What terrorists?

sHiZo963

Jedi
Here's an interesting article by a U.S. Marine:
What Terrorists?
by Philip Martin

Being deployed, I don't get to keep up to date on the news issues of the day very well. I can catch a few minutes of random cable news shows at the chow hall or word of mouth news about the Presidential campaigns but unfortunately, this is never enough. I did find in this week's Stars and Stripes newspaper (the Sept. 9th issue) an interesting news article though. Gleaned from the Washington Post the article is regarding a federal judge who ruled against the nation of Iran and awarded $2.6 billion to the families of the Marines killed in the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing. In the decision, Judge Lamberth ruled that Iran was "legally responsible" for the 1983 Hizbollah attack in Lebanon. Iran apparently didn't contest the charges.

From nearly the first day of boot camp I was taught that this attack was a terrorist act. Perhaps it was, but since it was directed against a military target the distinction is a little less clear cut. As a Marine I am considered a lawful combatant under the Geneva Conventions. This fact is stated on the back of my military ID card. As well were all the Marines who were killed in the tragic attack. The family members were compensated by the Marine's servicemember's life insurance policies but I can understand why the families want more. The commanders on the ground in Beirut did not equip the Marines with the necessary rules of engagement to properly defend themselves. However, the timing of the claim and the defendant is still worth a closer look. Iran is definitely not the only state sponsor of Hizbollah, not to mention that nearly twenty-four years after the attack makes the timing quite suspicious. Perhaps this is an innocent reaction from families still grieving or possibly another indictment to pile on Iran to justify a future war.

It's no secret that support for the global war on terror is slipping among the American people. It's always been difficult for the administration to show progress, but what they have done a good job at is to find new targets and enemies to fight. Many politicians, on both sides of the aisle, have misused the term "terrorist" to describe the individuals (or groups) that attack the US armed forces. But the fact is that when someone shoots at me (a legal combatant) or tries to use a roadside bomb (IED) against me while I'm on patrol they are not a terrorist. They become enemy combatants the moment they target other legal combatants. You can call them insurgents, anti-Iraqi forces, anti-occupation forces, freedom fighters, or Ali Baba (our most easily translated term for bad guys) but "terrorist" is not the correct term.

There is probably more than one reason why these people refer to enemy combatants as terrorists. It could be simply because they don't know better and don't understand that the word means something quite specific. Perhaps it's because it is accepted vernacular now and since we're waging a "war on terror" that would make "terrorist" the logical moniker for the enemy. Or maybe there is a more sinister reason. Could it be that the politicians and mainstream media (and occasionally military officials) knowingly misrepresent the enemy in Iraq to achieve a political aim? If I were attacked by a terrorist while in Iraq, then that must mean that terrorists are in Iraq, which means it was a perfectly wise and logical decision to invade Iraq, right? Now more than ever the neo-cons need to justify their actions and agenda to the American public. A clever bit of language manipulation, most likely not caught onto by the majority of unconcerned Americans, to achieve a political end. Don't forget that since the Sept. 11th attacks there is nothing an American hates more than a terrorist.

I won't say that I know why the term terrorist is so easily affixed to so many legal combatants but maybe we should be more careful in how we use the term. Words still mean things.

September 19, 2007

Philip Martin [send him mail] is an infantry Marine serving his second combat tour in the al Anbar Province of Iraq.


Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com

link: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/martin-p2.html
 
I like how he raises the point that as a marine he is considered a lawful combatant. Most of the general issues he raises about using the term "terrorist" was obvious to me, but hopefully it might open the eyes of some Americans who still fail to see this.

Yes there is a more sinister reason. Terrorist is a blanket term that effectively gives this government carte blanche over killing anyone in Iraq. You kill a woman or a child and you can say well they could have been terrorists. This is exactly what the Japanese said during the Nanking massacre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre

"Although the executions began under the pretext of eliminating Chinese soldiers disguised as civilians, a large number of innocent men were intentionally identified as enemy combatants and executed—or simply killed outright—as the massacre gathered momentum."



"Nationalistic Japanese politicians continue to falsely claim that Japan never declared war on China or other Asian nations, but instead was seeking to "liberate" these countries."
Isn't this precisely what the US government has been saying?

The marine does allude to the fact he knows why the government has been abusing the term "terrorist" so he was obviously just watching his back, but generally I thought the article was pretty good.

This is also a pretty good article that's related:

General Ivashov: “International terrorism does not exist”
 
Back
Top Bottom