the outcome of the election

[Lord_Olf]

Hail eppie,

Well they got the guy who did it, more or less directly, he is a muslim extremist, had a higher than average education and had a dutch and a marokan passport.

...
They get influenced by religious leaders who tell them that the europeans disrespect islam etc.etc.
...
If they get told to chose a side, they chose the side of the islam, and if they are also told that they other side is the enemy crazy things can happen.
[right][snapback]59728[/snapback][/right]

I was pretty sure they got him, thanks for that piece of information.

On the other part: That is more or less my point. Why is it so easy to talk people into doing something that is "wrong" by just saying "It's the will of Allah"?

Granted, this may well be comprehendable in a country where there is a lot of illiteracy and a strict regime in control of the media. Throw in economic problems, and I sure see your point.

But Theo van Goghs murderer was, as you say, someone with a higher education living in a country with a free press, living a relatively nice life (I assume, but I think it's fair to think so). And somehow, I just don't buy the "one dysfunctional being" any more lately, seeing that this guy got more or less open support from his peers. You're right, it's "just" one murder, "just" one person dead (better than, say, bombing his paper's office rooms and killing a lot more), but why the heck is it that people so readily step over a line? Why is it so easy to motivate a person into doing this, just saying "europeans disrespect islam"?

I mean, it's not like saying "Europeans are about to round up Moslems and put them in concentration camps", it's probably not even disrespect, just criticism. If one critizes me, and I don't see the point, I just let him or her carry on talking and go away, I wouldn't start about hurting or killing that person. But among too many people of islamic faith, that seems to be an acceptable response, and that is what I just don't get. It sometimes seems to me like a return to the crusades, fighting for your religion and against another, but maybe I just don't get it because I'm not a religious person.

And, sorry for the thread hijacking...

Take care,

Lord_Olf

[Tommi]

Uh, are people talking here seriously about killing children? Quite disgusting.

[Occhidiangela]

Here's a nickel, rent a clue.

Currently, there's such an immense amount of anti-American resentment and open hatred being built throughout the Arab world that you will, tragically I fear, suffer for generations from it.


Pardon me, but we have been dealing with this Arab antipathy since about 1972, where have you been? Or 1979, pick your seminal event.

In a recent "Internet-Fatwa"

Wahadi sect has been staunchly reactionary since . . . the Saud Family chose to ally with them in their bid for power. How is this news? Same crap, different, day, and I will make two points that you, and many others, seem to have missed.

1. 1973, King of Saudi Arabia major leader in the OPEC Oil Embargo versus US. That is economic warfare of the sort that we had inflicted on Japan 1940ish, due to their war of aggression in China. Our only friend in the PG that I can recall was the Shah of Iran. We have a bunch of mutually usefull arrangements with a number of Gulf States, but no friends. Can you, or anyone in America, understand that? We had a mutually useful alliance with the USSR versus Third Reich, but we were not friends.

2. Allies of convenience, at best, still at odds with one another over Isreal, and any number of other things, to include such domestic issues as Womens' Rights. If you bothered to talk to the average Arab in 1991, the world view of a number was "when we needed their help, Allah provided for America to help us. He will do so again if we ever need them again. Until then, they can just go home, thank you very much."

The policy problems in that arena were exacerbated by the attempt to use Saudi Arabia as a major base, post Gulf War, with the follow on irritation the resulted. This was ALL pre 9-11. But I guess you weren't paying attention until the Iraq War, right?

The Saudis have never been our friends. We have been usefully mutual to one another, at best. All the political smokescreens on that score are just that, PR releases for the ignorant. Looks like a lot of folks swallowed it hook line and sinker.



Again, this coming from Saudi Arabia, your most important ally in the Gulf...

Old News. We left their turf thanks to their generally antipathy towards America. Ask an soldier who was in the desert 90-91 about simple things, like fake Christmas trees and magazines. Not our friends.

Also, security in an arabic country is not improved by bashing down people's doors, storming their houses at night, shouting swear words at them in English and treating the men like dirt in view of their women and family.

Nor in any country, yours included. Nor is security improved internally by turning a blind eye towards decapitators and thugs, or anarchists and fraud "clerics" like young Mr Sadr. Culturally, however, most Arabs understand that message far more clearly than the mixed signals they get from the West, to include the US.

a potential 100.000 civilian deaths

Based on what math? And, is a criminal family considered a civilian? What do you really know about what is going on in Iraq, on the ground? Not much, it seems to me.

you're dealing with people who, historically, are quite used to holding a grudge not for years but for

Yep, we concur completely. That did not start with 1948, however, its been going on since, as near as I can figure, about the time of the great Schism in Islam that started with the death of the Prophet. Nothing new under the hot, arabian sun on that score.

I can personally understand EVERY government that does not want to be drawn into the quagmire you created...

Right. Failure to present a United Front sent Saddam the signal that he could once again work between the seams and pull off yet another nose thumbing versus "The Western Powers." France, Germany, and USSR, by publically splitting with the US/UK on this guaranteed that multilateral pressure would not work. (That does not excuse the decision to go into Iraq, however, it was one of many contributing factors.)

No, the Iraqi situation is there and is gonna stay there, but the real problem is that THIS time (unlike during the cold war and the perceived communist threat) there might be an actual "domino effect", and that the first stones have already toppled.

That the US invasion was a catalyst to further polarization among moderate Arabs and old schoolers is probably true. That was a risk of the course of action taken.


Fundamentalist and extremist movements are currently gaining support and momentum in Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Jemen, Jordan, Sudan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, even Turkey (NATO member!) and probably a dozen other countries that don't come to mind right now. Tragic thing is, in some of those countries they were actually dwindling prior to King George II's recruitment campaign.

You might recall that in Turkey, in the late 1990's, a Muslim Party prime minister was able to achieve the Prime Minister's seat. That did not last long. Consider why his coalition fell apart.

PS: The Phillipines is on that list as well. Malaysia's PM has been, for the past decade or so, unapologetically anti Western.

I think the "nuclear threat" from Iran is currently completely exagerrated while more REAL threats are conveniently ignored. (Btw.: the EU has been negotiating a possible solution to the dilemma for months behind the scenes and I'd wager my money on Europe to be more able to reason with Iranian diplomats than the "Satan America" :P )

Considering that the Theocratic leadership, ( an actually accurate use of that term) of Iran declared war on "The Great Satan" in 1979, I do not find that surprising at all. You all are better appeasers than we have ever been, over in Europe.

But here's a probably much more severe threat:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/

Frightening side note: Abdul Qadeer Khan, long-time head of the Pakistani nuclear program is also an avid and outspoken admirer of Usama bin Ladin...
No argument from me that the Pakistani development of nukes is, no matter how I slice it, a bad thing. No upside. But those folks have shown that they can, at the moment, be worked with, even if at a glacial pace.

However, threat includes more than capability, it includes intention. Depending on the government in power, that is a real toss up. A RISK.

Of course it would help a TON, if US involvement in these negotiations were not always perceived as being so completely biased towards the Israeli side. (I do admit, that only some bias is real and some merely perceived, but again in the Arab world perception can be as -if not more - problematic!)

Too bad you feel that way, the US, and for that matter, the USSR who beat us to it, made a policy decision in 1948 to help appease Western Guilt over the holocaust, to support the existance of Israel as a sovereign nation. Until we change that policy, Arabs will be irritated with us, as their general policy is to drive the Jews into the sea. Gee, does that sound like ethnic cleansing to you? It does to me.

Perhaps, simply stopping the dull "Auto-Veto" against every single UN resolution that would criticize Israel would be a first step...

For example, most UN resolutions require BOTH sides to work toward a solution, if one bothers to read the fine print. Those resolutions tend to get more support. See the policy above. Or would you rather Israel were dissolved? The good UN giveth and the good UN taketh away. Is that your preference?

Prior to 9/11 there were a few thousand radicals in the islamic world hating the west with such an intense determination that they were ready to die killing "infidels". Today, there's probably hundreds of thousands and MILLIONS of sympathizers.

False. There were millions of sympathizers before 9-11. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the shadow money cropped up at the USS Cole, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing attempt, Khobar Towers, in Beirut . . . drop the soda straw. That there may be more willing recruits I won'd argue with, they've been funneling into Fallujah, Karbala, Al Amara etc for some time now.

People like Bin Ladin and radical islamists in many other countries hate us not for things the Europeans have NOT done but for what the US has done. Supporting Israel, bombing Beirut, toppling the Iranian Government and bringing Shah Reza Pahlavi back, the first Gulf war, the support for the Saudi and Kuwaiti royal families (all while claiming to bring freedom and democracy to the region <_< ) and countless other blunders of the "Oil must flow" age...

I see, it is a crime against humanity to support Israel. Once again, we see deep seated European anti Semitism at work, even when it is not obvious to the player involved. (If you want to throw rocks, be prepared to accept a few in return.) So, how do you feel about the Islamic goal to undo the Reconquista in Spain? Check out some of the Islamicist rhetoric on that score. It's spooky.

Whatever we do, creating more hatred CANNOT end terrorism, and waging war on weakness cannot work.

Adding to the world's hate and discontent is certainly not a great way to head toward a more peaceful world, no question. That takes two parties, willing to negotiate, to resolve. Gee, last I checked, the Islamicists have not been willing to negotiate, but have been willing to hide behind the skirts of their women. That makes working toward a win win, or at least "good enough" situation pretty darned difficlut, even for expert statesmen, if there are any left on the planet Earth.

What is "waging war against weakness?" Could you please elaborate on that thought? It's not clicking for me.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

I think the problem is not fundatmentally with islamd but with poverty. There had to come a time that countries (or people) did not agree anymore with the division of rich and poor (1st 2nd 3rd world). The best way to start a revolt is of course to use religion (poor against rich does not work because as soon as a poor man gets rich he switches sides). The fundamentalism was existing for a long time, only did not work so good since most muslims still did not see a reason to hate the west, okay there was Israel..but okay. Now when the conflcit gets fired up from two sides everyhting is possible. We in the rich west were not so smart to see that deep inside religion was not the problem here. Instead we put oil on the fire. You cannot expect the side of the muslims&nbsp; to stop very soon, after Iraq, it will take (like Armin said) 10s of years before you have children there that don't hate us, and they have nothing to lose.

So long story short, religion is not the cause here in this conflict, is it a tool people use to get their way, if we want to end this conflict we should work on major economic reforms. Which means forcing the people in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait etc. to work the way we want. To make sure that there the monet doesn't stay in the hand of some sjeiks (bush friends) but goes to the people. Going to the poorest countries in the region to make trouble started a conflict, it did not end one.
[right][snapback]59719[/snapback][/right]

If you compare yourself to your richer neighbor and envy his wealth you can either choose to work harder to match his wealth or burn down his house. There are three problems here, first the disparity, second the envy, and third the solution.

The rich west was not always so rich, and it became rich sometimes on the backs of slaves, but also through hard work and industrialism. The US is one of the wealthiest nations in the world and merely a few hundred years old. This wealth was built, sometimes unscrupulously, but by and large it was built by hard work.

For the Netherlands, you can look to diamonds, and the exploitation of Africa and Africans. The oil rich gulf states are not poor nations, but their rulers impose poverty, enslavement, and malaise upon their subjects. What WE need to do is back the side of morality and freedom, rather than proping up the despots.

I agree that devious old men are twisting islam to mold young boys into weapons. The children in Iraq don't hate unless they are taught to hate, and rather than ask "What did we do to deserve this?", we need to stand behind our moral conviction that we are defeating despotism in Iraq, and soon Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Yeman, UAE, etc. The time has come for us to stop being tolerant of the anachronistic feudal systems that have perpetuated in the middle east, as they have become an obstacle to a peaceful and prosperous world.

[Ashock]

Uh, are people talking here seriously about killing children? Quite disgusting.
[right][snapback]59737[/snapback][/right]

I was not serious, but the Islamo-Fascists are.... or maybe you forgot the russian school already?


-A

[Armin]

The Saudis have never been our friends. 
[right][snapback]59745[/snapback][/right]

Never claimed otherwise. Said "most important allies"... and probably implied "big business partners" (after all, they own 6-8% of the US economy)

a potential 100.000 civilian deaths

Based on what math?

On the math in the lancet article I quoted in an earlier post. And as I have no ways of checking those numbers I said "potential". One can only hope that the statistics of those Johns Hopkins doctors are skewed...
(well, ok... my general trust in M.D.s doing proper statistics is... not limitless :P )

Right.  Failure to present a United Front sent Saddam the signal that he could once again work between the seams and pull off yet another nose thumbing versus "The Western Powers."  France, Germany, and USSR, by publically splitting with the US/UK on this guaranteed that multilateral pressure would not work.  (That does not excuse the decision to go into Iraq, however, it was one of many contributing factors.)

There was never a fundamental disagreement on disarming Iraq, just on the means used to do so. We wanted to keep using UN inspectors, the US and British were determined to go to war.
And the one thing shown in hindsight was that the UN weapon inspections HAD worked. Or were any WMD's found left in Iraq?

PS:  The Phillipines is on that list as well.  Malaysia's PM has been, for the past decade or so, unapologetically anti Western. 

Yep, I know. the Phillipine and Malaysian rebel groups have gained a lot of publicity here when they kidnapped a group of tourists, among them 3 Germans in 2000.

I see, it is a crime against humanity to support Israel. 

BS. But it's a liability to continuously turn a blind eye to their treatment of Palestinians or to their situation in the refugee camps. Things that a significant faction of *Israeli* citizens criticize, btw..

Once again, we see deep seated European anti Semitism at work,

I won't even coment on that...

So, how do you feel about the Islamic goal to undo the Reconquista in Spain?  Check out some of the Islamicist rhetoric on that score.  It's spooky.

Oh, I LOVE Arab rhetorics. In fact I practised some of it as I played an Arab Sorcerer in a GURPS Fantasy campaign a few years ago. No one flourishes threats better and exaggerates more. I'd take those with a pound of salt ;)
Oh, and I DID bury the streets under the ashes of my enemies in that campaign... :P

Gee, last I checked, the Islamicists have not been willing to negotiate,

It's not the crazy fanatics that should be negotiated with, but governments, political parties, companies and NGOs in the countries they develop in. And yes, those willing to commit criminal acts or acts of terrorism should very much be caught or dealt with, but NOT by the invading the entire country. Well, perhaps with the exception of Afghanistan, where the crazy fanatics had pretty much BEEN the government...
But even there some people claim other solutions might have been possible. I have no way, again, to know if anything in that article is valid:

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html

It's an interesting read though...

What is "waging war against weakness?"  Could you please elaborate on that thought?  It's not clicking for me.   

As I wrote before I find the whole concept of "war on terror" to be, well... absurd. Terrorism is not the means of someone strong and powerful. It's the way of those too weak to hurt you significantly in any other way.
Waging war can achieve to break (military) strength, but how do you break weakness? Bombing them into submission can't work.
Terrorists have no army, air force, navy, no production facilities, and pretty little infrastructure (apart from the occasional training camp). Military might does not make much sense.
Intelligence work, police work, and mainly politics. But all these are long-term and require patience. And might fail, too, but WAR is certain to do.

[Armin]

The oil rich gulf states are not poor nations, but their rulers impose poverty, enslavement, and malaise upon their subjects. What WE need to do is back the side of morality and freedom, rather than proping up the despots.
(...)
The time has come for us to stop being tolerant of the anachronistic feudal systems that have perpetuated in the middle east, as they have become an obstacle to a peaceful and prosperous world.
[right][snapback]59751[/snapback][/right]

Hey, what's happening?

These points I can 100% agree with :P

[Minionman]

I was not serious, but the Islamo-Fascists are.... or maybe you forgot the russian school already?
-A
[right][snapback]59761[/snapback][/right]

There are perfectly good reasons to find terrorists and get rid of them. However, going in with the attitude of getting revenge won't help at all. Yes the muslim world in general seems to hate other religions and the U.S. and Europe in general, and yes it won't go away for a long time if ever. But going in thinking revenge makes it much easier for people do do extra stuff beyond security reasons that adds to the hate. I can see going in for mational security reasons, but revenge is pointless because it doesn't show that the U.S., Europe is any better and in the long run makes it harder to at least reduce some of this hate.

Yes, the world trade center, hostage killings, and school killings were really bad things to do. But I'd much rather head in with the attitude of "we're going to lessen this in the future and keep more people from getting killed, and show the rest of the planet that we're better" instead of "lets go kill some of those freaks".

I'm not sure if Ashock has the attitude I was talking about, it sounded like he sort of did, and I know about people who do, so this was my opinion on it. This paragraph is sort of related to the election so it isn't really off topic.

[Minionman]

The oil rich gulf states are not poor nations, but their rulers impose poverty, enslavement, and malaise upon their subjects. What WE need to do is back the side of morality and freedom, rather than proping up the despots.
(...)
The time has come for us to stop being tolerant of the anachronistic feudal systems that have perpetuated in the middle east, as they have become an obstacle to a peaceful and prosperous world.

Hey, what's happening?

These points I can 100% agree with :P
[right][snapback]59805[/snapback][/right]

That does happen sometimes, strangely enough. :) I agree with this stuff too

Even though the biggest argues tend to be straight one ideology or another, I have read and seen that most people have their own mix of views, so you shouldn't be surprised that you agree on someone about something.

[kandrathe]

...
Yes, the world trade center, hostage killings, and school killings were really bad things to do.&nbsp; But I'd much rather head in with the attitude of "we're going to lessen this in the future and keep more people from&nbsp; getting killed, and show the rest of the planet that we're better" instead of "lets go kill some of those freaks".
...
[right][snapback]59819[/snapback][/right]

Well, sure. Stop the bleeding. Put on a bullet proof vest if you like, but at some point you need to find out where those bullets are coming from and stomp the SOB who's shooting at you.

We don't need to kill them and we can be humane, but I'd be happy if justice was done to those that have commited the most heinous crimes. I still think you need to address the deeper problem of an ideology that convinces people to strap C4 to thier bodies and stroll in to an unsuspecting crowd to detonate themselves. Or, the islamic media that hails a man who just murdered a pregnant woman and her 4 young children as a hero.

[Occhidiangela]

As I wrote before I find the whole concept of "war on terror" to be, well... absurd. Terrorism is not the means of someone strong and powerful. It's the way of those too weak to hurt you significantly in any other way.

Exactly, it is war. It is the use of force, or the threat of force and bloodshed to achieve a political end. What an extranational organization wages, when it uses terror as a tool, is called assymetrical warfare as it relates to conventional warfare of armies in the field: but it is warfare nonetheless. That perspective makes oatmeal out of your next point.

Waging war can achieve to break (military) strength, but how do you break weakness? Bombing them into submission can't work.

You are not breaking weakness, you are seeking to find and destroy your enemy in a war. That said, you and I agree, for completely different reasons, mine being an abhorence with US and NATO Air Force doctrine, that "bombing them into submission" does not generally work, though some will argue that the attack on the Serbs seems to have almost pulled it off.

Terrorists have no army, air force, navy, no production facilities, and pretty little infrastructure (apart from the occasional training camp). Military might does not make much sense.

Incorrect.

First of all, their foot soldiers are their army, their suicide bombers, their AK-47 and RPG weilding twits, their car bombers, their suicide bombers, their IED weilding technicals. Their financial backers are their economy. Many of these folks, the financial backers, are wealthy via any number of means, whose sympathies lie for whatever reasons with the terrorists. See my previous post.

The terrorist is fortunate in having little to protect in infrastructure, keeps costs down, other than the infamous "training camps." That they have no land to defend leaves them free to engage primarily in offensive warfare, which in this day and age of lethality, has a distinct advantage when one takes the initiative. So, how is it wrong when someone takes the initiative, as the Israelis do, and attacks a terrorist target? Payment in kind, and how the damned war has to be waged when the terrorist hides behinds his woman's skirts.

Military might in isolation makes little sense, yet that is not how this war is being waged. I forgive your misunderstanding since you are outside of the box, but when you assert that the only tool being used versus a terrorist is the military, you are expressing a profound ignorance of how national power is employed.

All you see is the bombs, the planes, and the tanks, apparently. Part of the puzzle.

Those are one of a variety of tools in use. A great deal of a war on terror is, as described by any number of commentators, carried out in the shadows. Another part is in the Information and Propaganda circles.

Intelligence sharing, body snatches, electronic data tracing. When push comes to shove, however, there are as yet few international protocols to wage unlimited multi spectrum warfare, to include financial warfare, against terrorists, since too many "legitimate" persons and organizations have filthy luchre dripping from their fingers. Another topic for another time, that last bit, a peek at the Pandora's box being the corrupt oil for food program in Iraq.

[/quote] Intelligence work, police work, and mainly politics. But all these are long-term and require patience. And might fail, too, but WAR is certain to do.
[/quote]

While I agree with the need to wage a long term, patient campaign, and not to fool one's self into thinking that a "quick little war will solve our problems" you make a gross mistake to attempt to isolate those tools from a full spectrum effort when the war, the attempt to use force to achieve a political end, has been upon us since Munich 1972.

Or don't you get that?

Your assertion that it is "mainly politics" completely ignores that war is a subset of the political spectrum. It is a political act of force. So, if you refer to politics as the mere expenditure of hot air, then you are wrong. All talk and no action is seen by the current opponent as a sign of weakness, and no one respects weakness.

War is politics, by means of force. The avenue of force has been chosen by the Islamicists. The "politics" you refer to depends on parties willing to negotiate. Per your typical European anti Israeli position, it is not negotiation to enter a discussion with "the exitstence of Israel must end" as a non negotiated point. That is a demand, an ultimatum, not a path of negotiation. Funny, we are still paying Egypt 2 billion a year in aid/extortion thanks to a successful negotiation with them in 1979. Sadat knew the difference between an ultimatum and a negotation. You will note that he was murdered by Islamicists for his troubles, for his worldliness, for his adherence to civilized behaviour.

Save some of your venom for the animals who killed two busloads of German tourists in Egypt, a few years back. (87 dead?) They are birds of the same feather that we are dealing with now.

Occhi

[Minionman]

Well, sure.  Stop the bleeding.  Put on a bullet proof vest if you like, but at some point you need to find out where those bullets are coming from and stomp the SOB who's shooting at you.  

We don't need to kill them and we can be humane, but I'd be happy if justice was done to those that have commited the most heinous crimes.  I still think you need to address the deeper problem of an ideology that convinces people to strap C4 to thier bodies and stroll in to an unsuspecting crowd to detonate themselves.  Or, the islamic media that hails a man who just murdered a pregnant woman and her 4 young children as a hero.
[right][snapback]59824[/snapback][/right]

Sure. But going in "for revenge" only doesn't really help that problem. I think of what you're saying about the ideology as part of the "keep more people from getting killed". Bombing country just for revenge and the attitude of "revenge is the most important thing" is what I was talking about.

In your example, I would be perfectly fine with having the person who shot at me in jail, I wouldn't want to shoot them myself and get some extra family members pissed and coming after me. granted, this isn't the best analogy, but it seems to work O.k. for this particular point.

And what do you know, this thread of all things has become another U.S. foreign policy thread.

[Occhidiangela]

Sure.&nbsp; But going in "for revenge" only doesn't really help that problem.&nbsp; I think of what you're saying about the ideology as part of the "keep more people from getting killed".&nbsp; Bombing country just for revenge and the attitude of "revenge is the most important thing" is what I was talking about.

In your example, I would be perfectly fine with having the person who shot at me in jail, I wouldn't want to shoot them myself and get some extra family members pissed and coming after me.&nbsp; granted, this isn't the best analogy, but it seems to work O.k. for this particular point.

And what do you know, this thread of all things has become another U.S. foreign policy thread.
[right][snapback]59835[/snapback][/right]

Right: politics. Foreign policy and politics are where the foreigners and the US tend to have ample room for disagreement for means to various ends, since we are not isolationists but are, for better and for worse, engaged all over the globe economically and via security policy.

Some folks get uncomfortable when the 800 pound gorilla farts. :blink:

Occhi

[Chaerophon]

Occhi,

Just a quick thought,

While I will not quibble with your points re: the nature of a 'war on terror' as I am really in no position to do so, I continue to think that some of Armin's earlier criticisms of Guatanamo and some of the policies and actions of the military/administration are very valid. The 'War on Terror' cannot become a blanket defense for anything and everything. Standards of conduct must remain, and slinking around the notion of human rights by hiding behind the fact that this is a 'new kind of war' will not cut the mustard. Maybe the Geneva conventions are outdated - I don't have a clue. However, as it stands right now, the bar is set far too low.

Like it or not, war or no, terrorism is here to stay. Perhaps it is time that we begin sorting out some kind of more multilateral process by which to set standards of military imprisonment that are more attuned to the new reality of warfare. If something like this is going on right now, then I am unaware of it. Perhaps you could fill me in.

[Ashock]

Yes, the world trade center, hostage killings, and school killings were really bad things to do.  But I'd much rather head in with the attitude of "we're going to lessen this in the future and keep more people from  getting killed, and show the rest of the planet that we're better" instead of "lets go kill some of those freaks".

I'm not sure if Ashock has the attitude I was talking about, it sounded like he sort of did, and I know about people who do, so this was my opinion on it.  This paragraph is sort of related to the election so it isn't really off topic.
[right][snapback]59819[/snapback][/right]

In a war, there is no "we're better" attitude, unless this means we're better at killing. You try taking the high road, and that road will lead to the cemetery. No, there's no need for unnecessary violence, like killing their kids (although frankly, I think that this actually might get the message across... umm, maybe). However, Muslim militants are like rabid dogs. Rabid dogs bite anyone they can sink their teeth into. So, what's the usual procedure in dealing with rabid dogs? What's the usual procedure with even normal seeming dogs that attacked humans violently? No, definately no need for extra violence. Just the right amount will do.

In WW2, we were not as violent overall as the Germans and the Japanese were against us (if anyone wants to start a nuke discussion, just zip it. Same goes for Drezden). Even the russians who were significantly less "civilized" than the western forces were, did not on the whole approach the levels of violence exhibited by the germans. However, and this is important.... we were violent *enough*.




-A

[Chaerophon]

First of all, you're quite clearly trolling.

Second of all, this...

In WW2, we were not as violent overall as the Germans and the Japanese were against us (if anyone wants to start a nuke discussion, just zip it. Same goes for Drezden). Even the russians who were significantly less "civilized" than the western forces were, did not on the whole approach the levels of violence exhibited by the germans.

...is a whole lot of crap. Troll crap.

[Ashock]

First of all, you're quite clearly trolling.

Second of all, this...
...is a whole lot of crap.&nbsp; Troll crap.
[right][snapback]59846[/snapback][/right]

That was a very enlightening response. Thanks for playing.



-A

[Medicine Man]

The outcome of this election is certainly inspiring some strongly written opinions.
[right][snapback]59589[/snapback][/right]

I personally like this one.

Imagine how they'd feel if they lost the election? :)

Edit: Can't seem to get the link to work. I can still reach the article from other sites. The URL is http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=5652. A rather funny example of the crazies on the other side of the fence. The far left and far right are both quite alarming.

[Chaerophon]

That was a very enlightening response. Thanks for playing.
-A
[right][snapback]59851[/snapback][/right]

Glad you enjoyed it.

[Occhidiangela]

For Chaer and Armin:

EDIT: Take a look at :

New York Times November 9, 2004 Pg. 1
U.S. Judge Halts War-Crime Trial At Guantánamo
By Neil A. Lewis

My link was garbled, but it Judge Roberston's rulings will re open the details of the proceedings. I think it is related to the article I mention below.

For a Guantanamo update, I read yesterday, in USA today ( quality of reporting is modest at best) an story that a US District judge just ruled that some of the procedures taken for a couple of the AQ detainees did not meet the acid test, and therefore their proceedings need to be re done. (Osama's chauffer was one of the players.) Required are a review and a confirmation, based on evidence, of the activities that affirmed the AQ links. What was vague to me was what appeared to be an inconsistency in which of the detainees had legal representation, and which did not. The story did not have enough detail on that.

In short, our own internal watchdogs are calling BS on a number of procedural matters, and any number of MILITARY lawyers are challenging some of the procedures taken on some prisoners. What that will result in is, of course, more delays. :P This ruling was a significant challenge to the procedures to date. Play is continuous.

On the other topic: Al Qaeda and other extranational terror organs do not fit into the rule of law that is the underpinning of the agreements and treaties that, for example, resulted in the Geneva Conventions of 1949. I won't go into a long discussion on the Law of Armed Conflict, as space and time are limited this morning. As they are unaccountable, autocratic, and outside the treaty model of political entities -- typically using a legitimage nation state's turf as cover and sanctuary -- their status is a phenomenon that the international community has yet to resolve. If this stuff was easy, it would already have been solved.

A few other points:
The 'War on Terror' cannot become a blanket defense for anything and everything. Standards of conduct must remain.

Absolutely correct, no argument there. Indeed, part of the ruling was that a set of the detainees in question were required to be treated as POW per Geneva, which they had not been previously.

, and slinking around the notion of human rights by hiding behind the fact that this is a 'new kind of war' will not cut the mustard.

Interesting language that you use, and I will point out that Taliban and AQ detainees are not the same breed of cat. Taliban fighters in general were the regular forces of the nation of Afghanistan, as run by the Taliban, and must be treated as POW's if captured. Al Qaeda does not have that status.

Your concern for human rights for a member of Al Qaeda is noted, I do not share your sympathy for them. To assert that their treatment is "slinking" around the notion of human rights ignores two points. Had they been left in Afghanistan in the hands of our allies there, most would be dead some years ago. You make assumptions on their treatment that strike me as bogus. The argument that these criminals are not to be interrogated, are to be treated as Geneva covered POW's, is at odds with the their lack of status under the convention and their pattern international criminal conduct. On the Taliban side, I'd say the argument for full Geneva status has strong grounds.

Maybe the Geneva conventions are outdated - I don't have a clue. However, as it stands right now, the bar is set far too low.

It fits any war that civilized nations undertake, ironic as that sounds, such as the 1991 war in Iraq. Regular forces captured in the 2003 fight indeed accorded Geneva protections. That phase of combat, however, ended in May of 2003, and this combination police/military activity since then with irregulars and partisans, not to mention some just plain criminal elements, is full of cases not covered.

Like it or not, war or no, terrorism is here to stay. Perhaps it is time that we begin sorting out some kind of more multilateral process by which to set standards of military imprisonment that are more attuned to the new reality of warfare.

Yes, I have been dealing with it since about 1983, so of course I agree. :D
As to an international protocol, not sure if that is possible, though I sure wish one were. What is first needed is an agreement on just what a terrorist is, which leads to the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" problem. The jurists do not have an easy answer to provide us, nor one that will not be rife with loopholes. The Geneva Conventions were not written in a day. :D

Occhi