. You can see the tank coming, watch the troop movements (even Geraldo will draw you a map), and civillians aren’t targeted (I know that if they are in the line of fire, so be it).