Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

A very good story with an excellent outcome. It’s a shame there was even an investigation.

Sadly only accusation and guilt sells copy, innocence is a nusiance to the media.

Thank you Ilario.

I agree with Steve on this one. It really is a shame for a guiltless soldier to get caught up in case, but it’s a good thing there are investigations if and when they’re warranted.

Jack,
An American hero? Lt Pantano shot two unarmed insurgents in cold blood. He emptied a full M16 clip into them, reloaded, and emtied another clip into the bodies; not my definition of heroic action. After initially capturing the insurgents, handcuffing them, and searching their car, Lt Pantano had their handcuffs cut off, so the insurgents could search their own car. He said they then attempted to escape from the car on foot, but if you read the accounts, the bodies were right next to the car, one body leaning against it.

A PC witch-hunt? Come on, now.

Yeah, I ‘support the troops,’ and I probably would have acquited him too. Depends on the evidence. In this case, it sure looked bad, but I’d give him the benefit of the doubt.

But hero? Reloading a clip and emptying it into the bodies? I don’t think so.

Jack, I think you should scale back the rhetoric. The last thing I want is Americans dead because they didn’t have the Rules of Engagement to allow them to defend themselves.

We can lose this war if it becomes clear to the Iraqis that a constant American presence is dangerous even to law abiding citizens, if it becomes clear for Iraqis that innocence is no defense from American firepower. The situation should be such that we can legitimately assign responsibility for the deaths that do occur to the decedent, rather than have us be the aggressor. An Iraqi life should seem to the Iraqis to be precious in our eyes. The peace must be built on that kind of respect.

This is the big problem with the latest attacks and the lack of security. This inattention to the troubles of the average Iraqi translates on their side to be apathy towards the tragedies of their people. That is not the image we need to create, when our intention is to put this whole war out as being a humanitarian enterprise.

This is the crippling part of how we put this war together. We never brought in the people to properly secure the country, to minimize death and breach of the peace on all sides. On our side it has cost more lives and put our soldiers in a position of greater paranoia. On their side it’s guaranteed even greater casualties and a strong mistrust of the occupying army. Regardless, had we been clear on what we were doing to begin with, what we were going to have to do, and why we were doing it, this war may not have gone as badly wrong as it has.

I don’t think this man is a hero for having been wrongly accused, I think he is a victim of somebody’s incompetence, and there should be some kind of discipline or retraining for the person who pushed these things through.

If circumstances are as phx8 described, then I retract the last part. That is not the kind of behavior we need to encourage in our military. Body counts don’t win wars. We won’t succeed in bringing peace to Iraq if this is the kind of attitude we take.

It’s obvious that most of you have never seen live combat.

He is a hero by the action of willingly going there in the first place. As far as the shooting, He was doing his job as a soldier and it sounds to me like he did it well. I salute him.

Jack,
Actually, souvenier photos show the Iraqi insurgent bodies, on sort of hugging the back seat, the other’s head lolling on the floor board.

It sure as hell looks like an execution, but I’d handle it the same way the military handled it, & give the Lt the benefit of the doubt. Hopefully he’ll receive a general discharge & psychiatric treatment.

Tomd,
Your point?

Sorry, to rain on everyone’s parade, BUT! I hope he is, in fact, innocent. But, we may never know the truth, since, military investigations of events drawing bad PR on the military is inherently a conflict of interest. And we all know, right and left, about conflicts of interest.

What appears to be occuring is court-martials of front line soldiers. The guilty convictions are largely coming with more minor offenses resulting in small sentences. Those court-martials involving murder or physical torture appear to most be coming out with acquittal decisions.

It is starting to look like a pattern in which the military is compelled to bring guilty verdicts in order regain some credibility for the DoD, Rumsfeld, and Bush. On the other hand, it appears no one is going to incur the stiffest penalties for any offenses, nor are the worst indictments going to result in guilty verdicts, unless the accused refuses to play ball with the military after the indictment.

This is the military, afterall, where orders are orders, and often suggestions are also orders, by which careers are made or lost depending on results suggested.

Does anyone doubt that the highest eschalons of our military as well as the Whitehouse, are not actively pursuing all possible courses of action to mitigate the damage done to the US military reputation as well as that of this Administration? Does anyone believe not-guilty verdicts mitigate the damage done, save for a few to create the impression that we did not foster the initial crimes in the first place?

Conflict of interest. Only an independent bi-partisan civilian investigation will render results the rest of the world can believe. Don’t everyone call your representatives at once. :-)

Stephen said: “We can lose this war if it becomes clear to the Iraqis that a constant American presence is dangerous even to law abiding citizens”

More than 600 Iraqis have been killed this month alone. May not make headlines here, but, numbers like this are commonplace over there. Seems to me we have been losing this war since Bush declared the Mission was Accomplished. Now if that isn’t the biggest historical joke…

phx8,

I can promise you that after the first full M16 clip, the second clip had no bearing on the death of the insurgents.There is no way to know if the insurgents were unarmed or not. Weapons take many forms for these people.

How many of you have seen a 6 or 8 year old walk up to a jeep asking for a candy bar only to be detonated upon arrival. How many of you have killed someone and then “made sure” he was dead. How many threw up the first time.

All’s fair in love and war. I don’t want to see women and children killed, tortured or executed any more than most rational people. If thats what it takes however to save a single American soldier’s life and demonstrate that when you fool with the USA you suffer the consequences, empty all the clips you can find. I don’t mind if you want to debate whether or not to call me a hero, as long as you call me alive.

Steve,
The insurgents were captured, handcuffed, and searched prior to the shooting. They were, in fact, unarmed.

Like I said, I’d give the Lt the benefit of the doubt, bring charges but let him go. Keep in mind officers are held to a higher standard. It may not be fair, but that’s the way it is in the military.

“If thats what it takes however to save a single American soldier’s life and demonstrate that when you fool with the USA you suffer the consequences, empty all the clips you can find.”

I thought the war on terror was a matter of freedom, not superiority. Of course, not to take the comment out of context, you did mention that you did not want to see innocents die. But to hold American lives as necessarily higher than the lives of innocents in other countries seems to defy the whole idea of bringing our brand of freedom to the world.

I don’t want to see women and children killed, tortured or executed any more than most rational people. If thats what it takes however to save a single American soldier’s life…

This is tough stuff. Few of us know how we’d react in these particular combat conditions. But, just to be clear, Steve, you’re saying that we should kill and torture children if it would save a single American life?

I don’t see any place for the benefit of the doubt here. This strikes me as either Section 8 or Heart of Darkness, and we don’t need either kind of killing going on here. If we accept this kind of insanity in our armed forces, we’re just asking for trouble, asking for another Abu Ghraib. We’re better than this.

Steve Smith-
If you want to be sure, and they’re not moving, shoot them in the head. No terrorist is going to detonate a bomb if the inside of their skull (what’s left of it, at least) is tapioca. That said, these guys sound like they were pretty much under the man’s control. That’s a line we shouldn’t be crossing, not unless we want this war to collapse into the same sort of debacle Vietnam became. The ends do not eternally justify the means.

phx8,
tomd’s point is that if you were ever in combat you wouldn’t be so critical of the actions of those who are presently in combat.
None of us were there, and the ones who were there knows exactly what happened. Of coarse we won’t get their side of the story from the “unbias” media. Of coarse they’ll ask Aboul the Terriost, and the let’s make the US look bad crowd what they think.

This might be off the subject but this Memorial Day let’s not forget the ultimate sacrfice the has been made by our fighting men and women to secure and keep our freedom.
Remember FREEDOM ISN’T FREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ron,
You don’t need a biased media to become informed about this particular case. You can google numerous articles, including one site that has the handwritten account of a person who was at the scene.

I served in the military, Captain, SAC, USAF. Never was in combat, not like Tomd if I understand his posts correctly. I spent literally two of those years on nuclear alert as a B-52 Radar Nav. I’m well aware the US military is held to a higher standard than its enemies. That is how it should be. I’m well aware accidents happen, and mistakes are made, especially in the heat of the moment. But when you’re an officer it doesn’t matter whether it was an accident or a mistake or the heat of the moment. An officer takes the responsibility, and that’s just the way it is, fair or not. We used to have a saying:

‘Forgiveness: not SAC policy.’

This Lieutenant was a young man in a tough situation. He may have crossed the line. But I’ve been a civilian for a long time, and there should be forgiveness; after charging him, and making it clear to the world that executing prisoners is unacceptable, he should be discharged & treated.

phx8,
Thankyou for your service to our country.You had a tough job and I’m sure you served with honor.
I’m glad you never had to see combat.
I was a flyboy myself, I retired after 20 years as a msgt and served in the SARS.

See, this is where the Republican Party has gone crazy. For decades Republicans insisted that the US armed forces are to be used only for winning wars - US soldiers are not policemen.

They were absolutely right. Yet, now they’re in the position of defending the actions - making a hero, even - of a guy who was trained to kill the enemy, not to man a roadblock and work with civilians to maintain law and order.

Given the lessons of Haiti, Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia, and now Iraq, Republicans still aren’t willing to either train more soldiers as peacekeepers or raise new battalians of MPs and civil affairs officers to handle “winning the peace” after major combat operations have ended.

This problem is going to come back to bite us the next time we deploy combat troops in a peacekeeping mission, just like it has over and over again previously.

Democrats have been agitating for a dedicated peacekeeping force for years now with ideas ranging from extending the capabilities of our current armed forces, to creating an entire new branch of service.

However the details get worked out, this problem needs to be solved ASAP, or it’s going to bite us in the ass again when we need to “win the peace” in North Korea, Iran, Sudan, Syria, or wherever a stabilizing force is required to protect American interests.

Ron,
Likewise. But really, to me, Memorial Day is a day of remembrance.

AP,
Great point. Thomas PM Barnett dwells on that point, the need for two separate forces, a military force & a policing, or peacekeeping force. The situation is so far gone now, it’s hard to see a way to institute that kind of approach.

I agree with both sides somewhat. Although I haven’t served in the military it doesn’t take a genious to know that in the heat of the moment mistakes can happen. If this fellow had tied someone up to a pole and shot him execution style…well, we would have a problem.

However, I also agree with phx8. If there is a question about an incident, it should be investigated. It was in this case and, with what information I have, things turned as they should.

If you’ve ever watched Monday morning quarterbacks (those that analyze football games) you know folks often get second guessed. However, these “Monday morning” type folks have the benefit of slow motion, rewind, etc. There is no such benefit at full speed. The difference is, in this case, a mistake won’t just give the opponent a touchdown…it could take your life. Second guessing is easy after the fact.

An American Hero? No, he was doing his job and “may” have made a mistake. Either way, I’ll not “Monday morning quarterback” his decision.

As far as the press coverage goes, Steve Smith said:
“Sadly only accusation and guilt sells copy, innocence is a nusiance to the media.”

How true that is…no matter which way the spin is in the news media.

Sounds like he should have been fined $10.00 for wasting ammunition.
PS-“American Pundit”—you are obviously a liberal, therefore, two thing are true; 1.you are ANTI-American, and, 2.you are not smart enough to be a pundit!

And your comments are no longer welcome here Phillip. Some folks aren’t smart enough to read the policy at the top of the each column. Watchblog Manager

phillip,

name-calling does nada to further the discussion. I’m left-leaning myself.

All this talk is pointless. Ilario Pantano either killed two insurgents or he killed two civilians. We now either have a weaker insurgency or a stronger rebellion when the relatives of those two civilians join the enemy.

It’s all very simple. We need more soldiers. Anyone who voted for Bush must go to the nearest Recruiting Office. Or they can just post their name and email here and I will forward it to my Recruiting Officer friend.

I think a real American Hero is Pat Tillman. Too bad the Army lied to his parents about his death.

Tillman died in honorable and heroic service to his country. Friendly fire incidents are a terrible part of war and always have been. There is not necessarily and blame to fix in these situations. Everyone knows the possibility.

Tillman is a hero. Any subsequent comment calls into question the sincerity of those who make it. The false concern shown for the troops is appalling. Whenever someone expresses regret for the loss and immediately follows with a politically motivated comment.

Tillman is a hero. Nobody could be more of a volunteer than he was. He was doing the right thing in defending his country. He died fighting for his country. You can discuss the problems of friendly fire and government dishonesty in other contexts, but don’t make this hero the poster boy for your sense of hatred. He deserves better and frankly so do we.

Jack, you say: “Tillman is a hero. Any subsequent comment calls into question the sincerity of those who make it. The false concern shown for the troops is appalling.”

Not to nit-pick, but there is a continuing thread here on Watchblog, to which you have been contributing actively. There’s your post Holy terror (May 20), mine titled Not Just Blues vs Bush (May 22), then Dawn’s Wear it On Your Sleeve, all discussing various aspects of about prisoner abuse, media, citizen’s responsibilities to address wrongs, etc. The tack you’ve been taking is that (a) there is no systematic policy that we should disapprove of, and (b) that violations of our completely reasonable policies are appropriately and aggressively investigated.

Given the history it’s hard not to take your post (“an American hero”…”had to endure months of anguish as murder charges were brought”…”they were baseless”…”extraordinary length the U.S. goes to investigate”…”people removed from combat situations needed to put more trust in their officers”) as part of this thread - and, I should say, it’s a very effective point, emotionally, even if it’s just a single anecdote which is unrelated to prisoner abuse.

On the other hand, your response to Aldous is out of line, as you’re doing exactly the same thing - using an active-duty soldier, by name, in advancing your political point.

Furthermore, I’d defend Aldous on another ground. For those that are aware of the deliberate lies told after his death, it’s pretty hard to hear his name without thinking about the clumsy attempt to “spin” the circumstanced of Tillman’s death for PR purposes. It’s not Tillman’s fault, and as you say, friendly fire is part of warfare, but his name will unfortunately always be associated with that deception. Please don’t blame Aldous, blame the liers.

I am grateful to William Cohen for his support. I should also add that it was John McCain who forced the Army to finally admit the Truth. Remember that next time anyone bashes McCain’s name.

Aldous,

I’ve read your comments, in this forum and others, regarding your desire for anybody who voted for Bush to immediately volunteer for military service. I appreciate your discontent with the administration as much as I can; however, and as I venture off on a slight tangent, I must now pose these questions to you:

Did Chelsea Clinton enlist when her daddy was waging an illegal war in Bosnia? Did Hollywood elitist liberals rush to recruitment stations to join Clinton’s invasion of Somalia? Did billionaire democratic financier George Soros offer his services to help bomb a medicine factory in the Sudan? Did you volunteer your services to support Command-in-Chief Clinton as he carelessly lobbed cruise missiles into Iraq, killing innocent civilians?

Or, better yet, where were the hordes of protestors, before, during, and after each of Clinton’s military blunders? Nobody cared that he was invading and bombing sovereign nations that posed no threat to the US, or were responsible for any terrorist actions against US interests? Did you protest, at least?

You simply can not hold Bush and Republicans accountable for everything now, while you held Clinton and Democrats accountable for nothing then. Accountability is an all or none process, regardless of political affiliation.

But in the meantime, feel free to continue blaming Bush for a reckless foreign policy, weak domestic policy, and sluggish economy. I’ll gripe with you. But try to remember the days when I was blaming Clinton for a weak foreign policy, reckless domestic policy, and the start of an economic recession. Those were good times, weren’t they?

And lastly, I’m betting you probably voted for Kerry because he wasn’t Bush. Just so you know, I voted for Bush because he wasn’t Kerry. The same likely applied in the 2000 elections. To every Yin, there’s a Yang…

I understand your point and respect your opinion. I don’t recall ever being annoyed with your posts, although I usually disagree.

There is a difference between your posts and a gottcha type negation. That is why I respect you.

I have no problem with well thought out arguments. I actually enjoy hearing the partisan arguments of the other side and I appreciate a good piece of irony or humor even at my expense. I find soul mates on all sides of the debate. But I don’t care for facile and repetitive arguments.

I reminded me of Monty Python. “I am here for an argument. No your not.”

It might come as a suprise to those on the left, but most of our current military is conservitive.
I have a son, a son-in-law (both lifers),two nephews, and a neice in the military repesenting all branchs of service.
ALL ARE CONSERVITIVE!
They all tell me the samething, at least 95% of their fellow soldiers, airmen, saliors, and marines are conservitive.
So Aldous, it looks like that those that voted for Bush are enlisting.

They all tell me the same thing, at least 95% of their fellow soldiers, airmen, saliors, and marines are conservitive.

Ron,

I’ve been interested in this subject, because it may tell us something about how the U.S. - especially in terms of its politics and attitudes toward military activism - will look over the next several decades. I haven’t been able to find anything conclusive on the subject, but here’s something from the Christian Science Monitor

“A Military Times survey last December of 933 subscribers, about 30 percent of whom had deployed for the Iraq war, found that 56 percent considered themselves Republican - about the same percentage who approved of Bush’s handling of Iraq. Half of those responding were officers, who as a group tend to be more conservative than their enlisted counterparts.”

I agree with Tom L’s assessment after reading Ilario’s case. He did his job, he made a decision, that in the heat of the moment was questionable. It should have been investigated. It was. He was found innocent.

He did his job. And Aldous is right, a hero is someone like Pat Tillman.

What bothers me, is that of the 45 different articles out there, none investigated the two Iraqis who were killed. Who were those guys?

Sloppy journalism. It drives me crazy.

Julia

Julia:

It’s hard to investigate such things journalistically in what is essentially a war zone. Also, if they carried no id, it may be difficult to identify them even in more peaceful times. I highly doubt that the previous regime left behind large databases of biometric data, or even fingerprints, which could be used to identify the deceased. I believe the current, most reliable means of identification is probably to have people identified by other iraqis who know them, often their families. Clearly, this would be hard to do when you don’t know who their family is.

Reed,
Interesting article, thanks for the link.
Of the five in my family in service only one, my son-in-law (a Captian) is an officer.
My son is in Saudi Araba, my son-in-law is in Afganistan, my two nephews are both in Iraq, and my neice is in San Diego. I sure hope she dosn’t have to go to any of these places. But if she’s sent I know she’ll serve to the best of her ability.

Well, how does the press know that their names were Hamaady Kareem and Tahah Ahmead Hanjil? Where did that info come from? If someone figured out their names, they must have figured out a little information about them? What’s that information?

It’s very frustrating.

Julia:

Perhaps from the officer who killed them? He did have them in custody first, perhaps he ordered them to identify themselves?

Julia:

We know a few things. Hamaady Kareem and Tahah Ahmead Hanjil did not have any weapons in their car. They were unarmed. There is no evidence that they are part of the insurgency. They claimed they were visiting relatives. Their names were found out 8 months later. They were buried without a proper autopsy.

That’s about it. I should point out that the only news that are interested in Iraqi casualties are the Arab Press. Most of them are in Arabic and even the english-speaking ones do not archive for long.

Jarin:

As I said, their names were found out 8 months after they died. Odds are they were read right off the Gravesite.

LimeTime,

“Did Hollywood elitist liberals rush to recruitment stations to join Clinton’s invasion of Somalia?”

Hate to burst your bubble, but it was Bush 1 that first offered to send troops into Somalia, Dec, 4 1992, and left it to Clinton to clean up the mess and take the heat for the dissaster that followed.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ambush/etc/cron.html

“US President George Bush launches Somalia intervention
Deteriorating security prevents the UN mission from delivering food and supplies to the starving Somalis. Relief flights are looted upon landing, food convoys are hijacked and aid workers assaulted. The UN appeals to its members to provide military forces to assist the humanitarian operation.

With only weeks left in his term as president, George Bush responds to the UN request, proposing that US combat troops lead an international UN force to secure the environment for relief operations. On December 5, the UN accepts his offer, and Bush orders 25,000 US troops into Somalia. On December 9th, the first US Marines land on the beach.

Bush assures the American people and troops involved that this is not an open ended commitment; the objective is to quickly provide a secure environment so that food can get through to the starving Somalis, and then the operation will be turned over to the UN peacekeeping forces. He assures the public that he plans for the troops to be home by Clinton’s inauguration in January.
This US-led United Task Force (UNITAF) is dubbed “Operation Restore Hope.”

Aldous:

You left out the parts about knowing the men were shot in the back, half-in and half out of the car, and that the lieutenant put up a sign on the car in that said “No better friend, no worse enemy” after the killing. He even said he was trying to send a message with the number of bullets he used, though he claimed he decided that during the killing. And the extent of the “attack” on him consisted of no more than turning their heads and upper bodies towards him while he was speaking to them.

You seem to be right about the names, even the official report of the investigating officer questions where those names came from and asserts that there was no proof of their identity or even of whether or not the men in question were Iraqis.

In response to American Pundit’s point made 5/27/05, I would like to point out to people that Haiti, Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia, and even the full troop committment to Vietnam in the 1960s all took place while the Democratic Party was in the white house. It is not the fault of the Republican Party whatsoever that the United States military isn’t superbly efficient at handling peacekeeping operations around the globe. The US militarys lack of efficiency “at winning the peace” is not directly the fault of the Democratic Party, but however, it was the standard policy of the Democratic party under Clinton in the 1990’s to downsize the military (remember when we ran out of cruise missles in Yugoslavia). I simply cannot understand why you would pin the blame of these incidents on the Republican Party, when it is the Democratic Party that officially is trying to scale back the military. I dont know how you can say “Democrats have been agitating for a dedicated peacekeeping force for years”, when the record shows that they have not been agitating for any better armed forces at all. On the contrary, cutting back on all military expenditures was the Standard Mode of Operations of the Democratic Party and still is. You obviously aren’t as informed as you led the rest of us to believe…

I would like to also point out a blatant fact that often eludes us in these times of terror, controversy and unrest. There are men on the front lives risking their lives for the freedom and the protection of American lives, and other lives as well. Its a horrible day when we hear of innocents dying, however, these things happen and you have to move on. People die in war, and as horrible as it seems, we have to remember what side were on. We seem to weep harder when an Iraqi civilain is killed than when an American GI is killed. Frankly, I pledge my full support to the troops over in Iraqi and all over the world. Yes, attrocities can be committed, however, the benefit of the doubt must always be given to the soldier at all times. Is his butt thats on the line out there and not yours. Hes got a split second to decide what to do, and often hesitation means death. Keep it up soldiers. I support you

Mark,

”. The US militarys lack of efficiency “at winning the peace” is not directly the fault of the Democratic Party, but however, it was the standard policy of the Democratic party under Clinton in the 1990’s to downsize the military (remember when we ran out of cruise missles in Yugoslavia).”

Please tell me if I am wrong, but, with the cold war over, as we had “out spent” the former Soviet Union into bankrupcy. Everyone felt that America was owed a “peace dividend”, or was that just retoric?

Yes, I only took clips from the text below.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0522-01.htm

“Published on Thursday, May 22, 2003 by the Guardian/UK
So Much for the Peace Dividend:
Pentagon is Winning the Battle for a $400 Billion Budget
Despite huge military inefficiency, Republicans return US defense spending to cold war levels to buy cold war weaponry

by Julian Borger in Washington and David Teather in New York

The biggest US defense budget since the cold war is being rammed through Congress by the Republican majority this week despite persistent questions over waste and the Pentagon’s own admission that it cannot account for more than a trillion dollars……

……After intense lobbying from the defense industry and its allies in the Pentagon and Congress, known as the Iron Triangle, the new spending bill represents a decision to pay for both the old and the new.

“There’s a lot of stuff for everybody,” Christopher Helman, a military analyst at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, said. “A couple of years ago we were looking at a situation which would force some hard choices. But this is a no-choice budget.”

Hey, I am all for a ready military, but that said there were many pressing matters that were ignored during the cold war.
The Defence Budget mentioned above was the largest proposed since 1991.
Could that mean that Bush 1 precided over the first budget cuts to America’s military?
Does anybody remember $750.00 hammers?

Since WW2, the largest single chunk of America’s fiscal budgets has gone to the military. During that time there were 5 Democratic Presidents and 6 Republican Presidents, one of which warned us about the “Military Industrial Complex”.

I think that there is enough blame to go around here, don’t you?

Let’s at least get the facts straight.

Hey. Stop dissing the Military Industrial Complex. It is their Campaign Contributions that helped BushCo get to the White House afterall.

Mark-
Ask the Vice President what he was doing after the Cold War ended? With the end of the Soviet threat, cuts in the military were inevitable, and both sides participated in the process. However, with the beginning of the War on Terrorism, the choice of restoration, and the public will to go through with it belonged to our current president.

After 9/11, they were turning away people from the recruiting offices. After Iraq, they no longer have that “problem”. Though chickenhawks across this country arm themselves with their keyboards to defend this war, it’s obvious that they aren’t arming themselves with rifles to fight it. This is a war with no heart, no main strategic goal to make it a worthy cause for Americans beside the very one that doesn’t seem to be working.

As for standing with our soldiers, I think our safe position at home allows us the luxury of failing to appreciate other sacrifices, as we pound out our glib rationalizations here at home. One can lose more than one’s life out there on the battlefield, especially if our leaders fail to set a high standard for behavior. A soldier that takes part in an atrocity, or becomes capable of committing it themselves becomes scarred for life, changed by the dark deed they did or witnessed being done. We may glibly say it’s just war, but then we don’t have to live with the guilt or the emptiness, the shame or the alienation that a soldier coming home will share in.

War IS hell, so let us not take it or its atrocities lightly, and set up an environment where our soldiers have to ask themselves, “Do these people have any idea of what they’re asking me to do, of what they’re allowing to happen?”

It is not the fault of the Republican Party whatsoever that the United States military isn’t superbly efficient at handling peacekeeping operations around the globe.

It is now.

It is not the fault of the Republican Party whatsoever that the United States military isn’t superbly efficient at handling peacekeeping operations around the globe.

The War College has been recommending since Vietnam that we train for occupying and establashing peace in a country. They’ve stated that in 10 military “interventions” we’ve lost all the gains we won, because we don’t have a force that is trained to provide for the peace.

The few success stories in the last 40 years have come from U.N. peacekeeping efforts.

Julia

Jarin,

I believe there was an autopsy performed and it corroborated Pantano’s testimony that the men were coming at him.

Julia:

Strange, his own testimony was that they had merely pivoted towards each other while searching the car.

“After another time of telling them to be quiet, they quickly pivoted their bodies toward each other. They did this simultaneously, while speaking in muffled Arabic. I thought they were attacking me and I decided to fire my M-16A4 service rifle in self-defense”

Stephen Daugherty,

I agree entirely with you that war is indeed hell, and by no means should we take it or its atrocities lightly. However, the point that i tried to make was that before we all go crazy and say that our soldiers are out there commiting rash acts and borderline war crimes, perhaps the much more appreciation should be given to the soldiers. Absolutely, the emotional scarring and the post trumatic stress that goes along with that definately should not be ignored, but my point has nothing to do with that. All i meant to say is that more respect and the benefit of the doubt should always be given to the soldiers overseas. The days of convential warfare are coming to a close, and more often then not, our boys are fighting an unseen enemy, driven by extremist beliefs. Even if the soldier did empty an entire clip (highly unlikely. I won’t say he’s totally wrong, but i would like to see phx8’s source on that one) into these people, don’t be so quick to judge. Weapons take so many different forms, especially the suidcidal ones. I don’t support attrocities and war crimes at any level, whether it be from the private scrubbing toliets to the 4 star general running the whole show. However, cut these guys some slack, and know that theres always two sides to a story.

And to you Julia,

“The few success stories in the last 40 years have come from U.N. peacekeeping efforts.”

And I mean no sarcasm here, I really would like to know which success stories you are referring to.

And to American Pundit,

The typical liberal with the typical liberal response to a question. A one liner.

“It is now”

C’mon, lets try and actually support one’s thoughts and arguments with actual information instead of simple one liners. I finished 1st grade a long time ago…

By the way, does anyone over here on the blue column really GET what we let this guy off for? By his own words, he was trying to send a message with their death, and with the number of bullets he pumped into them, with the very grisliness of the scene. Do you get what that is?

We’re talking about violence used to intimidate, to inspire fear. We’re talking about death used to send a message, to terrorize the enemy.

How the hell do you fight a war on terror when we allow our soldiers to get away with using terror as a tactic?

err, red column I mean. Must be going colorblind this afternoon….

I dont see anything wrong with that message. Don’t mess with the US military. Or this is what happens to you. No one ever picks a fight with the strongest kid on the block.

I dont see anything wrong with that message. Don’t mess with the US military. Or this is what happens to you. No one ever picks a fight with the strongest kid on the block.

The problem with sending a message in that way is that we become the terrorists by using the tactics of terror. Does becoming terrorists to wage war on terrorism make any sort of sense to you?

In case my point is still escaping you, let me put it this way.

On September 11th, this country was sent a message with the grisly death of innocent civilians. It was a message written in violence, planned to intimidate and cause fear. It was a message written in death, meant to terrorize us.

The contents of that message, essentially, said “Don’t mess with us. Or this is what happens to you.”

If that’s the message we’re comfortable sending back, in the same grisly way, then we’ve really become no better than Al Qaida morally.

Mark,

After Sept 11th the world also sent a message to America. That was, “we support you”. We saw this message from friend and enemy alike.
Yeah, there were a few lunatics in the middle east that said we got what we deserved, but overall there was a world wide coming together after that tragedy.
That said, since then, where has all that support gone?
Our “don’t mess with us” message scared both friend and foe, and over time the warm support from the rest of the world had dissipated down to a loyal few.
There was a time in this country that we had an attitude of walk softly and carry a big stick.

Now the stick seems more important.

America needs to realize that we can only change the world with our ideas, not at the end of a gun. Just because we want change, doesn’t make it so.

The bully always get’s his in the end.

Mark-
I think U.S. Soldiers are pretty damn intimidating as it is. We take out any number of their people at a time, we clean out entire cities worth of insurgence, and we can airstrike their rear-ends into the stone age at a moment’s notice. What this guy did sounds like the kind of crap folks in the mafia engage in- hell the kind of things these damn insurgents do. What’s next, decapitate them, put their heads on spikes?

Are you going to say whatever it takes? Will it matter when our reputation is in the toilet and we’re still slogging it out with the insurgents five years from now in?

The problem is, no amount of atrocity encouraged or permitted will make up for a lousy strategy on the part of our civilian leaders. In fact, it is entirely counterproductive, if you consider that most guerilla wars are fought with the intent of provoking such atrocities out of the larger opponent. The insurgency wants us to drop to their level. It gives them legitimacy and makes us waste the advantages of being an established world power. It also turns the stomach of our populace and reduces the willingness of our people to fight the war.

Giving the soldiers the presumption of innocence is alright with me. Allowing such blatant atrocities to go on does not fit in with such things. If he really did kill them in cold blood the way he did, he dishonored us, and should be dealt with accordingly, not freed or praised.

According to Pantano, and witness Gobles (the witness on Pantano’s side), and to witness Coburn (not on Pantano’s side) this is exactly what happened (no disagreement really in testimony):

They found a warehouse that had weapons, body armor, wires, etc in it. They saw two men in a vehicle leaving the area. They fired upon the car, shooting out its tires. The men surrendered. Gobles did a quick search of the car. Then Pantano went around the car, smashing out its lights (which I hear is standard procedure). He said he felt worried about a possible ambush (which they’d had problems with before). He had Gobles do a second, very thorough search of the vehicle. Gobles discovered none of the car seats were bolted down, which is a bad sign (a sign of smuggling weapons). He discovered cans of wires and nuts and bolts. Then they got a report about what was in the warehouse. This amped Pantano up.

Then the questionable part happened. Pantano cut off their handcuffs. He ordered them to search the car, again, themselves. Gobles and Coburn looked out for an ambush. The two prisoners started talking to one another, and Pantano ordered them to stop. He says they then turned towards him, and made a threating move.

This is when Pantano testified that he emptied his entire clip into them. (Mark, you had asked about this) Coburn and Gobles turned to see Pantano reload another clip and empty that into them. Amped up, he then proceeded to put the sign on their bodies.

The articles state that the autopsy confirmed Pantano’s claims that the men were coming towards him.

Now, does that make Pantano an “American Hero”? I’m not calling judgement in on the guy, but this isn’t something you’d give a soldier a medal for. And it’s definitely something that should be investigated. And, it has to be said, that if Pantano had just left the guys cuffed, they’d still be alive.

So. That’s what it was.

It still bugs me that I can’t figure out where the names of the prisoners came from.

Julia

Thank you, Julia.
Why didn’t any of you on the Red Column relate all that to us?

Did you know? How many of you knew what this man did or did not do during that incident? I don’t ask to belittle, I just want to know.

If you did know, why didn’t you say? Are so many taking their cue for how to speak to liberals from Rush Limbaugh or Anne Coulter?

The irony here is knowing more of these facts moderated my picture of the case, makes it seem less premeditated. I still don’t know about the guy, but the question here is, are we arguing with enough of the facts in play for our arguments to really get at the heart of the matter?

Otherwise, both sides are just flailing.

This from the NYT,

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/27/national/27pantano.html?ex=1274846400&%20en=30f748a375f8e67e&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

“The killings occurred on April 15, 2004, near Mahmudiyah, as Lieutenant Pantano led a platoon to search a house suspected of being an insurgent lair. When the marines approached, two men left in a white sedan, according to testimony at the hearing, but were stopped on Lieutenant Pantano’s order. No weapons were found on the men, who were handcuffed as a Navy corpsman checked their car for weapons. When he was told that weapons and other contraband were found inside the house, Lieutenant Pantano ordered the men unhandcuffed and then directed them to search their car themselves.

Lieutenant Pantano supervised while the corpsman, George Gobles, and a Marine sergeant, Daniel Coburn, stood facing away as sentries. Lieutenant Pantano said that the men made a threatening move toward him after repeatedly talking with each other in Arabic and that he fired, emptying his M-16 rifle’s magazine. He reloaded and emptied the second one, a total of as many as 50 bullets.”

This from Rueters,

“The Marines shot out the vehicle’s tires, took the two men into custody and ordered them to rip out the seats and the interior of the vehicle during a search for booby traps and secret compartments, Gittens told Reuters in February.

One of the men turned suddenly toward Pantano “as if to attack,” and the pair kept moving when Pantano ordered them to stop, Gittens said. Pantano feared the men may have been trying to detonate explosives remotely and shot them, he added.”

This from AP, reported in the Guardian,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5033826,00.html

“Autopsies conducted on the Iraqis’ exhumed bodies backed 2nd Lt. Ilario Pantano’s assertion that he shot them in self-defense after the men disobeyed his instructions and made a menacing move toward him, Marine officials said.

“The initial findings of the autopsies did not support the allegation that 2nd Lt. Pantano committed premeditated murder,” Marine spokesman 2nd Lt. Barry Edwards said. “Rather, the initial findings corroborated 2nd Lt. Pantano’s version of the events.””

Now from what several of you reported, these men were unarmed and the car had been searched previously by one of the men from the platoon.
In other words this gentleman shot and killed two unarmed men in “self defence” when he already knew that they were unarmed and that the vehicle was clear.
And, (this is the best part) emptied not one, but two clips at close range.

I guess war really is hell.

Rocky, here’s the final bit of the story (from Gobles):

Pantano’s situation seems to inflict a special discomfort on the medic. He calls Pantano “a great leader and a great American.†Still, he feels uneasy. “There’re going to be things that are going be a little peculiar toward him,†he says.

For Gobles, the chief “peculiar thing†appears to be that he had searched the car twice before Pantano instructed the Iraqis to search it. His first was “hasty.†Still, it yielded, Gobles says, cans of wires and screws, “insurgent tools of the trade.†For Gobles’s second search, he removed the front and back seats, center console, and dashboard, none of which were bolted down, which alarmed Gobles.

Later, when Gobles posted security, his back to the vehicle, he watched “out of the corner of my eye.†He’d say he saw the guy in the front seat “rotate his head and upper body in the direction of†Pantano, consistent with Pantano’s account. Gobles concluded that he was trying to flee.

Clearly, investigators pushed Gobles, interviewing him four times in one month. Finally, they got Doc Gobles to say this: “I know for a fact that if I were in Lieutenant Pantano’s shoes under the same circumstances, I would not have fired at the Iraqis. I believe this was an unjustified shooting.â€

Over the phone, though, he seems uncomfortable with that statement. “Well, maybe heâ€â€”Pantano—“could have butt-stroked them with his rifle or tried to tackle them or something,†Gobles explains from his barracks at Camp Lejeune. “But in that situation, it’s the man’s decision that is there at the time,†he adds. “Whether or not something could have been done differently, who’s to say that?â€

And here’s the source for that info above:
http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/people/features/11774/index5.html

Julia,

Here is another place to get info. He also provides the links to other news sources.

http://www.thismodernworld.com/

Julia:

Here’s something else from that article

Pantano said that the two Iraqis kept moving after he started to fire, perhaps reacting to impact, which was one reason he continued to shoot, even in their backs.

Funny, thought the medical report said the bullets hit them from the front? But even the guy shooting them thinks he hit them from behind. Maybe he did both? But how would we know which he did first, especially with so many bullets emptied into the bodies?

It’s also enlightening to see another statement by him, when compared to his decision to have these two iraqis search the car with only him watching them.

Coburn didn’t really get Pantano and his 9/11 fervor. “One of those thespian-type people,” Coburn says. To Coburn, it almost seemed that the enemy materialized only when Pantano was around, as if perhaps his zeal attracted them.

Coburn wasn’t entirely wrong. On patrol, Pantano would sometimes fire in the air to draw the enemy out, then fight his way back. “Often you’re walking a beat, getting hit, responding,” Pantano says. “In essence, [you have] to be the walking ambush … You almost ask to be attacked.”

Guess that’s his general strategy… set up situations where he’s likely to be attacked, then respond to them. Sure sounds like a pattern of behavior to me. A premeditated one to boot.

Stephen Daugherty,
You totally misunderstand me, and i think we agree here, although very slightly. Yes, if there is a crime on the battle field, it should be punished. We are the United States and we should act like it. However, just because something sounds gruesome to us doesn’t mean it really played out that way. “Allowing such blatant atrocities to go on does not fit in with such things.” If it wasnt generating so much controversy, then we would all know it would be blatant, and we wouldn’t even be talking about it. However, the whole ordeal is pretty foggy, and therefore the so called “atrocity” is not blatant. The benefit of the doubt should be given here.

and to Julia,
Yes I agree with you on that one. i never said that he should be regarded as an American hero. But like I said before. I think we should still give him the benefit of the doubt. Being nervous about an ambush can give you a pretty itchy trigger finger, especially if you already have problems with it (aka, you’ve already lost one of your buddies to an ambush. That type of thing). Oh yes, and Julia, “The few success stories in the last 40 years have come from U.N. peacekeeping efforts.” Still waiting for those success stories. Because I cannot think of them

And to Jarin,
You sir, misunderstand the difference between terrorism and war. Terror is when non-uniformed combatants use non-convential methods to kill civilains that have no potential to be dangerous, ie non-combatants. However, warfare is when uniformed soldiers fight. Keyword “uniformed.” That means that everyone knows what side they are on. Not like these terrorists that act and dress like civilians in order to mislead our soldiers into thinking they are harmless. Incidents like that one are not terror because a)the “victims” do have a potential to be dangerous to the soldiers, ie making them combatants. According the the testimony provided to us by Rocky, “One of the men turned suddenly toward Pantano “as if to attack,” and the pair kept moving when Pantano ordered them to stop,” Unlike the people that died in the World Trade Center buildings, these people had a malicious intent. Incidents like that are not terror because also because of b)these are soldiers that killed these men. Uniformed soldiers. Convential warfare. Not guerrilla tactics. No suicide bomb detontated in the middle of a market square. Nothing of the sort. There you have it. The difference between terrorism and warfare.

And I would like to point out here that if new, indisputable evidence arises that blatantly points out that this man commited such a crime, he should be punished. If and only if its beyond a shadow of a doubt. That whole 100% sure thing for a conviction.

Mark:

Bullshit.

Terrorism is “the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to
inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate
governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are
generally political, religious, or ideological.” according to the US Department of Defense. Guess they didn’t get your memo that they’ve got their definition wrong.

Forgot to cite my source:
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/html2/d51071x.htm#ce1

Jarandhel,

Sorry boss, but it is you that is wrong. You forgot to mention the entire clause. Instead of looking up the definition in an actual dictionary where the term is properly defined in its entirety, you looked it up some place thats not an actual dictionary. And by the way, there are discrepancies when it comes to definitions if you wanna get nit picky. Perfect example, Websters dictionary online defines Terrorism as “the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.” However, dictionary.com provides a more complete definition.

ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Which of these definitions is correct? Both. However, which is more correct? The dictionary.com gives a much more thorough definition, and is therefore correct to a greater extent. A little SAT problem for ya.

But what sets really sets the definitions apart? The word “unlawful.” And how is it decided what kind of violence is lawful and unlawful? Governments. When the government kills someone for a crime, its called capital punishment. When an individual or a group kills someone for a crime, its vigilante justice, which is unlawful. When the governments show acts of aggression, its called war. When individuals or a group of individuals take part in violence and other acts of agression, its called terrorism, which, by the way, is unlawful.

Jarandhel, it is not enough that you simply read and quote one definition which fits your idea of terrorism and assume its the correct one. Next time, get your definitions from a place where the enitre purpose for its existance is to supply idiots like you definitions of terms you thought you knew what they meant.

My sources:
Dictionary.com
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Terrorism%20
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=terrorism

I guess what my negative feelings come down to is my dismay at the enshrinement of poor impulse control as patriotic behavior.

Our virtue should be implicit in our actions. As a powerful nation intervening in countries that have shed European domination only recently, we should not be falling into the trap of taking on our enemy’s love of atrocity. We do that, they win, because they’re legitimate at that level operation and we’re imperial aggressors.

Back to subject. The pundits, in the blogosphere and out of it, have basically said: let these guys off easy, because they were terrorizing and inflicting pain on the enemy. They call it PC that people like Ilario get taken in for investigation, especially after things add up so poorly, neglecting the question of political correctness has much to do with shooting unarmed prisoners with multiple clips worth of ammunition, then setting these men up as the kind of example that you would normally see out of some mafia movie. Would it have been political correctness to complain about a hypothetical soldier scrawling messages in the people’s blood?

When does this stop being about having the stomach for the rough stuff, and when does it start becoming about whether the rough stuff is justifiable in the first place? When do our morals, our principles, the consistency between who we say we are, and what our actions implicitly speak to in our character come into play? When does our sense of shame re-enter the picture? When do we remember who we really are, and what we are supposed to be doing as a nation?

This isn’t about political correctness. This is about the hearts and souls of our men and women in uniform, and just how much of a stumbling block their government ends up being to acting according to their good consciences.

Mark,

“Sorry boss, but it is you that is wrong. You forgot to mention the entire clause. Instead of looking up the definition in an actual dictionary where the term is properly defined in its entirety, you looked it up some place thats not an actual dictionary.”

I would guess that the definition from the Department of Defence isn’t good enough?

mark, I know you didn’t say he was a hero. J Matel did. And I have to say, why couldn’t he have found a better example to make his point?

Stephen is right, on all levels. I was trying to explain to an Iraqi blogger that when American soldiers react to insurgent fire in his neighborhood, and shoot up this bloggers house with his kids inside, that the reason their actions are better than the insurgents actions is because, is because why? This guy got shot at by soldiers on the road because he can’t figure out what their hand signals mean. He gets shot at by crazy bandits because they want to steal his car. The only difference between his experience is the intention of the shooter, but what does he care what their intentions are? And if he accidentally gets killed on the road, neither the insurgents or the American soldiers are going to be held accountable for his death.

He’s just going to be dead.

If the only people who can act as armed policemen in Iraq are soldiers who we feel are justified in killing civilians if they feel threatened… then who wants that type of police force? Seriously, if I knew the policeman in my neighborhood was trigger-happy enough to spray my building with bullets because some gang-freak took a pot-shot at him…. why would I want that policeman in my neighborhood? He’s not protecting me. He’s protecting himself. So what do I need him for?

Rocky,

Actually no its not good enough. If you want a definition, you go to a dictionary. That its sole purpose of existance.

Julia,

The policemen in your neighborhood aren’t dying everyday. They don’t have a body count when the come back from their daily beat. Your neighborhood doesn’t have suicide bombers every other day, killing hundreds by the week. The “gang members” aren’t armed with automatic weapons. Even though I almost agree with you, you are comparing apples and oranges.

Mark-
Look, if Bush and his people had done their jobs, our troops would not be dying everyday. I mean, I doubt you can explain to me how this can be the postwar period, when the vast majority of the casualties have come after the end of “major combat operations”.

Our troops die because the insurgents have free rein to to move throughout the country, and because there are people out there whose sympathies with them outweighs their fear of us. Iraqi society has a strong tribal component, and vengeance for loved ones is a major part of that. It is for the best that we minimize collateral casualties and barbaric behavior like this, because it’s adding support and infrastructure to those who kill our soldiers.

Our job is not to conquer the Iraqis, it’s to calm their society down to the point where a government can take over, and our soldiers can leave without giving free rein to the insurgents. So examples like this, rather than contributing to solving the problem, become part of the problem.

We kill those bastards when they engage us in battle, capture them when we find them plotting to attack and putting down supplies, and spy on them when they communicate with their fellow terrorists, but we don’t start going Colonel Kurtz on them and start giving the world press more of these nice charming little stories to give us a black eye about.

And no, the answer isn’t secrecy, because you can’t keep things like this quiet forever, and it only gets worse if it looks like or can be proven that we covered it up.

The answer is, we clean up our behavior. Emotions are running high, especially with some folks having spent extended tours in the warzone, but we need discipline if we are going to see this thing through to a good conclusion.

Steven,

I agree totally with you. Any collateral damage should be avoided entirely. Clean up our behavior. Incidents like this should be avoided at all costs. However, in the practical sense, whats collateral and what isn’t? The terrorists that set of car bombs in the middle of a plaza are dressed the same and act the same as regular joe iraqis that simplpy want peace. Its a tough job for these soldiers to differenciate the two. If a soldier says the guy he killed was going to or even looked like he was going to hurt him or someone else, i say investigate the incident and unless its 100% totally obvious that it was a crime, let it go. This one was not a clean cut, obvious, without a doubt crime. Let it go.

Mark,

I completely understand what you’re saying. If I was in the same position as our soldiers, then I’m sure I’d feel the same way. But as a citizen, I don’t see how I’m more secure.

If it was the National Guard was moving into a rioting area, I’d at least have the feeling that they were coming in to rescue me. But if it’s, say, the Nigerian army moving in to quell a rebellion in my neighborhood, I don’t have the feeling that they’re worried about protecting me. They’re worried about getting killed.

In addition, the forces we have that respond to rioting, and hostage situations, are trained in competely different ways. We all know when SWAT comes in that they’ll do everything in their power to prevent us from dying. Is a Stryker battallion the same?

My dad served in the navy in Texas during Nam. They had a few incidents where returning soldiers freaked out on base and started firing at people. The military did not resolve the situation, they called the police. They called the police because they knew the police were trained to handle something like that, and they weren’t. They knew they had a higher likelihood of killing other soldiers on the base with their training.

The comments on the thread are “Who are you to judge a man in the field of war?” That’s the whole problem. This isn’t supposed to be the field of war. This is supposed to be the field of keeping the peace, and providing security. And “winning hearts and minds”.

If we had an insurgency here in the United States, how would we want it handled, and is that the way it’s being handled in Iraq?

Mark:

Even you admit the dictionary definitions conflict. One of your definitions says that terrorism is simply the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. You refer to the others as “more complete” definitions, but really all they are is definitions which fit your interpretation more than mine. Since neither of us is in a position to set the present political definition of terror, I turned to the US Department of Defense, in a directive they gave to the military. They explicitly defined what the term terrorism means to the US Military in this directive. That makes it the definition the military should be operating under, not any of the admittedly varying definitions you might find in your dictionaries. That makes it applicable when considering the actions of this soldier.

But hey, if you really want to play the dictionary game rather than taking the Department of Defense directive as being authoritative in matters concerning the military, fine.

Mirriam-Webster Legal Dictionary, via Answers.com:
2 : violent and intimidating gang activity �ter�ror�ist /-ist/ adj or noun �ter�ror�is�tic /”ter-&r-‘is-tik/ adjective

WordNet, via Answers.com::
Meaning #1: the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments

The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Houghton Mifflin Co, via Answers.com:

terrorism

Acts of violence committed by groups that view themselves as victimized by some notable historical wrong. Although these groups have no formal connection with governments, they usually have the financial and moral backing of sympathetic governments. Typically, they stage unexpected attacks on civilian targets, including embassies and airliners, with the aim of sowing fear and confusion. Israel has been a frequent target of terrorism, but the United States has increasingly become its main target. (See also September 11 attacks, Osama bin Laden, Hezbollah, and Basque region.)

WordNet, via Dictionary.com
terrorism

n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear [syn: act of terrorism, terrorist act]

Mirriam-Webster Online:
Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: ‘ter-&r-“i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
- ter·ror·ist /-&r-ist/ adjective or noun
- ter·ror·is·tic /”ter-&r-‘is-tik/ adjective

Next time, get your definitions from a place where the enitre purpose for its existance is to supply idiots like you definitions of terms you thought you knew what they meant.

By the way, Mark, I’m not an administrator here but as a friendly warning you might want to dial back the personal attacks. They go against Watchblog policy.

mark, I’ll answer the u.n. peacekeeping question in the “rough men” red column post. I’m trying to get a comprehensive list together of countries that have become relatively stable democracies post- WWII, and it’s taking a little time.

Mark-
What is collateral, and what’s not?

Well, I’ll shock you by saying I wouldn’t count the insurgents the man killed as collateral casualties. However, there are still ways to cross the line, even if the victim is not an innocent in war. An example is the sad fate of 57 of the POWs from The Great Escape. They had been captured, and international law at the time was that captured POWs were not to be harmed. Hitler ordered them shot.

What’s relevant here are the choices he made. Like another commentator here said, he had the choice to keep them in restraints. Why would he have them search the vehicle? What motivation would they have to uncover incriminating evidence? If you want to make the standard total obviousness, then perhaps this passes the smell test, but the fact is, it’s very suspicious otherwise. I don’t think your side of the debate has very secure moral footing on this. We need to be understanding of the dilemmas that our soldiers face, but not recklessly permissive as to their behavior. Down that path lies a disaster waiting to happen.

I’ve noticed something interesting while reading American Ideologies, by Kenneth and Patricia Dolbeare, a book on political ideologies from 1971. (Very good book, I highly recommend it to people if they can find it.)

In it, it describes the liberals of the day as viewing the Cold War in the following way:

The form of the continuing conflict with communism might vary, from the chiefly ideological, to the small war over Third World territory, to the brink of nuclear confrontation. But only American firmness and military readiness can dissuade communist adventurism and permit the competition to remain a “cold war.” It then takes the form of a battle for mens’ minds, in which the allegiance of the Third World nations is the prize.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but it seems to me that the present liberal ideology regarding the war on terror is quite similar. We are more than willing to use military force against specific strategic targets which have a rational connection to the war on terror and can be so justified before the world. But mostly, we want to use the threat of such violence to protect ourselves, and wage the true war as a new cold war… a war for hearts and minds… a battle for human minds and the allegiance of Third World, particularly Islamic, nations.

Eep, sorry, meant to post that under the next thread up, the one titled “We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.” Guess it’s on-topic here too, though it makes a little less sense to introduce at this precise point in the thread.

Another American hero, about which there can be no doubt.

Jack-
That’s your hero right there. Not the guy who pumps two clips worth of bullets into unarmed prisoners he shouldn’t have taken out of restraints.

Oh, oh. I saw Perlata’s obituary in the newspaper some time ago. His family seemed so sweet. I didn’t know that’s how it happened. Oh, Perlata.

Yes, there’s a hero.

Agreed about Peralta. I don’t think there’s anyone here would wouldn’t agree that he is an example of what a real hero is.

I agree. Peralta’s a real hero. He was from my hometown. I went to school with a bunch of good guys like him. Via con Dios, mi primo.