the outcome of the election

[Skandranon]

*And yes, frankly, everyone who posts on this board is part of that 'we'.  The westernized world is what is under attack.  If you think otherwise, you are kidding yourself.

Well said. This illustrates the way a lot of Canadians feel about terrorism. Every time someone says something like that to me, I have to suppress an urge to beat the stupid out of them.

[Occhidiangela]

Well said.  This illustrates the way a lot of Canadians feel about terrorism.  Every time someone says something like that to me, I have to suppress an urge to beat the stupid out of them.
[right][snapback]59468[/snapback][/right]

That cartoon is a nice illustration of the role of the Appeaser: the one who hopes the lion eats him last. :P

Occhi

[Armin]

The problem is, that is exactly what they are: unlawful combatants. Most or many of them are NOT covered by The Law of Armed Conflict.

The underlying problem is: Who DECIDES what they are? Any random person pointing a finger at someone close to a supposed Al Quaida Base? Who decides who gets held for how long? Who controls the one who decides?

"What the heck, Occhi?" You may be asking at this point. And you seem to forget, when it comes to law and lawyers, weasel in the imperative. Or did you forget the OJ Simpson trial? That idiocy at The Hague with Milosovic?

When in doubt I'd prefer an idiocy that goes on for DECADES to 5 seconds of abandoning the values we were to protect from the "terrorists" in the first place. That way we HAVE already lost.

Al Qaeda are not signatories of the Geneva convention, and are not lawful combatants in accordance with the "rules of war," which leaves them in a rather weird legal limbo. It is not required to force fit them into a template designed for legal combatants. As terrorists, they are an interesting fusion of criminal and user of force for political aims. The rules simply do not cover them, except perhaps as partisans. Maybe.

Again at what point do you DECIDE who is a "member" (of something that isn't even a real organisation, more like a common slogan) and may, thus, be held indefinitely? A human right ceases to exist the very moment that it is possibly to deny it to someone, on whatever grounds. That is, infuriating as it may be, the reason why the axe murderer arrested with the bloody axe in hand with 12 victims underfoot MUST have the right to a fair trial.


Have you thoroughly read the provisions regarding partisan activity in the Geneva Conventions? It sharply defines regular soldiers and irregulars, and how they may be treated differently.

I gotta admit, last time I had to read the Geneva covention was during basic training at the German Air Force in 1987. But I pretty much don't remember it declaring (suspected!) partisans to be automatically excluded from the human race and denied all rights.

However, I will again point out that "war on terrorists" is not the conventional war that the Geneva Accords are aimed at regulating. A new precedent can be set, since all laws are WHATEVER WE MAKE UP AND CAN BACK UP.

First of all, IMO the main American misconception is that terrorism is a thing that can be fought militarily. You can fight nations, armies but not thinly spread fanatics that have no other means but terror attacks.
Blowing yourself up and taking others with you is the desperate last measure of the weak, and you cannot break weakness with military means. By very nature, it's impossible to frighten or force them into submission.
With force you create more weakness, more hate and ultimately, more terror.

Your concern that a step for setting precedent has been taken in the wrong direction is well raised, though. But you appear to ignore that the Information Age, information warfare, is a 24/7 continuum, and that criminals have been exploiting the media for their own ends, have used it as a weapon, for some years. By depriving current soldier-terrorists in the War on Terror, terrorists, with one of their weapons, we are disarming them in the same way as taking away a rifle.

And it doesn't work. One picture from Abu Ghraib and one report from Guantanamo Bay do more damage than 50 videos from Usama in his cave.

I will repeat this. A key tool, a key weapon, of the terrorist, is use and exploitation of international media. Depriving him of that weapon is a step toward his defeat. You do not let a prisoner hold a rifle, you do not allow a terrorist access the media, or you have just re armed him.

But worse, if by attempting to "disarm" him you start to give up the very principles that you pretend to stand for and that they supposedly attack - you have already lost by default.

Do you understand that? Far too many people do not.

I do. So did the people that made the movie "The Siege" in 1998. Frightfully prophetic and I advise every Lurker who hasn't seen it to do so. And remember that the movie was made 3 years before 9/11...

Now, there is a danger here. I am fully aware of it. The North Vietnamese treatment of prisoners in their control was foul, and their excuse was that as a non signatory of Geneva Accords, they were not bound by it. Japanese made similar comments in re the prisoners from Wake and Bataan. We really don't want to go there. ANd, we are not there. About a year ago, there was an interesting comment from a released Gitmo detainee, from Russia, whose observation "that place was not so bad, well fed, thank goodness I was not in a Russian priso" or words to that effect.

And then there's the British report about at least a dozen attempted suicides and 3 completed suicides since it's installation...

Now, Russian prisons are not famous for their humanity, so that may be damning with faint praise, but will the Drama queens please shut up?

Seeing the very principles of our civilization in peril might be overly dramatic, but things do start small. Especially if lines that have been drawn and had been valid for generations can be eroded as easily, as by 19 young men with carpet knives...

By your emotional posts, you appear to assume that Americans will torture and abuse prisoners as a matter of policy. Read that last phrase carefully. You will be incorrect.
What is generally ignored, for example, about the Abu Gharib idiocy was that in November, the DoD was advised that violations of regulations were in progress, the invistigation began, and funnily enough, the lawyers for those charged with the misconduct started to write to their Congressmen asking for help, when they were in clear violation of the UCMJ. (Military Law.) Their Congressmen contacted the DoD, asking for assistance against "persecution." The pictures of their own misconduct was released to the internet, as I understand it, as an act of defiance, since . . . they were going down for their misconduct, they wanted to take someone bigger with them.

And some idiots in the media still claim that Sec Def condoned that crap. I am still waiting for the Colonel and General in charge to be put in jail for failing to get it right. That's why they get the big bucks.

The thing thats MORE than a bit suspicious here is that obviously the 3 people that were put in charge of the US prison system in Iraq had one thing in common: They all had previously been involved in prisoner abuse scandals in the US prior to be sent to the desert...

One last note. "Basic human rights" is a vague term. What do you mean by that? What is a right, and how do you earn it? (Hey, are there worms in that can?)

That is the basic problem isn't it? The day someone thinks that you must "earn" human rights that someone has abrogated them.

Again, one cannot claim to fight for freedom, democracy and rule of law and try to defend these values from those that would attack them by eroding the very principles they are build upon. That way, Al Qaeda has already won.

19 young men with carpet kives cannot do damage to freedom, democracy or even a nation. They can only kill people, destroy buildings and cause fear.

All the REAL damage is done by the means that were supposedly justified by the ends.

[Tommi]

I'm not cagey about my own opinion: I would have chosen Kerry. Likewise would have 2/3 - 3/4 of all Europeans, as surveys show.

My analysis is that Bush won, because he had more strong points than Kerry (religion, war on terror, "paternal leadership"). Kerry's only strong point was that he wasn't Bush. And that was not a very strong position.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Ah well, you've been explaining it(science is based on axioms(=assumptions)) every couple months for the last 4(?) years, I dare say we'll see it again in January  :P
[right][snapback]59317[/snapback][/right]

More like forty years. So why not in 2005, indeed. :)

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Speaking of axioms,

Quote (Pete, from page 4 of this thread)
The first obstacle in the assumption that there is a universe is dealing with everyone's perceptions of who or what is the center of it.
The second obstacle is convincing each person it is not them.
[right][snapback]59323[/snapback][/right]

Well, following Descartes, I can prove I exist, but I'm not too sure about you ;)

--Pete

[Rinnhart]

I suppose this might make sense if there were no such things as international trade, politics, warfare, and globalism.  I guess some Americans don't believe such things exist.
[right][snapback]59135[/snapback][/right]

I'm sure the brits or canadians would really appreciate it if Americans started threads bitching about their politics whenever something happened we didn't agree with.

It's our country, we'll #$%& it up if we want to. You wanna say in how we run the goddamn western hemisphere and try to push around the eastern one too, you're welcome to go through immigration.

We're the current Rome, and in our twilight for that matter. Deal with it for a few more decades.

[smithy]

Hi,
Well, following Descartes, I can prove I exist, but I'm not too sure about you ;)

--Pete
[right][snapback]59498[/snapback][/right]

And here I thought you were a collective of super-intelligent beings all specializing in a certain area. Or wasn't it something like that? :)

Smithy

[Chaerophon]

I'm sure the brits or canadians would really appreciate it if Americans started threads bitching about their politics whenever something happened we didn't agree with.

Boo hoo. Go ahead. I do it all the time. I'm not so blinded by patriotism that I can't see what's wrong with my own country. Take your best shot - some things I'll defend. On the rest, I'll probably agree.

[ManaCraft]

I'm sure the brits or canadians would really appreciate it if Americans started threads bitching about their politics whenever something happened we didn't agree with.

To be blunt, that's their problem. People are entitled to express their opinions.


ManaCraft

[eppie]

The Gitmo situation still gets attention on US TV, and in print media.  It has since shortly after it was chosen as a method.  The Civil Liberties folks in the US had, and still have, an objection to the process. 

You also forget just who it is that was corraled and sent there.  Captured enemy combatants from a war, and their accomplices.  A war that is still being fought in Afghanistan -- last I checked, Taliban and Al Qaeda are s till fighting, and certainly operatives have not surrendured, unlike Admiral Doenitz and friends, who signed formal surrender documents in May 1945.  This is a kind of war that most people, in and out of the military, still don't understand.  It is very much NOT the war of Nuremburg in character, it's something else altogether.

Occhi
[right][snapback]59396[/snapback][/right]

Guantanomo to me is just another tool from Bush to shows that he is so hard and cool, in kicking some terrorist but. At the same time nobody cares that he switched most of his army from trying to get Bin Laden to Iraq instead.

We have here a junta (I like the word for the Bush administration) that does things against terrorism only when american voters are there to see it. I have to stand 4 hours in a queue in my underpants if I want to fly to the US and at the same time Bush gives extremists he created himself (the Iraqi) people explosives and nuclear material. He was able to trick the US people in believing that he is "the best" against terrorism while he willingly let Bin laden escape just becuase Rumsfeld and friends found it a better idea to go to Iraq. (he learned that from his fathers treatment of Saddam)
So adding up: after 4 years of Bush we have more terrorists, more extremists, the same amount of Iraqi civilians killed as Saddam in 20 years, Bin Laden still on the loose, a divided world and my stock that goes down :blink:

It seems that we cannot get another than republicans in charge in the US, america is going towards a very big economic crisis and is in a while one of the few country with WMDs. I think I'm going to do some heavy digging in my garden...I want a bomb shelter.

[kandrathe]

...
We have here a junta (I like the word for the Bush administration) that does things against terrorism only when american voters are there to see it.
...
[right][snapback]59523[/snapback][/right]

From Merriam-Webster; JUNTA - "a council or committee for political or governmental purposes; especially : a group of persons controlling a government especially after a revolutionary seizure of power"

I find it offensive that you describe our political process in those terms. You may not like it, but it is not a junta, or a fascist coup, or a dictatorship. I think you minimize the power of those concepts when you use them cavalierly to describe things. This is the heart of demagoguery, from which ever direction left or right.

Now, about terrorism. I think you have no clue the extent that this administration has undertaken to root out terrorism. Here in the US with the DOHS, in passing the PATRIOT act (which is extreme), in financial institutions in tracing the sources of funding, in cooperative relationships with our allies, and militarily in finding where the camps are and destroying them.

I'm not sure why you choose to minimize these things, but again to me it seems you are parroting the propaganda of those aligned against the US. When Bush said, "You are either with us, or with the terrorists", this was what he was implying. This is a serious issue, and the US has decided to go to war. It is serious enough to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, even of US citizens which has not been done since the US civil war. Reasonable people can disagree without being disagreeable. We all need to discuss this malady called terrorism, because at least in the US we are not going to take it anymore. At least not laying down. I don't agree with everything that has been enacted here, but I respect that the people in charge are acting rather than wringing their hands. Unlike the UN.

[ShadowHM]

  Reasonable people can disagree without being disagreeable.  We all need to discuss this malady called terrorism, because at least in the US we are not going to take it anymore.  At least not laying down.  I don't agree with everything that has been enacted here, but I respect that the people in charge are acting rather than wringing their hands.
[right][snapback]59552[/snapback][/right]

Amen !

I am seeing a lot of carping here, instead of constructive ideas. I am sure that a lot of the steps taken to counter terrorism are downright counter-productive. I am equally sure that some of them are productive. And in most cases, I don't know - I don't know exactly what all the steps being taken are and/or I don't know whether they will bear the sort of fruit I would like.

However, the point I want to add to kandrathe's comments is that carping is not going to solve the problem. How about some constructive ideas instead?

And to eppie, in particular:

I think I'm going to do some heavy digging in my garden...I want a bomb shelter.

If that is the most constructive thing you can think of doing, why not? It beats the heck out of squandering your energy berating folks who actually might share your concerns.

[Armin]

Well, now that the Germans, Canadians, Fins, Norwegians, Dutch, Austrians and who knows what other cowardly whiner nations all have made themselves terminally unpopular, perhaps it's time for America's last stalwart allies to chime in: the British...

Wonderful article from the Daily Mirror:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_ob...-name_page.html

:P

[Assur]

[quote=ShadowHM,Nov 7 2004, 09:35 PM]


However, the point I want to add to kandrathe's comments is that carping is not going to solve the problem. How about some constructive ideas instead?

Hi

After the Madrid attack in spring the new Spanish government pulled the Spanish troops out of Iraq. In the last two weeks police in Spain arrested several suspects who had planned new attacks. Giving in does not seem to be an option that works.

Terrorism also seems to be a problem in the Netherlands:

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/1...aker/index.html

If anybody has constructive ideas (shared by the different ideologicalal groups in the West) I haven't heard them yet.

good karma

[Chaerophon]

Wow. Now THAT's an editorial! :lol:

[Skandranon]

Wonderful article from the Daily Mirror:

The outcome of this election is certainly inspiring some strongly written opinions.

[whathuh]

Heh, the bell rang before I could finish my thought, so it's kinda one-sided.

I've probably read the bible, but mainly from lessons in church etc... I don't read things well if they have no plot.

I guess it was a mistake to bring all that much religion into this, but I just dislike how many of the conservative christians around me act like the corrupt priests 2000 years ago. It drives me crazy.

Personally, I think the bible is a very bad source for history. Seems to me like the writers did a bad job of telling the truth in many spots. I don't particularly think the officials in the church killed Jesus, it was probably the Romans, and the writers of the bible decided to blame it on the church to perhaps make it more "dramatic."

Please note that GW's faith is a very small reason I don't like him, most of the others are talked about in this thread.

[Nystul]

If anybody has constructive ideas (shared by the different ideologicalal groups in the West) I haven't heard them yet.

good karma
[right][snapback]59582[/snapback][/right]

It's not a simple problem, unfortunately. My own thoughts?

1) We need as much support in Iraq as possible to try to create some semblance of security before the scheduled elections in January. In the areas that are somewhat secure, basic reconstruction has to get better.

2) Afghanistan has had the first step in elections, but they obviously need more help with security and reconstruction.

3) The nuclear threat in Iran needs to be assessed. If it is significant, the diplomatic response needs to be immediate, aggressive, and broadbased. Ideally, the United States would not have a leading role in this.

4) Resume negotiations between the U.S. (well, if someone else actually thinks they can do it, that would be great...), Israel, and Palestine. Palestinian leadership is currently in flux, so who knows when this can happen. It needs to happen and continue until Palestine is a recognized nation with mutually accepted boundaries.

5) When future terrorist acts do occur in western nations, we need to be able to cooperate with each other, share intelligence, try to trace back the equipment/money/etc., and find out exactly who is responsible. What happens once you get to that point is a tricky matter. I think it is basically up to the country that gets attacked to make that decision.

I understand why Europeans feel fear and anger towards the approaches Bush has taken in the Middle East. However, this is not a spectator sport. The role that Europe plays in this will determine whether anything is a success or whether the whole thing becomes a bigger mess. Probably if Europe had taken a more active role prior to the Iraq war, they could have prevented it from ever occurring, but it is too late for that now. At this point, it is critical to do everything possible to make Iraq and Afghanistan liveable. If we can make it through that, perhaps someone other than the U.S. can take leadership in determining what else needs to be done. Although personally, I'm not sure the E.U. is ready for that kind of leadership, and the U.N. is only good for preserving the status quo (and not very effective even for that).

[Nystul]

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

I'd take this with a grain of salt, but I've heard Democratic talking heads spew the same garbage on TV since the election.

When the Democrats continue to lose more and more local, state, and federal elections in the coming decade, they can take solace in the knowledge that they are smarter and more enlightened than the rest of us.