Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > USS Cole Terrorist released, How long until an unfortunate accident?

View Poll Results: How long until his "accident"?
Poll Options:
One (1) month 0 votes (0%)
Two (2) months 1 votes (50.00%)
Three-Five (3-5) months 1 votes (50.00%)
Six-plus (6+) months 0 votes (0%)
Voters: 2. You may not vote on this poll
USS Cole Terrorist released, How long until an unfortunate accident?
Thread Tools
Cold Warrior
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Polwaristan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2007, 09:50 AM
 
So an Al Qaeda terrorist who helped mastermind the USS Cole bombing lucked out and got his freedom from the corrupt or weak Yemeni government -- after being convicted, sentenced to death, having it commuted to 15 years, then escaping, turning himself in 15 days later, and getting immediate freedom after pledging loyalty to Yemen's president. WHAT THE!?!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/27/wo...t/27yemen.html

This guy is bad and should be in prison. He's still wanted by the FBI though.

How long until this international turd, Jamal al-Badawi, suffers an unfortunate accident — car crash, deadly stomach flu, freak aneurism? A month? Two? Six?
     
PaperNotes
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2007, 09:50 AM
 
     
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2007, 03:10 PM
 
Just a small point, how is this guy a terrorist? He attacked a military target.
     
macintologist
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Smallish town in Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2007, 03:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
Just a small point, how is this guy a terrorist? He attacked a military target.
That's a good question and often debated in international relations theory.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2007, 03:40 PM
 
Was HE wearing an identifiable military uniform?
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2007, 03:43 PM
 
Wouldn't that make him a spy or double-agent, not a terrorist?
     
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2007, 03:47 PM
 
So you think that anyone engaged in military activities without wearing an identifiable uniform is a terrorist? Are you prepared to apply that definition universally? Where does it come from? What basis in law does it have?
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2007, 07:22 PM
 
Def: Any enemy of the US is a terrorist.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
Cold Warrior  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Polwaristan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2007, 07:33 PM
 
Despite the military target in this instance, Al Qaeda focuses mostly on civilian targets. Hence the terrorism label.

Why is Al Qaeda not terrorism?
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2007, 07:43 PM
 
So what if it was a military target? We're talking about a nation your own nation isn't at war with, not before, during, or since the attack (Yemen and the US), during peacetime, not during war, against people who've done nothing against you. Of course it's terrorism.

What is with this attempt at blind stupidity when it comes to trying to dumb down what terrorism is?

If I were to decide I hated Belgium so much, I went and blew up a Belgian warship that just happened to be in a US port, and killed 17 innocent sailors onboard, none of whom were involved in any sort of military action against me or my country, just why the hell WOULDN'T that be an act of terrorism?

Where does the idea come from that because the innocents (and at the time of the attack, non-combatants) I've killed and tried to terrorize happened to be military people, that my action wouldn't be terrorism?

Only someone trying to dumb down the whole meaning of terrorism (for some silly ulterior motive) would even try and float that it wasn't.

It would be a point if we were talking about a legitimate military target, during wartime, between nations at war with each other, but just attacking a military target outside that situation, for no other reason that to terrorize people isn't any excuse.
     
His Dudeness
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seaford, Virginia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2007, 12:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Wouldn't that make him a spy or double-agent, not a terrorist?

Spies and double agents are employed by governments and are on their payroll system somewhere. I don't think camel-humping towel-heads that attack civilians and military targets fall in that category.

Just because this camel humping towel headed piece of **** attacked the Cole doesn't mean he isn't a terrorist. The next day he could have attacked an open market or a bus and killed civilians, then he would be a terrorist. But a terrorist, nevertheless.

The only thing you do to camel ****ing towelheads is kill them.
     
Dakarʒ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: A House of Ill-Repute in the Sky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2007, 12:13 PM
 
Man, that post would be so boring without the term camel-humping towel-heads.
     
His Dudeness
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seaford, Virginia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2007, 12:21 PM
 
I've been in the Navy for almost twenty years, been on 12 ships and subs. My hatred for camel humping towelheads knows no bounds.
     
Dakarʒ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: A House of Ill-Repute in the Sky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2007, 12:24 PM
 
I think that might be coming across.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2007, 05:25 PM
 
So if the gentleman in question has a paystub, he's an agent, but if he doesn't then he's a terrorist? The term "terrorist" sure is a lot more boring than I always thought it was.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2007, 05:30 PM
 
What ever happened to guerillas, freedom fighters, rebels, and activists?
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2007, 05:32 PM
 
Well that's just crazy, I live with a guy in the Navy, and he doesn't hate those who live in the Middle East and use camels or wear turbans.

Funny, how one's occupation can be used as an excuse to make what I would view as racist remarks.



greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
His Dudeness
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seaford, Virginia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2007, 06:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Well that's just crazy, I live with a guy in the Navy, and he doesn't hate those who live in the Middle East and use camels or wear turbans.

Funny, how one's occupation can be used as an excuse to make what I would view as racist remarks.



greg
That's not racist. There's no such race as camel humping towel jockey, is there? And I don't recall the 9/11 perps to be Southern Baptists or members of the high school chess club. They were Islam, which is a religion of hatred for all things non-Islam. Get your ****ing head out of the sand and stop being brainwashed by the political correctness that is ruining this country.
     
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2007, 09:21 PM
 
HD, you ignorant racist screeds don't take this debate anywhere but down. Please stop slinging ill-informed hatred, and learn a little about the topic before you wade in.
     
macintologist
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Smallish town in Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2007, 06:47 AM
 
The USS Cole attack, according to mainstream international relations theory, is borderline terrorism. The victims were not civilians, which is one of the 4 main ingredients of terrorism, that it has to be against civilians.

So in some ways the USS Cole attack was terrorism, but its missing one crucial component of that definition and thus is not a terrorist attack and thus whoever conspired in the plot is NOT a terrorist in any way shape or form.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2007, 10:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by macintologist View Post
So in some ways the USS Cole attack was terrorism, but its missing one crucial component of that definition and thus is not a terrorist attack and thus whoever conspired in the plot is NOT a terrorist in any way shape or form.
Well, no...

The attack on the Cole may not have been a terrorist act, but if the people who committed it also committed other terrorist acts then they're still terrorists. So it's entirely possible that some of the people who were involved in the attack were terrorists and some weren't.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2007, 01:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by macintologist View Post
The USS Cole attack, according to mainstream international relations theory, is borderline terrorism. The victims were not civilians, which is one of the 4 main ingredients of terrorism, that it has to be against civilians.
The term often used is non-combatant.

I'd argue that logically speaking, some sailor who does a job in the hold of a ship not involved in any way in any current combat, is in a nation that his nation isn't at war with, during peacetime, is at the time of an attack like the Cole, a non-combatant.

The US definition is:
…activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and… (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States… [or]… (C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States…

The EU:
... terrorist offences are certain criminal offences set out in a list comprised largely of serious offences against persons and property which;
...given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or an international organisation where committed with the aim of: seriously intimidating a population; or unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act; or seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation.

There are many different definitions, but I don't see anything where an attack like the Cole isn't considered terrorism.

The definition seems to revolve largely around what the GOAL of the attack is, not strictly who or what was attacked.
     
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2007, 01:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
Well, no...

The attack on the Cole may not have been a terrorist act, but if the people who committed it also committed other terrorist acts then they're still terrorists. So it's entirely possible that some of the people who were involved in the attack were terrorists and some weren't.
Right, but they would be terrorists coincidentally to their activity in the Cole attack. As far as I can see, an attack on a warship of a country that has declared itself to be engaged in a global war is an act of military aggression. Now, because they were not wearing uniforms, it is most likely a guerilla attack, but I fail to see how this fits the characteristics of a terrorist attack, except in the sense of "anything the US doesn't like is terrorism".
     
macintologist
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Smallish town in Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2007, 01:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
Right, but they would be terrorists coincidentally to their activity in the Cole attack. As far as I can see, an attack on a warship of a country that has declared itself to be engaged in a global war is an act of military aggression. Now, because they were not wearing uniforms, it is most likely a guerilla attack, but I fail to see how this fits the characteristics of a terrorist attack, except in the sense of "anything the US doesn't like is terrorism".
Precisely. Guerilla warfare and terrorism are not mutually inclusive, or else American revolutionary fighters were terrorists.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2007, 02:03 PM
 
The USS Cole attack occurred in 2000. There was no declared "global war on terror" at that time (as if that was even a valid excuse to begin with.)

It might help to actually pay attention to the timeline of what's being discussed.
     
black bear theory
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairbanks AK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2007, 07:35 PM
 
prior to the cole bombing, there were two bombings in 1998 against american embassies in africa, and in response, the US retaliation, infinite reach. while obviously a gov't target, the net effect was that many civilians were killed in the attacks. i think they fit under the terrorist label quite well.

i think the rhetoric by the US that yemen is "an important partner in the global war on terrorism" is simply that. yemen's president is more concerned with his own neck, than going out of his way to help the US. but this can be said about just about any of the middle eastern gov'ts.
Earth First! we'll mine the other planets later.
     
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 29, 2007, 05:40 PM
 
I agree that attacking civilian administrators and diplomats looks more like terrorism. A warship though, is a different matter.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2007, 08:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
Just a small point, how is this guy a terrorist? He attacked a military target.
Because he is a Sr. member of a terrorist group Al Qaeda. It's really quite simple.
The USS Cole was not an "occupying" war ship. This ship was bombed within a US Naval Base and refueling station. i.e. US Territory.

The act was clearly one of terrorism. Jamal al-Badawi knew it. Ignorance justifies it in some very odd ways.
ebuddy
     
ctt1wbw
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Suffolk, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2007, 10:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
I agree that attacking civilian administrators and diplomats looks more like terrorism. A warship though, is a different matter.
Unless you're on that ship. He's still a terrorist though, just because he attacked a military target doesn't make it okay.
     
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2007, 12:49 PM
 
Well I'm not saying that I approve of it, just that attacking warships is not the same thing as attacking civilians.
     
ctt1wbw
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Suffolk, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2007, 01:26 PM
 
Okay, what's the difference between the Japanese Imperial Navy attacking ships at Pearl Harbor and what this guy did to the Cole?
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2007, 01:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by ctt1wbw View Post
Okay, what's the difference between the Japanese Imperial Navy attacking ships at Pearl Harbor and what this guy did to the Cole?
Preemptive strike. The Japanese couldn't afford to have America enter the war. It was also a collective decision by a nation, not by a terrorist group.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2007, 02:12 PM
 
Well, those are differences, for sure, but so what? What are the moral consequences of those differences? Are there any?
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2007, 02:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
Well, those are differences, for sure, but so what? What are the moral consequences of those differences? Are there any?
They were trying to ensure that their way of life was the only way of life. You know, like how Democracy is the only way to go; so we invade Iraq.

It's only good or bad depending on if you're a citizen of that nation. The Japanese didn't have Manifest Destiny, so they couldn't claim that the Four Winds told them that it was their religious right to attack America.

The moral consequences are a matter of perspective.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2007, 06:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by ctt1wbw View Post
Okay, what's the difference between the Japanese Imperial Navy attacking ships at Pearl Harbor and what this guy did to the Cole?
Japan declared war afterwards, that's a difference
     
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2007, 07:52 PM
 
So what is the importance of the declaration? How does that affect the fact that the US never declared war in Korea or Vietnam, or many other violent conflicta?
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:33 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,