Someone better get to Romano Prodi, quicklike, and show him the error of his ways:
The president of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, Sunday expressed shock over the slaying of seven Spanish intelligence officers in Iraq.
“I am shocked to have to mourn again new casualties in Iraq, for a terrorist attack against a Spanish convoy,” Prodi said in a statement.
“This month was the bloodiest since the end of the war and Spain paid its death toll for trying to contribute to stabilise Iraq and help civilians get back to normal life.”
Prodi said the latest attack “will not weaken the determination of the international community to help to establish a free and democratic government in Iraq.”
The Spanish intelligence agents were killed on Saturday in an ambush south of Baghdad. An eighth Spanish agent was injured.
Damnit, Romano- those were not terrorists! According to Josh Marshall and the always sickening Atrios, clearly these are freedom fighters. Or guerillas. Perhaps Romano Prodi should read this bit from Marshall again:
We
JKC
John-
Guerrillas or insurgents, they’re still the enemy. But if they’re not targeting civilians, they’re not terrorists by any useful definition of the word. It doesn’t mean they’re not the enemy.
(BTW, I know there ARE terrorists operating in Iraq.)
But I do believe that there is a distinction between the two, and that Marshall is right to make that distinction, if for no other reason than fighting different enemies may require different tactics.
Hope that doesn’t make me too “stupid” in your book.
Steve Malynn
jkc, at the same time the Saddam Fedayeen attacked two US convoys and separately the Spanish intelligence officers, contractors from Korea and Columbia were abmushed and killed in the same area. Unless this was coincidental timing, your criteria for terrorists was met by these black pajama-clad fighters.
Would you balk at “illegal combatants?” They are irregulars who hail from a number of countries with the single purpose of killing those who would work to create a democracy in Iraq. Iraqii Police are unable to show their faces for fear of attack by the Fedayeen. That these thugs hide behind “Isalm” as much as they hide behind civilians when they attack makes them less legitimate.
Guerillas and insurgents connote some legitimacy, these thugs do not have any. Quibbling that they are not “terrorists” today because they were shooting at US Soldiers, ignores what else these same bastards are doing.
Marshall compartmentalizes just as easily, and it is just as false.
xaxx
the stupidity of name calling and the real deaths of innocent people
are all of the same fabric of lies
that got us into this police action
using combat troops as cops is not
going to work…making enemies of
the public is all that will come of
this…revenge is common and normal
in Iraq…every dead Iraqi is one
more reason to get out and let them have their civil war…selling off
Iraqi businesses and stealing the
citizens weapons and money is now
our method of safeguarding them?
wake up stupids…every dead Iraqi
is one too many…every dead US
military person is a curse on the
coward G W Bush…rightwinger bull
shit aside, you’re idiots.
DSmith
While the verbal distinction between terrorists and other combatants is a useful one, as used here it’s a straw man. It’s clear that the persons in question are equally happy to attack soldiers or civilians, of their own or other nationalities, and do so. The fact that sometimes their attacks only take out soldiers is almost a coincidence. And there’s no reason to believe that there are a number of enemy groups operating in Iraq, some of which make a fine distinction between combatants and noncombatants. So terrorist fits.
Terry
While the term “terrorist” or “terrorism” has probably not been defined in a universally accepted manner across the world or political spectrum, in part because “one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter,” I think the term is commonly accepted in the context of describing violent acts by armed groups, particularly those in which civilians are targeted. It is clear that in Iraq the remnants of the Bathist Party and their thuggish acolytes drawn from al Qaeda and elsewhere have been targeting civilians (and civilian infracture), such as the UN staff and other international aid workers, as well as coalition military forces. To argue that these scum are not terrorists when killing our soldiers, but perhaps…maybe…just possibly…they are when they go after civilians, is to foolishly argue for a distinction without any real difference.
JadeGold
As I’m always interested in the gouge provided us by weekend warriors–perhaps Steve could enlighten us as to why he thinks the folks in Samarra were ‘Saddam fedayeen.’
I’m always profoundly interested in what a weekend a month as experience can provide us.
Perhaps Steve can provide historical perspective as well. Wouldn’t want to bring up the examples of, say, Vichy France or Israel, would we?
Steve Malynn
JadeGold, I’m sorry that you can’t read. See John’s post from that right-wing REUTERS dispach below, money quote:
“Some of the attackers wore the attire of Fedayeen, a militia formed by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein before U.S.-led forces toppled him earlier this year.”
Now, it could be that Reuters is lying, but in either case my knowledge of what happened on the ground is gleaned from the internet. You know that medium you are using to slander others is also a fine tool to educate yourself.
An interesting thing about the Reserves, the people serving thus often have multiple years of active duty, senior Staff NCO’s and Officers have now been called up a second time, and some a third. The Reserves are now a significant repository of actual combat experience, myself included (BTW, the USMC Reserve Tank Battalions killed more Iraqii tanks than the Active duty Tank Battalions in GWI).
JadeGold, Here an offer, I’ll post my DD214 here if you post yours.
JKC
Steve (and John et al):
I’ve read more on these attacks (thanks for the links.) I’m sticking to my point that there is a difference between insurgents and terrorists, but you guys are correct in calling what’s going on in Iraq right now terrorism.*
Having said that, let’s not fall into the politically motivated trap of calling all of our adversaries terrorists. It confuses the issue and undermines the scorn we should have for the real deal.
* I think the argument Marshall was advancing was that attacks on US troops in uniform aren’t terrorism per se. I have to disagree, given the tactics being used by the enemy in Iraq. But Marshall’s incorrect take on semantics here shouldn’t be used to label him as “soft on terrorism.” He actually supported the idea of regime change in Iraq, but didn’t trust the Bush administration to do the job right.
John Cole
I am with you 100%- calling every act against the United States terrorism is wholly inappropriate and would serve no purpose. However, when your enemey finds the UN, a hospital, a police station, and a GI all equal targets of opportunity in an attempt to scare the population away from helping the coalition reconstruct Iraq, that is hard to define as anything but terrorism.
As per Josh Marshall, he was in favor of the idea of regime change, but when it came to the actual nuts and bolts of getting around to removing Hussein from power, he had so many reservations that his position was actually “I am in favor of an immaculate regime change.” He has been so fast and loose with facts regarding Iraq, WMD, North Korea, the voting issue in South Dakota,- hell, basically anything and everything he approaches, that I simply no longer find him credible. He is a DNC rabble-rouser, and when he is called on something, he merely ignores it or moves on to another smear. The only reason to read him anymore is for his interviews with prominent individuals.
wallster
Marshall and Atrios are pretty much correct. When you invade and occupy a sovereign nation, you give up the right to call those who try to expel you ‘terrorists’.
The Iraqi resistance is obviously in pretty sorry shape going up against the might of the US military. They’re doing whatever they can to achieve their ultimate goal of making occupation too politically painful for the US to continue – which includes hitting soft targets like the UN, even though the UN (and supposedly the US troops) are there to help Iraq. The ubiquitous use of the term ‘terrorist’ is silly. We gave up the moral right to call anyone fighting us in Iraq a terrorist when the first bomb fell in March.
But as JKC said, they’re still the enemy. Terrorist, insurgent, freedom-fighter, “Saddam’s Goons” (NY Post and Fox News favorite), whatever you call them.
Slartibartfast
“When you invade and occupy a sovereign nation, you give up the right to call those who try to expel you ‘terrorists’.”
You do? Where’s it written? Does it apply even when they’re blowing up noncombatants?
wallster
Yes, it does.
Slartibartfast
You forgot the where’s it written part. Or did you just make that up?
Sorry, wallster. Deliberately targeting the Red Crescent is a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions. You pretty much give up all semblance of righteous cause when you do that.
See what I did? I used the same device you did. Only with a little more support other than my say-so.
wallster
I don’t think the Iraqi resistance ever signed on to the Geneva convention. If the US is ever invaded and taken over, I’m not going to be consulting any Geneva handbook if I have a chance to aid my cause.
You are changing the argument anyway. My point is that instinctively branding anyone who resists our occupation a terrorist is incorrect – it cheapens the term.
Slartibartfast
“You are changing the argument anyway. My point is that instinctively branding anyone who resists our occupation a terrorist is incorrect – it cheapens the term.”
Well, then, you ought to have said that to begin with. You’d get nothing but agreement from me. But that was never your argument, so it’s hard for me to accept the “changing the argument” accusation.
Still, I’ll continue to brand those who insist on targeting civiliand and noncombatant aid organizations as terrorists. I’m open to coherent explanations as to how targeting those groups is moral, ethical, or in any way proper. So far I haven’t heard any, though.