Politics

[Doug Hamilton]

I guess I'll try to answer,
Regardless of the fact that it's a great intelligence operation, it's terrorism because :

If you read unbiased sources, among the dead there are children, innocent bystanders and medical personnel and public was terrorized.

UN also labels it as a war crime and terrorism saying "to the extent that international humanitarian law applies, at the time of the attacks there was no way of knowing who possessed each device and who was nearby,”

Like I said before it's a fascinating operation but it's aim was to terrorize and achieved it's objective.

Right or wrong is another discussion....

" If you read unbiased sources..." That's funny! There aren't any.

 

[Datchew]

His answer(s) seemed pretty straightforward to me. Imagine you own a gas station, and there is a police car parked at one of your pumps because it desperately needs fuel in order to race across town to catch a mass murder. If you as the controller of the gas pumps actively worked against the refueling of the police car, you would implicitly be enabling the continuation of the mass murderer's crime spree. The actions of the Freedom Caucus in regards to Ukraine funding were no less baffling and unAmerican.

Hmm.. seemed dodgey to me but oh well.

I get the point of your analogy, I just don't think it applies to the topic of discussion.

It would be more applicable if you have a monopoly control of fuel in Mexico and some of your board manipulated warlord A to attack warlord B and used your pr dept to get all government and media sections to get in unison on the message that warlord B is the bad guy and warlord A's success was in your nation interest even though your company was behind starting the conflict.

Then, you try to shutdown fuel supply to force the war to a close and your own board equates it as, and accuses you of, supporting a "brutal dictatorship."

 

[Doug Hamilton]

There's a small detail that you missed.

Hezbollah is labeled as a terrorist organization.

It's against our policy and we don't use terrorism to counter terrorism and Israel shouldn't either.

This is the fundamental difference between terrorists and civilized nations.

Having said that I find the whole thing fascinating and and very scary at the same time, knowing most of our electronics are made in China.

So when Navy Seals dropped in to Pakistan and killed Osama bin Laden, it wasn't "terrorism?" I'd say it was, and it was the right thing to do. Or what about the many other terrorists that the US has taken out with rockets, bombs or naval cannons? A number of non terrorists died during those actions. If a war cannot be declared and the terrorists hide among civilians a certain number of those civilians will die when the aggrieved nation strikes back. It is either that or surrender to the terrorists.

 

[Tanks]

...

I get the point of your analogy, I just don't think it applies to the topic of discussion.

It would be more applicable if you have a monopoly control of fuel in Mexico and some of your board manipulated warlord A to attack warlord B and used your pr dept to get all government and media sections to get in unison on the message that warlord B is the bad guy and warlord A's success was in your nation interest even though your company was behind starting the conflict.

Then, you try to shutdown fuel supply to force the war to a close and your own board equates it as, and accuses you of, supporting a "brutal dictatorship."

So, in your view US and European governments manipulated Putin to attack Ukraine, first annex Crimea and then move into the rest of Ukraine a few years later?

It's our fault not Putin's ambitions?

And we reward Putin as a way of an apology with the land it has taken from Ukraine so far, not to mention prevent Ukraine from joining EU or NATO so Putin can do it over and over until he has all of Ukraine?

 

[Doubleplay]

So when Navy Seals dropped in to Pakistan and killed Osama bin Laden, it wasn't "terrorism?" I'd say it was, and it was the right thing to do. Or what about the many other terrorists that the US has taken out with rockets, bombs or naval cannons? A number of non terrorists died during those actions. If a war cannot be declared and the terrorists hide among civilians a certain number of those civilians will die when the aggrieved nation strikes back. It is either that or surrender to the terrorists.

Great point about Osama Bin Laden. The reason seals dropped in was to minimize loss of innocent civilian life. Otherwise we could have leveled that building with a barrage of tomahawks. We chose not to.

 

[Doubleplay]

" If you read unbiased sources..." That's funny! There aren't any.

Hımm.. that means your sources are biased as well …

 

[Doubleplay]

Where have the Israelis stated their aim was to terrorize?

Not that they care but do you really think they’ll ever state that ?

 

[Datchew]

So, in your view US and European governments manipulated Putin to attack Ukraine, first annex Crimea and then move into the rest of Ukraine a few years later?

It's our fault not Putin's ambitions?

And we reward Putin as a way of an apology with the land it has taken from Ukraine so far, not to mention prevent Ukraine from joining EU or NATO so Putin can do it over and over until he has all of Ukraine?

you're playing the troll as usual.

My view is there's a long history going back to Clinton & Bush on games between US, Nato, Ukraine, and Russia. Lots of broken promises and legerdemain on both sides.
But I do see evidence of a steady push and provocation on the part of Nato & the US state dept.

I won't be pushed into the false narrative your lot typically deploys of the fault being 100% for either party, or being a Russian sympathizer, etc., because it's not clean. But there has been provocation in a slow creeping fashion. It's like listening to both parties after a divorce... the other person is always wrong and you're always justified.

Perhaps you just can't see it in an objective fashion.
If the same thing happened in Tijuana or Toronto, I think some of us would have a slightly different viewpoint.

My opinion is that the Ukraine situ is so far down on the list of priorities our republic faces that it's a waste of time and resources and a travesty of bloodshed.
Making a show of how small a percentage of the national budget is just another fallacy of justifying it as a trifle in the big scheme of things.
The trifles add up. And we have too damn many of them.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

My opinion is that the Ukraine situ is so far down on the list of priorities our republic faces that it's a waste of time and resources and a travesty of bloodshed.

I think the situation requires a longer term view than the here and now. Some say we've provoked the Russians into starting this war. Do the Russians really think we and/or NATO would invade Russia? I don't for a moment. Keep them contained by allowing smaller states into NATO, absolutely. But that's not a direct threat to Russia.

It is a travesty of bloodshed, but not USA or NATO bloodshed. The Ukrainians have chosen to fight for their country. Putin has chosen to sacrifice so many of his young men. I don't think we should be telling the Ukrainians they shouldn't fight for their freedom, that's their choice. As for Russian blood, we should reward Putin for sending his men into the meat grinder?

 

[mdwest]

Not that they care but do you really think they’ll ever state that ?

the point is... YOU stated that was their intention... which is clearly your opinion only.. and not founded in any fact or evidence otherwise..

of course Israel wont concede to conducting terrorism.. because they in fact have not committed an act of terrorism.. (again, read the definition.. and again look at the FACTS surrounding the situation... look at similar asymmetric fights/wars and the actions taken in those wars, that were indeed NOT terrorism...

I would strongly recommend that you familiarize yourself with Asymmetric Warfare before espousing such opinions without any facts or evidence to support them other than what you might have read online or information you have obtained otherwise..

The way warfare is conducted against Asymmetric threats is extremely different than the way warfare is conducted against regular forces of nation-states... Part and parcel of this different type of warfare is because the asymmetric enemy doesnt wear a uniform, often embeds itself within non combatant populaces, uses traditionally "peaceful" facilities such as religious facilities and hospitals to support combat operations, and as often as not they claim they are not combatants at all, when all evidence points to the fact that they are... they typically operate outside of their home nation/state and attempt to obtain protection hiding behind national boundaries, etc..

Asymmetric warfare OFTEN involves unconventional tactics, unconventional weapons, and unconventional forces (not just special operations forces, but other unconventionals as well) to execute operations against the asymmetric threat that in many ways on the surface resemble guerilla warfare or even at times terrorism, but DO NOT meet the requirements/definition to actually be terrorism, and therefore ARE NOT in violation of things like the Geneva Convention, the multitude of truly ridiculous UN resolutions on warfare, etc..

 

[PARA45]

This was the issue and who allowed the invasion. If our government stood firm and gave firm warning, maybe the invasion wouldn't have happened.

 

[PARA45]

How our government intimidated the Russian.

 

[Red Leg]

you're playing the troll as usual.

My view is there's a long history going back to Clinton & Bush on games between US, Nato, Ukraine, and Russia. Lots of broken promises and legerdemain on both sides.
But I do see evidence of a steady push and provocation on the part of Nato & the US state dept.

I won't be pushed into the false narrative your lot typically deploys of the fault being 100% for either party, or being a Russian sympathizer, etc., because it's not clean. But there has been provocation in a slow creeping fashion. It's like listening to both parties after a divorce... the other person is always wrong and you're always justified.

Perhaps you just can't see it in an objective fashion.
If the same thing happened in Tijuana or Toronto, I think some of us would have a slightly different viewpoint.

My opinion is that the Ukraine situ is so far down on the list of priorities our republic faces that it's a waste of time and resources and a travesty of bloodshed.
Making a show of how small a percentage of the national budget is just another fallacy of justifying it as a trifle in the big scheme of things.
The trifles add up. And we have too damn many of them.

So I think I finally have a notion what you are attempting to say. These comments at least clearly delineate our differences on this subject.

You apparently believe helping Ukraine is an unnecessary effort "so far down the list of priorities" as to essentially not matter. I, on the other hand, think the evidence is overwhelming that the outcome in Ukraine is the single most important international interest that we have at the present time. There are a number of reasons, but the most important is that any hope of a focused effort in managing Chinese ambitions rests upon restraining Russia's immediate goals to reemerge as the dominant military power in Eurasia.

We have an enormously detailed history of the costs associated with such a bilateral threat. A replay of the Cold War will make any other discretionary spending look almost trivial. It is truly beyond my comprehension that anyone with any sort of education or experience fails to grasp that reality.

Not realizing that and not acting to prevent it now would be an act of national folly far exceeding the embargo on oil and iron/steel to Japan in 1940.

And yes, that investment now in Ukraine is indeed a pittance compared to what it will cost this country in the coming decades to deal with a newly ascendent Russian Empire plus its ally China.

Not taking action now enables Russian ambitions. Cutting off military aid to Ukraine enables Vladimir Putin's goals. That does indeed make every supporter of this sort of neo-isolationist nonsense a defacto ally of the Russian State in achieving its European objectives.

 

[Rocked and Loaded]

I guess I'll try to answer,
Regardless of the fact that it's a great intelligence operation, it's terrorism because :

If you read unbiased sources, among the dead there are children, innocent bystanders and medical personnel and public was terrorized.

UN also labels it as a war crime and terrorism saying "to the extent that international humanitarian law applies, at the time of the attacks there was no way of knowing who possessed each device and who was nearby,”

Like I said before it's a fascinating operation but it's aim was to terrorize and achieved it's objective.

Right or wrong is another discussion....

It couldn’t be considered a terrorist act based on the UN’s own attempts to define terrorism.

Attempts of Definition by the United Nations​

The International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, signed on 9 December 1999, defines terrorism in its Article 2.1.b as “any . . . act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.”

The United Nations Security Council, it its resolution 1566 of October 2004, elaborates this definition, stating that terrorists acts are “criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.” The Security Council recalls that such acts are “under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.” The UN General Assembly reaffirmed this definition in January 2006 (Resolution 60/43), defining terrorist acts as “criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes.”

In 2004, the UN set up a High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change. In their report to the UN Secretary General in December 2004, titled “A More Secure World, Our Shared Responsibility,” the experts proposed to define terrorism as “any action . . . that is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such an act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act” (para. 164(d), p. 49). This definition is sensibly the same as the one proposed by the UN Security Council, though it adds the notions of civilians or “non-combatants” as potential targets of terrorist attacks.

Israel’s intent was not to target civilians or the general population but agents/enemy combatants of Hezbollah. While innocent people may have been affected, they were not the targets and should be considered collateral damage, little different from unintentional casualties of a missile strike. Tragic but not terrorism.

Israel may not have been able to know for sure who had the pagers at that moment but they had a reasonable certainty that they would be in the hands of Hezbollah militants as they were the specific purchasers of the pagers and were using them specifically to avoid Israeli interception.

While the operation may have been meant to instill fear and uncertainty among Hezbollah operatives, that is a legitimate military goal. The general populace of Lebanon was not targeted, though they may be more careful about spending time around known Hezbollah members.

 

[Rocked and Loaded]

" If you read unbiased sources..." That's funny! There aren't any.

I also don’t get his point. No one has denied that the operation produced collateral casualties but it’s important to point out that it wasn’t the goal.

 

[Altitude sickness]

Doubleplay, don’t fall for the UN, Iran, Hezbollah, the Sqad or any other biased propaganda.

“If you read unbiased sources, among the dead there are children, innocent bystanders and medical personnel and public was terrorized.”

I’m not aware of one conflict, police action, military conflict or war when innocents were not frightened, injured or killed.

The pager/radio operation was to help isolate the leaders from their troops before the larger operation took place. It’s what every competent military strategist has done for centuries.

 

[Doug Hamilton]

Hımm.. that means your sources are biased as well …

Yes, of course. There are no unbiased sources.

 

[Datchew]

I think the situation requires a longer term view than the here and now. Some say we've provoked the Russians into starting this war. Do the Russians really think we and/or NATO would invade Russia? I don't for a moment. Keep them contained by allowing smaller states into NATO, absolutely. But that's not a direct threat to Russia.

It is a travesty of bloodshed, but not USA or NATO bloodshed. The Ukrainians have chosen to fight for their country. Putin has chosen to sacrifice so many of his young men. I don't think we should be telling the Ukrainians they shouldn't fight for their freedom, that's their choice. As for Russian blood, we should reward Putin for sending his men into the meat grinder?

I think America has no appetite to invade Russia. Nato... I don't feel as confident. Like all government entities, they exist to grow and metastasize.

I also think Ukraine had at least 2-3 big opportunities to make peace since this started. One supposedly blown up by Boris Johnson (who always looks like he just rubbed a balloon on his hair.)
The other 2, I believe Zelensky passed on the opportunity.
You make a good point about it being their choice, but they appear to have chosen bloodshed, devastation of homeland, and complete financial ruin. Why would we support it?

(Side note - line up the timeline on bond market actions with the handful of banks in UK and EU with the timing of the debt service deadlines Ukraine owes. It's a little overly coincidental. Blackrock, Fideltiy, JPMorgan, PIMCO, etc., are all involved in negotiations that suddenly get "better" with rate and policy changes)

I may be wrong. Won't be the first time. But I don't see Russia going "the full Hitler" (trying to takeover the world) as much as finally putting his foot down for what he views (and I don't, mind you) as an existential threat to his country.
There's also some "re-unify old Russia" type flavor in his head as well I think.

I'll take a stab at speculating that maybe the sticking point is that some of us view lack of support as aid to the Russians. I view lack of support as it's not vital to our interests when other fires are burning brighter so support those instead.

I've been asked before "What about when Putin invades America after we pacify him in Ukraine?"
A - I think it's silly
B - We've been stuck in this 1 data point Chamberlin/Hitler/Churchill though process for too long
C - If he or someone else did invade, because of our poor prioritization of things we should be attending to, they'll takeover a burned out shack.

 

[Datchew]

So I think I finally have a notion what you are attempting to say. These comments at least clearly delineate our differences on this subject.

You apparently believe helping Ukraine is an unnecessary effort "so far down the list of priorities" as to essentially not matter. I, on the other hand, think the evidence is overwhelming that the outcome in Ukraine is the single most important international interest that we have at the present time. There are a number of reasons, but the most important is that any hope of a focused effort in managing Chinese ambitions rests upon restraining Russia's immediate goals to reemerge as the dominant military power in Eurasia.

We have an enormously detailed history of the costs associated with such a bilateral threat. A replay of the Cold War will make any other discretionary spending look almost trivial. It is truly beyond my comprehension that anyone with any sort of education or experience fails to grasp that reality.

Not realizing that and not acting to prevent it now would be an act of national folly far exceeding the embargo on oil and iron/steel to Japan in 1940.

And yes, that investment now in Ukraine is indeed a pittance compared to what it will cost this country in the coming decades to deal with a newly ascendent Russian Empire plus its ally China.

Not taking action now enables Russian ambitions. Cutting off military aid to Ukraine enables Vladimir Putin's goals. That does indeed make every supporter of this sort of neo-isolationist nonsense a defacto ally of the Russian State in achieving its European objectives.

This was well-written and make me see more of your view of things.

My only question on this, which isn't trolling, is this:
You typically post a lot of comments about how poorly the Russian military is organized, how their training is sub-par, how their equipment is run-down, and how they generally don't cut the mustard.
I'm paraphrasing in a broad brush if you'll permit me but I think that's pretty accurate.
With that in mind, how do you see them reemerging as the dominant military power in Eurasia?

 

[Doubleplay]

the point is... YOU stated that was their intention... which is clearly your opinion only.. and not founded in any fact or evidence otherwise..

Asymmetric warfare OFTEN involves unconventional tactics, unconventional weapons, and unconventional forces (not just special operations forces, but other unconventionals as well) to execute operations against the asymmetric threat that in many ways on the surface resemble guerilla warfare or even at times terrorism, but DO NOT meet the requirements/definition to actually be terrorism, and therefore ARE NOT in violation of things like the Geneva Convention, the multitude of truly ridiculous UN resolutions on warfare, etc..

Thanks for the very lengthy explanation.
I'm very familiar with the asymmetric warfare having family members involved in that kind of operations in the past and currently.
I'm sure you're also familiar with the way how our personnel conducts asymmetric warfare.
There are a lot of hoops to jumps and approvals to get and compared to most other nations we have strict boundaries.
An open source example would be not using sex baits, illicit drugs in our intelligence gathering or using chemicals in our warfare.
Otherwise asymmetric warfare becomes terrorism.
We are talking about a nation state here not some hadji in the desert blowing up a car bomb in a market who doesn't care about innocent civilians.
If this act would have been committed against us or Israel we would have called it terrorism, therefore in my vocabulary it's terrorism.
However like I said before it doesn't diminish the fact that I was fascinated by the sophistication, planning and execution of the whole thing and it represents a humiliating blow to Hezbollah.