"Of course, it's clear to any fair reader that, by calling them soldiers in a war, Dean is saying that members of Hamas are particularly dangerous."
And also: they should expect to get killed, and nobody should be crying much when Israel shoots missiles at them. Which is actually a more "hawkish" position than any US government has ever taken -- even Bush sometimes condemns the so-called "targetted killings" -- and not one that I can (or want to) defend, if that's what he really means.
So it's a smear that's very confusing, and especially dishonest, because Drudge is smearing Dean as too soft on Hamas, when Dean's actual meaning appears to be that others have been too hard on Sharon.
I'm being pretty hard on Dean myself -- I hope and believe that as President his policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be Clinton's policy of honestly brokered engagement. And that he would just as unhappy about Israeli helicopters firing on populated areas, and Israel pursuing policy by assassination, as I think a person should be.
My excuse for not giving him the benefit of the doubt is that I'm ticked off at how poorly he and his staff are handling these questions. For once, they are losing the media war, and I'm not happy about what that portends for the Dean campaign's ability to stand up to the Rove machine.
I can't really agree on this. First, Dean has to act with the skills of a front-runner to be a front-runner, and that includes not saying things -- especially not repeatedly saying things, on the same subject -- that will obviously going to get you into trouble, at best. Which this, and other of his statements on the Mideast has and have, for good reason.
Calling Hamas suicide bombers "soldiers" is a major placing of the lower limb extremis in mouth.
Soldiers who slaughter babies, teenagers, and random civilians, in discos, pizza shops, and buses, are considered, at best, "war criminals," which is really the kindest term Dean, or anyone, could legitimately call these people. Calling them "soldiers" grants them legitimacy in a status they are simply not, by any acknowledged definition, entitled to. They are not in uniform, they do not follow any of the Geneva Conventions, they do not meet any standard in international law of "soldiers." They just don't. This is not ambiguous; there are quite clear and well-known legal standards to be met. They can only be called "soldiers" in, at best, a metaphoric way, and doing so is, indeed, granting them a non-metaphoric, unentitled, highly offensive, status.
It's another example of False Mirror Analogy. Calling Dean on this both on its merits, and on his political clumsiness, is, in my opinion, one hundred percent legitimate.
Dean has quite a ways to go on foreign policy, military policy, and Mideast policy, before I could be at all comfortable voting for him. Alas. He appears to know very little indeed about the Israeli-Palestinian-Arab situation, and has approached it with a typically American "we just need to split the differences and get both unreasonable sides to get along" attitude. This is, to say the least, lacking nuance. (Note that I am scarcely saying that Israel cannot be criticized or pressured or lacks any fault; nothing of the kind.)
Soldiers who slaughter babies, teenagers, and random civilians, in discos, pizza shops, and buses, are considered, at best, "war criminals," which is really the kindest term Dean, or anyone, could legitimately call these people. Calling them "soldiers" grants them legitimacy in a status they are simply not, by any acknowledged definition, entitled to.""
What acknowledged definition? That seems to me to be a great definition of the vast majority of soldiers throughout history. I think you object to what has become our idea of the "new soldier." The civilized, polite soldier. Yet, don't fool yourself, our soldiers are still baby-killers, by necessity if not by choice. You think most of the people killed in the Iraq wars were Iraqi soldiers? No, they were civilians. Sometimes mothers and children. Sometimes people at work or at home in their beds. Soldiers seems to me to be a great definition for Hamas. Further, would we want it any other way? The more we think of being a soldier as being a "nice" occupation, the more we sanitize the image but not the reality, the more acceptible it becomes to wage war. There seems to be a mass PR capmaing to do just the opposite, to clean the image of "soldiers" and the image of "war" so that those in charge find they can wage war more often.
Ok, you guys have convinced me that it was a poor choice of words, but I'm still inclined to believe that what Dean meant is what jhp lays out. Do you think Dean meant something else?
I don't know whether to politely give URLs, or call the questioner a fucking idiot who can't use google after having the Geneva Conventions cited. I suppose you, the reader, can make your own call. I suppose I could be more polite. I also suppose that people who can't type "Geneva Conventions" into Google are also, um, very handicapped.
As for what Dean meant, I think he continues to present himself as someone who is utterly clueless as to the history of Israel/Palestiine. I'd love to learn otherwhise. I'd like to vote for Dean. I can't until he shows himself to be less of an idiot on this subject, and in international affairs in general. So far, he's acting and speaking like endless folks I knew in the Seventies. International idiots.
Perhaps we would do best to not simply accept what others, for their own reasons, tell us but what we read historically? I really don't care what the Governments say what war is and what soldiers are, I'm more interested in what reality tells me they are, and in the reasons why there is a difference between actuality and official definitions. If you want to simply accept what they tell you a soldiers is, and think it's the truth, that's your right.
Secondly, I did as you suggested and brought up several full texts of the Geneva Convention. Searched for "soldier" "combatant" and "terrorism." Didn't find any definitions. I'm not going to read through it all, but if you want to show me the definition, I would be interested.
I did look up the definition on dictionary.com and, number 3 reads "An active, loyal, or militant follower of an organization" So, if you need a defined before you believe it's real, there it is. That description fits Hamas.
And if you support Dean, you'd be interested in this (http://www.busybusybusy.com/b3_arc_03_0908.shtml#September112003900PM) where there's a lengthier transcript.
Lastly, fyi, there's no need for personal insults.
I might be opening myself up to being called a fucking idiot, but I don't think Dean's statement demonstrates him to be "utterly clueless as to the history of Israel/Palestine".
Let me try to understand your argument. Are you saying that Dean believes that Hamas terrorists are literal soldiers in a literal army, and we can therefore conclude that he misunderstands the nature of Hamas?
That's not a compelling argument. A) That interpretation of what Dean said is neither the only nor the most reasonable interpretation. B) Disregarding the text of the statement, it's just plain hard to believe that Dean has such fundamental misconceptions about Hamas. If you're right, then I'd agree with you that he is, er, an idiot. But we need much more evidence before we come to that conclusion.
-Magik
PS, I pride myself on being Unfogged's resident bomb-thrower, but even I was put off by the fucking idiot comment.
Addenum, I think my whole point is that the designation of a"terrorist" rather than "soldier" is arbitrary, it's a PR move. The actual differences between the two? There is no universal definition of what a soldier is that can be both inclusive of all soldiers and exclusive of all terrorists. The contrary, about defining terroritsts, is also true. The best that can be said, if we are to fit definitions to rhetoric, are that soldiers are the establishment, and terrorists are revolutionists. Of course, this definition does not define a difference in actions between the two. And it doesn't apply to revolutionists we like, who are called "rebels," not terrorists. "Terrorist" rather than representing any real substantive, is a moral pejorative with no actual basis. So, basically, Fox, Drudge, and CNN are trying to hit Dean for not villifying them appropriately, I guess. As if people fighting for an established country are a priori better than those fighting for a political organization? That, I think we can all agree, is a ridiculous statement. My real worry is that a term like "terrorist" which doesn't have its own definition, distinct from others, is tossed around too much, it's a one-size-fits-all label thrown at groups to justify certain attitudes and actions taken against them. It's the "they're terrorists, and terrorists are all evil" argument. Hardly an argument when the term it hinges on is indefinite. The only thing the term "terrorist" tells me is that the person speaking doesn't like the people he's talking about.
... basically, Fox, Drudge, and CNN are trying to hit Dean for not villifying them appropriately, I guess.
That sounds right on.
"Terrorist" rather than representing any real substantive, is a moral pejorative with no actual basis.
That does not. The definition of "terrorist" is fuzzy, to be sure. But there is a difference between a Viet Cong fighter attacking US troops and an al Qaeda trainee piloting a 767 into a building full of civilians. There are many ways for a people, feeling itself oppressed, to fight back. They can resist through non-violent means; they can resist by attacking the agents directly effecting their claimed oppression; and they can attack innocents remotely linked to their enemy but not directly involved. These are meaningful distinctions, and it is injustice to deny them.
Yeah, that Drudge headline confused the crap out of me. Until I remembered, "Oh yeah. It's Drudge."
Posted by freakgirl | Link to this comment | 09-12-03 12:47 PM
"Of course, it's clear to any fair reader that, by calling them soldiers in a war, Dean is saying that members of Hamas are particularly dangerous."
And also: they should expect to get killed, and nobody should be crying much when Israel shoots missiles at them. Which is actually a more "hawkish" position than any US government has ever taken -- even Bush sometimes condemns the so-called "targetted killings" -- and not one that I can (or want to) defend, if that's what he really means.
So it's a smear that's very confusing, and especially dishonest, because Drudge is smearing Dean as too soft on Hamas, when Dean's actual meaning appears to be that others have been too hard on Sharon.
I'm being pretty hard on Dean myself -- I hope and believe that as President his policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be Clinton's policy of honestly brokered engagement. And that he would just as unhappy about Israeli helicopters firing on populated areas, and Israel pursuing policy by assassination, as I think a person should be.
My excuse for not giving him the benefit of the doubt is that I'm ticked off at how poorly he and his staff are handling these questions. For once, they are losing the media war, and I'm not happy about what that portends for the Dean campaign's ability to stand up to the Rove machine.
Posted by jhp | Link to this comment | 09-12-03 1:11 PM
I can't really agree on this. First, Dean has to act with the skills of a front-runner to be a front-runner, and that includes not saying things -- especially not repeatedly saying things, on the same subject -- that will obviously going to get you into trouble, at best. Which this, and other of his statements on the Mideast has and have, for good reason.
Calling Hamas suicide bombers "soldiers" is a major placing of the lower limb extremis in mouth.
Soldiers who slaughter babies, teenagers, and random civilians, in discos, pizza shops, and buses, are considered, at best, "war criminals," which is really the kindest term Dean, or anyone, could legitimately call these people. Calling them "soldiers" grants them legitimacy in a status they are simply not, by any acknowledged definition, entitled to. They are not in uniform, they do not follow any of the Geneva Conventions, they do not meet any standard in international law of "soldiers." They just don't. This is not ambiguous; there are quite clear and well-known legal standards to be met. They can only be called "soldiers" in, at best, a metaphoric way, and doing so is, indeed, granting them a non-metaphoric, unentitled, highly offensive, status.
It's another example of False Mirror Analogy. Calling Dean on this both on its merits, and on his political clumsiness, is, in my opinion, one hundred percent legitimate.
Dean has quite a ways to go on foreign policy, military policy, and Mideast policy, before I could be at all comfortable voting for him. Alas. He appears to know very little indeed about the Israeli-Palestinian-Arab situation, and has approached it with a typically American "we just need to split the differences and get both unreasonable sides to get along" attitude. This is, to say the least, lacking nuance. (Note that I am scarcely saying that Israel cannot be criticized or pressured or lacks any fault; nothing of the kind.)
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 09-12-03 5:03 PM
There's a war going on in the Middle East, and members of Hamas are terrorists in that war.
That just doesn't sound right.
Posted by rps | Link to this comment | 09-13-03 2:59 PM
Soldiers who slaughter babies, teenagers, and random civilians, in discos, pizza shops, and buses, are considered, at best, "war criminals," which is really the kindest term Dean, or anyone, could legitimately call these people. Calling them "soldiers" grants them legitimacy in a status they are simply not, by any acknowledged definition, entitled to.""
What acknowledged definition? That seems to me to be a great definition of the vast majority of soldiers throughout history. I think you object to what has become our idea of the "new soldier." The civilized, polite soldier. Yet, don't fool yourself, our soldiers are still baby-killers, by necessity if not by choice. You think most of the people killed in the Iraq wars were Iraqi soldiers? No, they were civilians. Sometimes mothers and children. Sometimes people at work or at home in their beds. Soldiers seems to me to be a great definition for Hamas. Further, would we want it any other way? The more we think of being a soldier as being a "nice" occupation, the more we sanitize the image but not the reality, the more acceptible it becomes to wage war. There seems to be a mass PR capmaing to do just the opposite, to clean the image of "soldiers" and the image of "war" so that those in charge find they can wage war more often.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 09-13-03 5:18 PM
Ok, you guys have convinced me that it was a poor choice of words, but I'm still inclined to believe that what Dean meant is what jhp lays out. Do you think Dean meant something else?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09-14-03 12:59 AM
"What acknowledged definition?"
I don't know whether to politely give URLs, or call the questioner a fucking idiot who can't use google after having the Geneva Conventions cited. I suppose you, the reader, can make your own call. I suppose I could be more polite. I also suppose that people who can't type "Geneva Conventions" into Google are also, um, very handicapped.
As for what Dean meant, I think he continues to present himself as someone who is utterly clueless as to the history of Israel/Palestiine. I'd love to learn otherwhise. I'd like to vote for Dean. I can't until he shows himself to be less of an idiot on this subject, and in international affairs in general. So far, he's acting and speaking like endless folks I knew in the Seventies. International idiots.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 09-14-03 10:35 AM
Perhaps we would do best to not simply accept what others, for their own reasons, tell us but what we read historically? I really don't care what the Governments say what war is and what soldiers are, I'm more interested in what reality tells me they are, and in the reasons why there is a difference between actuality and official definitions. If you want to simply accept what they tell you a soldiers is, and think it's the truth, that's your right.
Secondly, I did as you suggested and brought up several full texts of the Geneva Convention. Searched for "soldier" "combatant" and "terrorism." Didn't find any definitions. I'm not going to read through it all, but if you want to show me the definition, I would be interested.
I did look up the definition on dictionary.com and, number 3 reads "An active, loyal, or militant follower of an organization" So, if you need a defined before you believe it's real, there it is. That description fits Hamas.
And if you support Dean, you'd be interested in this (http://www.busybusybusy.com/b3_arc_03_0908.shtml#September112003900PM) where there's a lengthier transcript.
Lastly, fyi, there's no need for personal insults.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 09-14-03 12:39 PM
Gary,
I might be opening myself up to being called a fucking idiot, but I don't think Dean's statement demonstrates him to be "utterly clueless as to the history of Israel/Palestine".
Let me try to understand your argument. Are you saying that Dean believes that Hamas terrorists are literal soldiers in a literal army, and we can therefore conclude that he misunderstands the nature of Hamas?
That's not a compelling argument. A) That interpretation of what Dean said is neither the only nor the most reasonable interpretation. B) Disregarding the text of the statement, it's just plain hard to believe that Dean has such fundamental misconceptions about Hamas. If you're right, then I'd agree with you that he is, er, an idiot. But we need much more evidence before we come to that conclusion.
-Magik
PS, I pride myself on being Unfogged's resident bomb-thrower, but even I was put off by the fucking idiot comment.
Posted by Magik | Link to this comment | 09-14-03 12:57 PM
Addenum, I think my whole point is that the designation of a"terrorist" rather than "soldier" is arbitrary, it's a PR move. The actual differences between the two? There is no universal definition of what a soldier is that can be both inclusive of all soldiers and exclusive of all terrorists. The contrary, about defining terroritsts, is also true. The best that can be said, if we are to fit definitions to rhetoric, are that soldiers are the establishment, and terrorists are revolutionists. Of course, this definition does not define a difference in actions between the two. And it doesn't apply to revolutionists we like, who are called "rebels," not terrorists. "Terrorist" rather than representing any real substantive, is a moral pejorative with no actual basis. So, basically, Fox, Drudge, and CNN are trying to hit Dean for not villifying them appropriately, I guess. As if people fighting for an established country are a priori better than those fighting for a political organization? That, I think we can all agree, is a ridiculous statement. My real worry is that a term like "terrorist" which doesn't have its own definition, distinct from others, is tossed around too much, it's a one-size-fits-all label thrown at groups to justify certain attitudes and actions taken against them. It's the "they're terrorists, and terrorists are all evil" argument. Hardly an argument when the term it hinges on is indefinite. The only thing the term "terrorist" tells me is that the person speaking doesn't like the people he's talking about.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 09-14-03 1:10 PM
... basically, Fox, Drudge, and CNN are trying to hit Dean for not villifying them appropriately, I guess.
That sounds right on.
"Terrorist" rather than representing any real substantive, is a moral pejorative with no actual basis.
That does not. The definition of "terrorist" is fuzzy, to be sure. But there is a difference between a Viet Cong fighter attacking US troops and an al Qaeda trainee piloting a 767 into a building full of civilians. There are many ways for a people, feeling itself oppressed, to fight back. They can resist through non-violent means; they can resist by attacking the agents directly effecting their claimed oppression; and they can attack innocents remotely linked to their enemy but not directly involved. These are meaningful distinctions, and it is injustice to deny them.
-Magik
Posted by Magik | Link to this comment | 09-14-03 4:36 PM