Its a common sense approach.

Post #14,782 by addison 10/23/01 11:33:54 AM Reply	Its a common sense approach. There's a dynamic tension between respect for sincere spirituality and getting a very important job done. Not really. We've already handicapped ourselves. (Laws to protect the "innocent", even though we're straining those in some cases, certainly there's nothing like that in Afghanistan.... not using all the weapons in the arsenal, not blindly targetting). There's no real reason not to continue after the criminals/opposition, just because its a holy time. Who's spirituality are we respecting? If they commit an outrage during Ramadan, I will modify my position in an eyeblink. So what they've already done wasn't an outrage? They've not proposed a truce. They've not indicated a williness to even BEGIN to come to terms with what's happend (OBL/Taliban). There's no reason we need to handicap ourselves because they want to claim they've got a holy agenda. The obvious parallel to that is police in your town not chasing criminals during Christmas.. and I don't think that's what you're really wanting. :) If there's going to be violence, let them start it. They did. Whoever starts hostilities during a holy period has lost credibility among, for lack of a better word, "moderate" Muslims. Who would you rather see lose this credibility? Us, or them? Nope. The true Moderates will understand the US attacking. The ones that don't, won't care that the US didn't attack. And then after Ramadan, when the attacks start, any pause would be ignored. There's really no benefit there for us, no reason. Besides, we don't give a damn about the Islam OBL preaches. (pun intended). Why would we indicate that we do? We're limiting our strikes, our attacks, to the Taliban and OBL - and they've had plenty of warning. The timing is on OBL/Taliban shoulders - not ours. Addison
Post #14,870 by dmarker2 10/23/01 11:09:41 PM Reply	Re: who is the 'they' you write of ? >If they commit an outrage during Ramadan, I will modify my position in an eyeblink. So what they've already done wasn't an outrage? They've not proposed a truce. They've not indicated a williness to even BEGIN to come to terms with what's happend (OBL/Taliban). There's no reason we need to handicap ourselves because they want to claim they've got a holy agenda. >If there's going to be violence, let them start it. They did. Who is this 'they' that keeps being talked about ??? - there are clearly more that one 'they' but the wording used here has merged them into one - warping the real target. 'they' is a classic label for lumping together different people. It makes it easy to be used to justify a single response to all (likely to be inappropriate against some of the 'they's). The 'they' being talking about are four or more quite different peoples who deserve quite different treatment and who need to be understood in terms of how other peoples see them and their plight as Afghanistan comes under attack because of the direct actions of 1 & the indirect actions of 2. They 1 are the murderous perps who did Sept 11th - these are not Afghans They 2 are the Taliban & OBL. Taliban are accused of harbouring OBL & providing facilities for OBL training that probably supplied 1 above They 3 are the Taliban controlled Afghans - including the 17-year olds given guns & told to go defend They 4 are the ordinary Afghan citizens who are none of the above Using the word 'they' is a poor way of justifying a common response to all the groups above when their culpability for Sept 11th varies dramatically (guilty to innocent) and that this fact is seen by people in other countries especially in Muslim ones. The Ramadan issue cuts across all groups & affects millions of people. We all know what needs to be done to They 1. We westerners have strong opinions on what we want to do to They 2. But the They 3 deserve more careful treatment, and They 4 deserve every respect & consideration else be accused rightly of being blatant hypocrites. We need to maintain a sensible balance in our perspectives and on what is taking place. War on TV screens is a lot different to the horror on the ground We have to make quite sure that the only people we visit this horror upon are those that truly deserve it. I fear that that distiction is now being blurred and the attitude is becoming 'they are just getting what they deserve' (without caring about who 'they' really are anymore !!!). Please assure me I am wrong. Cheers Doug Marker
Post #14,873 by addison 10/23/01 11:27:04 PM Reply	They is somewhat fluid, depending on context. But mainly, "they" are the people who would claim religious perogative, and who commited this atrocity. warping the real target. The warping is bending our needs to those of a claim of religion. The Ramadan issue cuts across all groups & affects millions of people. No more than anyone "innocent" who's "collateral damage". Same thing. Accidents happen, we've said that its the Taliban who's to blame. Attacks, if needed, during Ramadan are exactly the same issue. Talk to the Taliban. They 4 deserve every respect & consideration else be accused rightly of being blatant hypocrites. Which they're getting, as far as I can tell. I fear that that distiction is now being blurred and the attitude is becoming 'they are just getting what they deserve' (without caring about who 'they' really are anymore !!!). No more than the ordinary Germans or Japanese who got bombed on their holidays were affected by that attitude. Its not personal, its not about religion, and making a distinction on religion, for whatever reasons, hurts, rather than helps our reasoning. Addison
Post #14,882 by dmarker2 10/23/01 11:54:10 PM Reply	Re: I think you have lost sight of who the target is in Afghanistan. This is a war against terrorism not against Afghanistan - the way you speak of it is directly as a war against Afghanistan with acceptable collateral casualties. "Germans or Japanese who got bombed on their holidays " They were declared wars between nations. Your use of 'they' is appallingly inaccurate in identifying who the US administration is really after & why and in considering the wider implications of military action affecting the citizens of a country. Repeat after me: "America is not at war with Afghanistan, America is at war with global terrorism" Cheers Doug
Post #14,883 by addison 10/24/01 12:21:37 AM Reply	No, its not I with the lost sight. This is a war against terrorism* not against Afghanistan - the way you speak of it is directly as a war against Afghanistan with acceptable collateral casualties.* It is a war against terrorists and their protectors, who are currently in power in Afghanistan. We are bombing Afghans, we are inflicting "collateral damage". You keep losing sight of that. WHAT do you propose, is a "proper" action in this case? "Germans or Japanese who got bombed on their holidays " They were declared wars between nations. Irrelevant. The Taliban (who control most of Afghanistan) were warned that strikes were coming as a result of their harboring of OBL, et al. This was not a surprise attack. And the parallel is as such, unrefuted. We bombed on holidays in the past, explain the difference between that, and now. Your use of 'they' is appallingly inaccurate No. You're just ... actually, I don't know what you're advocating. If you don't like what we're doing in Afghanistan, say so, or volunteer to go over, or something. You're trying to nit-pick at "they're" - which isn't anywhere near as amorphous as your position here. Repeat after me: "America is not* at war with Afghanistan, America is at war with global terrorism"* Which has absolutely nothing to do with Ramadan. Repeat that 10 times. Addison
Post #14,898 by dmarker2 10/24/01 1:57:45 AM Reply	Re: Springing Bin Laden's trap Can't add anything useful to the earlier part of the reply. Couldn't make much sense of it. But >Repeat after me: "America is not at war with Afghanistan, America is at war >with global terrorism" ">Which has absolutely nothing to do with Ramadan. Repeat that 10 times." Not so! It sure as hell does matter when 100,000s of Afghans are fleeing their homes (don't you get the UN news reports on the refugee numbers !!!) - facing starvation, disruption, breakdown in law and order, rioting, onset of winter. The final death toll attributable to 'collateral damage' will way beyond the piddling figure of 100 you put forward as casualties thus far. You keep implying that the collateral effects are and will be all Taliban's blame. That is one wierd bit of logic. I want to see deserving terrorists and their supporters squashed flat but I'm not so insensitive as to lump Afghan citizens as being included in the 'they' to be hit deliberately or accidentaly (be they Taliban followers or anti-Taliban). And if citizens are suffering as collateral damage during Ramadan, it does matter. To see it otherwise attracts the accusation of springing Osama Bin Ladens west vs Islam trap. Cheers Doug
Post #14,930 by addison 10/24/01 9:57:24 AM Reply	Re: Springing Bin Laden's trap Can't add anything useful to the earlier part of the reply. Couldn't make much sense of it. Then you really shouldn't be in this discussion. You keep implying that the collateral effects are and will be all Taliban's blame. That is one wierd bit of logic. I'd point out exactly how much sense that made, but you'd just ignore that, and keep going on and on. I've given you parallels you've not refuted, or have just said they're wrong. I really think you need to sit and think about the "nature of war". Because if you can't understand the part you said you didn't - you really need to. Addison
Post #14,939 by dmarker2 10/24/01 10:32:55 AM Reply	Re: Consider this ... Here we are unable to agree that we even understand what each other is saying. But this thread was always about bombing Afghans during Ramadan. I know that. So if we who are on the same side can't see eye-to-eye about the importance of some sensible handling of the Ramadan period, how the f*** do you imagine Muslims elsewhere can see any US justification for continuing bombing during Ramadan. Doesn't that worry you ? - Doesn't it smell like the OBL trap ?. Are you not concerned about how volotile Pakistan is ? Is killing Taliban troops so important to you that all caution gets cast aside ? Cheers Doug (PS I won't get personal if you don't - I can see the temptation for both of us is there but lets just keep this level)
Post #14,948 by addison 10/24/01 11:19:18 AM Reply	Re: Consider this ... But this thread was always about bombing Afghans during Ramadan. I know that. Its not always obvious. So if we who are on the same side can't see eye-to-eye about the importance of some sensible handling of the Ramadan period, how the f*** do you imagine Muslims elsewhere can see any US justification for continuing bombing during Ramadan. "Sensible handling"? That's what its about. There's no "sensible handling". The fact its Ramadan shouldn't affect our plans much. Slightly, yes. But not much. Muslims elsewhere can see any US justification for continuing bombing during Ramadan. The requirements for the US to stop the attacks have been quite clearly laid out. Doesn't that worry you ? - Nope. The issue is, as I keep telling you, irrelevent. There aren't any fence sitters who will be changed one way or the other. Doesn't it smell like the OBL trap ?. Nope. Are you not concerned about how volotile Pakistan is ? Not really. Is killing Taliban troops so important to you that all caution gets cast aside ? Continuing the US mission is important to me. I'm not casting caution aside, you're the one who will castrate the US mission. And why? So we bomb the MINUTE that Ramadan is over, and THOSE people being killed is "better"? I'm very against killing people in such situations. But "stopping" during Ramadan means more of their civilians will likely die later, as they have more time to shield behind them. Stopping means possibly more attacks on the US. Again, we didn't stop on Japanese holidays during WWII. The point of war is you don't get to choose the time and place, often. Furthermore, we're already hamstrung by our notions of "justice" and things like "fair treatment". You've yet to show any plausible reason that "stopping" during ramandan - until somebody kills hundreds more Americans (or anybody else) is logical at all. Because its not. So its a holiday. How does that change anything**? How is it better when we kill civilians during non-holidays? Addison
Post #15,033 by dmarker2 10/24/01 7:58:28 PM Reply	Re: stick to the facts " Is killing Taliban troops so important to you that all caution gets cast aside ? Continuing the US mission is important to me. I'm not casting caution aside, you're the one who will castrate the US mission. And why? So we bomb the MINUTE that Ramadan is over, and THOSE people being killed is "better"? I'm very against killing people in such situations. But "stopping" during Ramadan means more of their civilians will likely die later, as they have more time to shield behind them. Stopping means possibly more attacks on the US. 1) I have reminded you repeatedly (but you keep ignoring it) that I always argued to keep bombing hitting going after OBL & terrorists. Why do you bluntly keep writing that I want all bombing stopped - when it is clear I never once suggested it ?? 2) I said we should stop bombing near civillian areas during Ramadan & highlighted the massive disorder already underway with 100,000s of innocent civillians fleeing. You put up a pathetic case for 100 civillian casualties due to the precision bombing but never responded to the collateral issue of these people's plight during winter and the image seen by other countries if bombing was impacting civillians during Ramadan. 3) I highlighted the instability in nearby countries - you have told us what you think of that & I'm now not at all surprised. Cheers Doug "
Post #15,045 by addison 10/24/01 9:19:23 PM Reply	I'm not the one moving away from them 1) I have reminded you repeatedly (but you keep ignoring it) that I always argued to keep bombing hitting going after OBL & terrorists. Why do you bluntly keep writing that I want all bombing stopped - when it is clear I never once suggested it ?? 2) I said we should stop bombing near civillian areas during Ramadan & highlighted the massive disorder already underway with 100,000s of innocent civillians fleeing. Those two are exclusive. If the Taliban/terrorists aren't near civilian areas, then we wouldn't be bombing near there. We're not bombing civilians just to do it - you imply that we are. That's the facts. The airstrikes and commando raids are - for all evidence - avoiding civilian casualties. Therefore, there's no reason to change anything - and you are advocating that. 3) I highlighted the instability in nearby countries - you have told us what you think of that & I'm now not at all surprised. I'm not worried about it. More importantly, you did not explain how not bombing targets near civilian areas would decrease that instablity*. You're pulling isolated (and sometimes exclusive ideas) and attempting to make a stand with them. Addison
Post #15,084 by dmarker2 10/25/01 5:22:16 AM Reply	Re: wrapping up Just want to wrap this thread up from my end. It is obvious to me we have not enjoyed this interaction nor learned from each other. We don't even seem to have been able to agree to disagree. We haven't managed to reach an end where we can see each others point-of-view and respect it. That has been a dissapointment to me and I take it as my failure to adequately convey my views & to see yours clearly. I do consider discussing these issues to be very valuable and constantly rediscover the satisfaction when we here can put differing views and respect them as well as debate them. Occasionaly such discussions can seem to lead nowhere as it appears to me this line has. Irrespective of this outcome I trust we can debate other issues in the future and manage to earn each other's respect no matter if we disagree. Cheers Doug Good minds are extremely valuable to other good minds
Post #15,160 by addison 10/25/01 8:59:45 PM Reply	Re: wrapping up Just want to wrap this thread up from my end. It is obvious to me we have not enjoyed this interaction nor learned from each other. No, Doug, we've not. Mainly because you've started with something I consider to be somewhat illogical - and are expecting me to agree with you 1/2 way. Your insisting I'm a bloodthirsty killer didn't help, either. :) In short: We're not targeting civilians now. You've yet to explain how that should change during Ramadan. The people who are "on the fence" won't be influenced by Ramadan - and most people have already made up their mind. So insisting that it will make Pakistan fall is irrelevent.... And so no, there's no agreeing to disagree. Whether we bomb or not is utterly irrelevant, and there's no upside to not bombing. In order to agree to disagree, you'd have to show me where there is one. Though I appreciate your tone, I think its unnecessary, but thanks for the polite wrap up. Addison
Post #15,171 by dmarker2 10/25/01 10:20:55 PM Reply	Re: wrapping up - another try I was trying to reach out. My post didn't try to lay blame at either your or my feet other than my failure to make myself better understood - my fault!. I won't respond the the new points raised as they are not making the thread any clearer nor helping us understand each other better. Probably achieve the opposite. Let us both hope that we can do better on other topics. Let this one die a natural well earned death. Cheers Doug
Post #15,208 by wharris2 10/26/01 2:49:02 AM Reply	Retch out? If you start with illogical premises, you reaching out doesn't make me want to hold out my hand so you can pull me into your twisted pit of viprous snarled logic. 1+1 = 2. If you say differently, there's no amount of reaching out or meeting halfway. There are many things that are, indeed, black and white with no shades of grey in between. "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth
Post #15,217 by Ashton 10/26/01 3:11:02 AM Reply	Ah.. the 1+1 certain logic of the unwarranted kewl buttinski
Post #15,227 by dmarker2 10/26/01 6:36:21 AM Reply	Re: Retch out? Go screw yer boots (grin) Cheers Doug

Welcome to IWETHEY!