Green Mountain Code Pink


Mohiyi Mir - Mobile Version!


A happily-betrothed, non-violent, counter-dominant, left-liberal, independent, vulgar, possibly charismatic, not entirely insufferable, quasi anarcho-libertarian Quaker daddy who is rather full of himself shares his self-righteous take on parenthood, photography, politics and other esoterica.

Lo alecha ha-m'lacha ligmor, v'lo atah ben chorin l'hibateyl mimenah.

Search Dohiyi Mir:
 
google.com

Recent Comments


The Liberal Coalition

The Free Republic of Vermont

Atriots

Destined for Gitmo

« Deathwatch Update | Main | Tour de 2006 »

Thursday, November 10, 2005

The New Central Front On Terror

Jordan:

Al Qaeda in Iraq, a group led by wanted militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, is claiming responsibility for three suicide bombings in hotels in Amman, Jordan, according to a posting on a Web site today. At least 56 people were killed in the attacks at the Grand Hyatt, Radisson and Days Inn hotels.

Now we're fighting them so we don't have to fight them in Iraq so we don't have to fight them in New York?

Well, Bush was right about one thing: whatever we do in Iraq will spread across the greater Middle East.  Too bad we're spreading our clusterfuck around...

ntodd

November 10, 2005 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c525c53ef00d8345fc2f253ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The New Central Front On Terror:

Comments

Pardon the OT comment, but I saw yr question over @ Atrios:

But can somebody help me out? Is [white phosphorus] the basis for charges of the US employing chemical weapons? It seems rather tenuous.

I wanted to say I agree with you, but the Atrios comment thread was already insanely long, so I decided to answer you over here.

Incendiary weapons like WP and napalm are clearly horrible ways to kill people (not that there are any good ways, but I'd rank these among the worst), and as I understand it, in '80 the US ratified a convention that severely restricts their use (a probable reaction to their abuse in 'Nam). The latest allegations are that we violated that convention in Fallujah.

But calling them "chemical weapons" stretches things a bit too far, IMO. Chemical weapons are poisons. WP, in contrast, kills by burning, not by poisoning.

I suppose one could argue that the effects of WP are similar to the effects of certain chemical weapons, such as mustard gas. But WP isn't covered by any of the anti-chemical-weapons international treaties, such as the Chemical Weapons Convention.

It may seem like nit-picking, but I think we war critics should be very precise when we accuse the military of wrongdoing, which is bad enough without our gilding the lily, so to speak. Carelessly throwing around phrases like "chemical weapons" hurts our credibility.

Posted by: Mathwiz | Nov 10, 2005 11:02:08 AM

Post a comment