Post #40,947
6/3/02 9:58:22 AM
|
What is most striking to me...
is that Pearl subjugated himself and denounced the US and Israel... Yet... They still killed him. They still killed him. What the fuck kind of scum are these? They aren't even playing the political game. This is a whole new breed of asshole that hopefully will be not be around too much longer.
The fanatics of the world can only breed fanatics to counter them. I think it safe to assume that we must be at their level of hatred before we can successfully "counter" them. This is very nasty business and those (me included) who have had any inklings of pacisfism really need to continue to evaluate their own positions carefully in order not to fall back into bad patterns. Sheep of any stripe are fair game to wolves...
Maybe, we should be airing this video and the World Trade Center/Pentagon attacks 24/7... Lest we forget. Cockroaches hide under the fridge until there are too many... The only mindset that may be worse than the "e pluribus unum" capitalist bottom line is the halcion glazed happy hippy shit 60's idealism about one world singing Kumbaya in unison while sipping Cokes over a campfire... It was only a frigging commercial by the way...
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"As people assemble, civilization Is trying to find a new way to die,
But killing is really, merely scene changer,all men are bored, with other men's lives"
...
"We all know success, when we all find our own dreams
And our love is enough to knock down any walls
And the future's been seen, as men try to realize
The simple secret of the note in us all
in us all"
P. Townshend - Pure and Easy
|
Post #40,950
6/3/02 10:06:15 AM
|
Frankly...
...I don't think we (as a country) have the stomach nor the resolve to fight these people.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #40,953
6/3/02 10:50:39 AM
|
Re: Frankly...
... I don't think we (as a country) have the alternative.
|
Post #40,957
6/3/02 11:28:10 AM
|
Which boils down to...
...we are in a conflict that we will lose...eventually.
There was a dialogue from the movie Untouchables. Sean Connery had this line....
"Wanna get Capone...here's how you get him...He pulls a knife...you pull a gun...he sends one of your's to the hospital you send one of his to the morgue...that's the Chicago way and thats how you get Capone!"
These acts must be responded to this way.
Problem...we're too humane...too politically correct...and they laugh at us for it.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #40,971
6/3/02 12:52:25 PM
|
You're revealing your assumptions.
Now, let's take a look at your Capone example.
Capone made money providing an illegal substance to "honest" citizens.
Check the ROOT cause of the problem and the solution presents itself.
Legalize the substance and jail the few remaining thugs.
Now, as to fanatics, you have to look at the PERCENTAGE of fanatics to non-fanatics.
Once again, the BEST they were able to do is to kill 3,000+ of our people.
Hell, we kill more than that every year on our highways.
I don't see us in any danger of going fanatically anti-automobile even though, over the last 10 years, cars have killed 10x more US citizens than terrorists have.
The way we "win" this is to treat the terrorists as if they were Mafia thugs.
We survived Capone. Some, select, individuals even LEARNED the lesson that "illegal" substances are in demand by "honest" citizens and that by relegating them to the criminal you only increase corruption and crime.
We can "survive" this by realizing that it is possible for individuals to sacrifice themselves while killing others. But that these people represent an almost non-existant percentage of the world population (and their country's population). And they need to be dealt with as such. Target INDIVIDUALS not COUNTRIES.
|
Post #40,985
6/3/02 3:44:54 PM
|
What assupmtions.
We're dealing with individuals that don't play by our rules.
I don't see us having the balls to change our rules.
And I see the opposition getting weapons that will kill alot more than 3000 in alot less time with alot less warning.
And I see them laughing about the fact that we are incapable of dealing with them on >THEIR< terms.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #40,994
6/3/02 4:24:52 PM
|
You're getting closer.
#1. We are dealing with INDIVIDUALS. Remember that. Not governments. Not nations. Not cities. INDIVIDUALS. #2. There are a LOT more people who do NOT want to be terrorists than there are terrorists. That means that the INDIVIDUALS we are dealing with (see point #1) are a MINORITY in just about any circumstance. (the only time they are not is when they are in an encampment). #3. And I see them laughing about the fact that we are incapable of dealing with them on >THEIR< terms. Dead men do not laugh. They have to die to strike at us. As for that, we ARE dealing with them on their terms. They kill our civilians, we kill their civilians. What's the difference? And don't tell me that they started it. We can go back YEARS to see a continuing cycle. We're dealing with individuals that don't play by our rules. What part of "collateral damage" do you NOT understand? We kill their civilians, they kill our's. Those are OUR rules. I don't see us having the balls to change our rules. Well, I agree that we won't change our rules. But I don't think it will take balls to do so. We, as a nation, have the weird tendency to react to EVERYTHING with violence and/or restrictions. Which is what my expansion of your Capon example showed. The solution was SIMPLE. Legalize licquor, again. What we DID was complex, violent and led to LOTS of deaths and corruption. There is more than one "solution" to a problem. I'm saying that the way we perceive the "problem" is the problem. The terrorists we are facing are nothing more than criminals. They should be pursued as such. Not as a military target. And I see the opposition getting weapons that will kill alot more than 3000 in alot less time with alot less warning. Now, to ME that would indicate that we have to find a REAL solution to this problem REAL SOON. The military solution doesn't seem to be working. We've been pursuing that option for years. The threat just keeps getting worse. So, do we continue with the failed doctrine of yesteryear when we already KNOW that it will, eventually, go nuclear? Or do we change our perception NOW and actually try to STOP this as opposed to just venting our rage on innocent populations?
|
Post #40,997
6/3/02 4:38:35 PM
|
So we should...
...be pacifisic.
Turn the other cheek.
Because if we persue them as criminals...then try them in our Court system...we might as well let them go already.
We're already facing massive criticism for treating them like criminals in Gitmo...instead being asked to treat them as POWs...by you among others.
How about we take these guys from Gitmo one at a time...and throw them in GenPop at a Max security prison...telling them that this guy is a terrorist? Think any would make it to trial??
Even so...if we capture and detain these men as >criminals<...would these groups not consider that just as bad as military action...taking their brothers against their will for doing the work of Allah and purging the infidels?
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #41,009
6/3/02 5:41:26 PM
|
It's called a "clue". You may not recognize it.
We're already facing massive criticism for treating them like criminals in Gitmo...instead being asked to treat them as POWs...by you among others. Really? And how many of them have been CHARGED with a CRIME? How many of them have seen a LAWYER? How many of them know when their TRIAL DATE is? So, someone who isn't charged with a crime, who doesn't get to see a lawyer to work on a defense against such a charge and who doesn't know when his trial date is........ And how long have they been in custody? Ahhhh, I understand, you've confused the current regime with the likes of Stalin and Chairman Mao. Yes, that's easy to do. "Criminals" who are held indefinately without being charged with a crime. I seem to have misplaced my jackboots, Bill. May I borrow a pair of your extras?
|
Post #41,029
6/3/02 10:45:40 PM
|
Yep...there's that losing spirit
Like I said. Might as well let them go now.
Get them a lawyer...trial date...our way is so "above" theres
OJ got a fair trial too, right?
Stalin and Chairman Mao may have had a chance against this enemy. We don't. Your "civilized" methods of dealing with it are why they laugh at us.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #41,038
6/4/02 12:11:38 AM
|
That's the spirit Bill..
Now you're dissing Murican Justice too. (Prospects for.. any?) Nope, can't trust them Constitutional principle thingies.. to actually work, izzat it? Not when you really Need a cooperative and talkative prisoner and.. he aint. :(
Hmmm, need I repeat Ari Fleisher's small (and hot-damn immediate) suggestion about 'what you say' ? Sounds seditious to me. But what do I know? (For that matter what do Ari n'John n Dubya know? - but They in Charge)
But yer prolly Right-ish, again: we don't got no time or Patience NOW (present company excepted) for that long-hair legal stuff: we only mouth those words for comfort, when evry'thins goin along smooth. Ev'body Knows that !!
Guess we better call the collection 'a country' - then we can blast 'em all. Save messy legalities and stuff, just wasted on unMuricans. But about our local subversives who think that's a bad idea, all things considered ... Hey I Know:
How about those camps we set up the Last time we were in a heap o'trouble and - opened our eyes and saw: the place was crawlin with little yellow people who looked a *lot* like the guys in them Mitsubishi A-10s over Hawaii !!
So we hustled *that group* o' men, reeel old men, women and children: --- Murican citizens most-all IIRC --- right off to er "protective custody"! We are always so durn protective.. of the unfortunate 'accused', from the actions of his fellow rock-ribbed Patriots. Soft-hearted: that's what we are. (And that 442nd RCT - weren't They a gas !? despite where their parents were bein watched over n'all)
Especially soft hearted when we really *admire* the truck-farm the 'suspect' built from scratch! And had about 37 minutes to er 'sell off'. Gosh but the bids were just a tad low, though. Oddly enough. Free Market and all, guess you'd have to call it
Maybe that's what we need to do next with them disgraceful law perfessers n' ACLU members (better get me too, then) n' other not so Good o' boys. WTF - it worked last time.. why the apologies didn't go out until most o' those suckers be daid, remember? Like.. just a few years ago.
(Same deal as re the Merchant Mariners who kept England afloat pre and during WW-II, carryin our stuff there. Left those poor suckers shafted with zip-all afterwards. Nossir - no GI Bill for those half-drowned slackers. Guess it's another kinda Murican thing: ingratitude)
Ashton
(But careful Beep, about them criticisms o' our Patriotic Legal System, in times of National Emergency - or we might be sharin a little bivouac in Montana, maybe makin UAV licens plates and the like. Enemies are Everywhere, after all - and we look just Like some o'Them)
|
Post #41,046
6/4/02 1:14:08 AM
|
So what you're saying is your recommendation is a total fail
total failure. Like I said. Might as well let them go now. But they're obviously guilty. Aren't they? Otherwise, why would we be holding them? Why? Get them a lawyer...trial date...our way is so "above" theres Well, it will be if we manage to stick to it. Rule of Law and all that rot, eh? OJ got a fair trial too, right? Damn straight. Or do you think he was railroaded by a corrrupt legal system? Stalin and Chairman Mao may have had a chance against this enemy. We don't. Damn. So all it takes to wreck the magnificent US democracy is a hundred people willing to die to do it? Well, at least you've confirmed my theory on who your ideological heros are. Your "civilized" methods of dealing with it are why they laugh at us. Once again, dead men don't laugh. Once again, dead men don't laugh. Once again, dead men don't laugh. Bill, if you hear dead people laughing at you, you have bigger problems than voting Republican.
|
Post #41,056
6/4/02 2:55:24 AM
|
Nope....you're confusing yours and mine.
Dead men don't laugh, eh?
How are they gonna get dead? Or are you of the impression that the supply of terrorists will magically run out? Sure...send riches to the region...raise all of their standards of living. (but...isn't that what they >hate< us for...cultural imperialism???...oh...and we send HUGE amounts of money to the region...funny though that the >people< never seem to see it...but the leaders have their 72 virgins...every night)
Osama's not dead. Alot of his hierarchy is though...thanks to those US bombs you think we shouldn't have dropped.
I don't see us killing off the prisoners in Gitmo either...funny thing...that "civilized" nature of ours.
Women and children got killed in Afghanistan. Guess what...they got killed here too. Or do you think that the WTC was just full of US soldiers. War is hell, ain't it...collateral damage and all that.
We could've killed alot more of them...and if the terrorists had more firepower...they'd have killed alot more of us. They're still looking for that firepower...no matter what we do...they will continue to look for that firepower.
But all we have to do is arrest them...right? Get them a lawyer...put them through the Justice system
I repeat. What do you charge a suicide bomber with before he does it?
Hundred people, eh. Thats all you think we're dealing with.
100 guys and a couple of nukes would probably do some serious damage to the US democracy...especially if you sail one up the Potomac and park the other one in the Hudson.
Or do you not think that these multiple organizations are serious when they say they will stop at nothing short of the eradication of the infidel. That Hamas is not serious about seeking the genocide of the Jew...either in Israel, the US or wherever they may roam.
Sure. Bust'em.
Oh...some of these suicide bombers are "minors"...oh dear...we can't arrest them and put >them< on trial....they're only "cheeldrun".
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #41,112
6/4/02 1:01:45 PM
|
Sounds like your Alzheimer's is kicking in with a vengence.
Dead men don't laugh, eh? Do you really hear then laughing? If so, I can see why you have problems comprehending what I say. How are they gonna get dead? Bill, they're on suicide missions. They "get dead" by killing themselves in the attack. Or do you not remember the terrorist attack on the WTC? Or are you of the impression that the supply of terrorists will magically run out? Not magically. Although you, at times, seem to be under that assumption. At other times you seem to realize that the course of action you advocate will result in more terrorists. A terrorist in prison will not have a chance to kill innocents. There is a LIMITED number of them (at any one time). Again, you seem to be unable to grasp the fact that they are criminals. What happens when you jail criminals? Does the crime rate go up or down or stay the same? The same thing with terrorists. If you target the TERRORISTS instead of INNOCENT CIVILIANS then there will be fewer terrorists ON THE STREET. This isn't rocket science. It's already been proven with OTHER criminals. Your problem is that you can't think of any one in another country as a PERSON. I've been over this before in a previous example. You would react in a predictable way if someone killed someone in your family. But you cannot comprehend when someone else reacts in the SAME MANNER. Sure...send riches to the region...raise all of their standards of living. True to form, Bill "Strawman" Pathetic once again retreats to a strawman argument. Where did I say we should "send riches to the region"? Osama is a millionaire. Do you think he's a terrorist because he doesn't have enough money? Osama's not dead. I'm glad I've finally managed to hammer that one fact through your head. Alot of his hierarchy is though...thanks to those US bombs you think we shouldn't have dropped. And your point is? Are you saying that this will stop him from planning another attack? Are you saying that this will reduce the number of attacks? Are you saying ANYTHING about terrorist attacks? Or are you just saying that we've managed to kill people? If you can read (with comprehension), you'll see that I have never disputed the fact that we have killed people over there. What I'm focusing on is the GOAL. And that GOAL is to REDUCE OR REMOVE the threat of terrorist attacks. Your goal is to kill people. My goal is to reduce or remove the threat of terrorist attacks. You keep arguing to follow your goal when you claim to be following my goal. Even though, in your more lucid moments, you realize that following your goal will not lead to my goal. That is your problem. I don't see us killing off the prisoners in Gitmo either...funny thing...that "civilized" nature of ours. Again, Bill "Strawman" Pathetic. Why don't you provide a link where I said that we were killing those prisoners? Ah, you won't be able to because I didn't say that. But it's an easy point for you to refute so you'll imply that I said it. You are Pathetic. Women and children got killed in Afghanistan. WHEEEE!!!!! I've managed to hammer TWO facts through your head! After only HOW MANY MONTHS OF CONSTANT REPETITION? There is hope for you yet. Guess what...they got killed here too. I don't have to guess, Bill. I know they did. And you want to know what ELSE I don't have to guess at? I KNOW they were killed by terrorists. Or do you think that the WTC was just full of US soldiers. Ah, I see Bill "Strawman" Pathetic is getting ready for another strawman. How predictable. War is hell, ain't it...collateral damage and all that. So why do you get upset when they kill women and children over here? Aren't they just "collateral damage" when they live here? Ah, once again, more evidence that you can't conceive of anyone living over there as being a "person" like you. It's terrible when they kill children here, it's acceptable when we kill children there. Now, change your perspective. Think the same way from their viewpoint. It's terrible when we kill children over there, but it's acceptable when they kill children over here. Keep trying that. It might hurt your brain, but it's only your old prejudices breaking away. We could've killed alot more of them...and if the terrorists had more firepower...they'd have killed alot more of us. And your point is? We're noble because we didn't kill as many as we could have? Spell it out. But all we have to do is arrest them...right? Get them a lawyer...put them through the Justice system Yes. I repeat. What do you charge a suicide bomber with before he does it? Conspiracy to commit murder. Hundred people, eh. Thats all you think we're dealing with. Bill, this is 2002. We have something called "hypertext". Try using it. It will lead to another concept we have called "context". 100 guys and a couple of nukes would probably do some serious damage to the US democracy...especially if you sail one up the Potomac and park the other one in the Hudson. A RED LETTER DAY!!! I've managed to hammer THREE FACTS through Bill's head. Okay, everyone who said I couldn't do that, pay up! Okay, Bill. I want you to try to keep hold of that last fact. Just try. Just for right now. Nukes and the US. Got it? Now, tell me how much we've reduced terrorism by following your old plan of "collateral damage" (women and children). Is there 10% less terrorism in the world today? 20%? 50%? Or has terrorism increased? Hmmmm, seems that your plan will, eventually, result in nukes in the US. But that doesn't mean it's time to change your plan. Oh no! It's definately not time to change your plan. Let's get out there and generate bit more "collateral damage". After all, it hasn't worked in the past.
|
Post #41,120
6/4/02 1:30:28 PM
|
Then please, oh wise one...enlighten us with your plan.
Bill, they're on suicide missions. They "get dead" by killing themselves in the attack. And their recruiters and mission planners??? Are they dead too? Or are they recruiting more to kill more? Again, you seem to be unable to grasp the fact that they are criminals. The Sept 11 hijackers weren't prosecutable criminals until >after< they hijacked the planes. Prosecuting on >intent< is damn near impossible. Which means they have to >do< before we can arrest...and as you are so fond of pointing out...by the time they do...they're dead...and with Allah and 72 virgins. What happens when you jail criminals? Does the crime rate go up or down or stay the same? Our jails are full already. Wanna debate crime rates? Violent mass shootings? Do you? And that GOAL is to REDUCE OR REMOVE the threat of terrorist attacks.
Your goal is to kill people. No...the goal is to kill terrorists. Any innocents caught in that are tragic. Fortunately for the Afghan people...our goal was to kill terrorists...otherwise Afghanistan would be a nice, glass crater. C'mon... Your PLAN Stan. I'm waiting with great anticipation. Don't sit around and criticize everyone else...give us your well reasoned plan to deal with this. It sounds like you want to just let them continue to blow themselves up...in the hopes that eventually the world will run out of them...except for those that we can arrest (laugh)...on charges that any nickle and dime lawyer could get thrown out of court in an afternoon session. Yep...that'll work. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #41,137
6/4/02 2:32:17 PM
|
You need to brush up on our criminal justice system.
And their recruiters and mission planners??? Are they dead too? Or are they recruiting more to kill more? I thought that was who we were after. Osama. The Sept 11 hijackers weren't prosecutable criminals until >after< they hijacked the planes. You're wrong. Conspiracy to commit murder is prosecutable. Our jails are full already. Wanna debate crime rates? Violent mass shootings? Do you? Sure. I will state my position that the more criminals you lock up, the lower the crime rate goes. As long as they stay locked up. What's your position? No...the goal is to kill terrorists. You're going to have a bit of a problem there. The more people you kill, the more terrorists there will be. Perhaps you should reconsider your goal. Any innocents caught in that are tragic. And such tragedy will breed future terrorists. Sounds like you've got a growth industry there. Fortunately for the Afghan people...our goal was to kill terrorists...otherwise Afghanistan would be a nice, glass crater. Ah, the mental limitations of the Right. So, if our goal was to only take out Osama, Afghanistan would be a glass crater. I'm not following your "logic" on that one. Your PLAN Stan. I'm waiting with great anticipation. It's your Alzheimer's again, isn't it? You can't remember that I've already posted it several times. Do the words "InterPol" or "blockade" ring any bells? How about "criminal"? It sounds like you want to just let them continue to blow themselves up...in the hopes that eventually the world will run out of them...except for those that we can arrest (laugh)...on charges that any nickle and dime lawyer could get thrown out of court in an afternoon session. Now, for research, why don't you check up on what terrorists are in what prisons in what countries and what those charges are? Naw, you won't do that. That would be too much work and it might show where your "logic" falls apart.
|
Post #41,147
6/4/02 3:36:48 PM
|
Pretty weak.
And their recruiters and mission planners??? Are they dead too? Or are they recruiting more to kill more?
I thought that was who we were after. Osama
But I thought you told me we didn't have to worry about the terrorists because they're all on suicide missions. I guess not all of them...minor weak point in your infallible logic..it seems. You're going to have a bit of a problem there. The more people you kill, the more terrorists there will be. Perhaps you should reconsider your goal.
It's your Alzheimer's again, isn't it? You can't remember that I've already posted it several times. Do the words "InterPol" or "blockade" ring any bells? How about "criminal"? Ah...so you think that its only military action that creates these terrorists. So..just stop the military action and they will mysteriously vanish? Oh...wait..there'll be some left...so we can arrest all of them on >conspiricy< charges. I'm sure that the radical folks there will understand the difference between being arrested and taken to US prison by Interpol and being "detained" and held in US prisons. Yep..I'm certain that they will be much less likely to demand their release knowing that they've be dealt with "fairly" by the US Justice System. Oh...and the blockades...who could forget the blockades. They've been so effective in stopping Iraq from sponsoring terrorist activities. How could I forget those? Must be Alzheimers. You're right. Now, for research, why don't you check up on what terrorists are in what prisons in what countries and what those charges are? Ah...the obligatory >make bepatient come back with links to support my argument< tactic. One note...in addition to the answer of >bring your own supporting links<...the video that I linked to begin this thread >does< in fact, reference prisoners being held as one of the reasons for cutting Danny Pearl's head off. So I can see that subjecting folks to the criminal justice system >really does< have a soothing effect on the average radical. One thing about Alzheimers...I'll always make new friends. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #41,150
6/4/02 4:04:28 PM
|
Net result: demonstration that this is a genuine Conundrum
we are facing - not a mere political expediency around The Green Table, not an [oil] cheap availability problem we can lean-on in the usual ways.
Yet you and many: imagine that the same old tired slogans - will handle THIS one, too!
C.O.Y.O.T.E.
Call Off Your ...
THIS ONE shall require a process which is quite a Stranger to Murican polit-speek: deep, thorough debate, some new awareness of Who we are, How we are perceived by Others (Yes: there are Other than Murican POVs in the World) -- and maybe toughest of all:
the Changing of some of >OUR< Habits. Too. Scary, ain't it?
(Will it Happen, this unprecedented Review of Who We Be?)
Corollary: How MUCH destruction shall we unleash -?- in order to ensure that we need make No Changes in our relationship to the rest of the Planet, and in our means-to-date of enforcing Our View?
OR Go It Alone, REALLY-Alone:
Pax Americana (no, there are Many 'Others' even nearby! in The Americas). It would be: Pax USA
Ashton
|
Post #41,152
6/4/02 4:18:14 PM
|
Defense in depth.
Part of that is handling the problem before it becomes a problem. Which requires an understanding of the problem. #1. What breeds terrorism? #2. How can each breed be countered? #3. For the existing terrorists, how can we neutralize or contain them? THIS ONE shall require a process which is quite a Stranger to Murican polit-speek: deep, thorough debate, some new awareness of Who we are, How we are perceived by Others (Yes: there are Other than Murican POVs in the World) -- and maybe toughest of all:
the Changing of some of >OUR< Habits. Too. Scary, ain't it? I think we're doomed then. Too much of our psychological make-up is based upon Might Is Right. I don't think this will change until we run into someone bigger than us (US). Until that point, it is economically, emotionally, and just about every other way, easier and more satisfying to smite the opposition into submission.
|
Post #41,151
6/4/02 4:09:46 PM
|
Yep, you've got Alzheimer's.
But I thought you told me we didn't have to worry about the terrorists because they're all on suicide missions. We don't have to worry about people on suicide missions? You mean like the ones that crashed the planes into the WTC? Ummm, can you post a link showing where I said that? Ah...so you think that its only military action that creates these terrorists. So..just stop the military action and they will mysteriously vanish? Again, your Alzheimer's is really in force today. How about these key words: "Saudi", "Millionaire", "holy land". Ringing any more bells? I'm sure that the radical folks there will understand the difference between being arrested and taken to US prison by Interpol and being "detained" and held in US prisons. Yep..I'm certain that they will be much less likely to demand their release knowing that they've be dealt with "fairly" by the US Justice System. Who are these "radical folks" you're talking about? Oh...and the blockades...who could forget the blockades. They've been so effective in stopping Iraq from sponsoring terrorist activities. How could I forget those? And the last Iraqi terrorist was........? Perhaps you could clarify what you're saying. But it you did that, it could easily be refuted with facts and links. So, let's see whether you do clarify it. Must be Alzheimers. You're right. I know. But at least you can recognize it at this moment. Perhaps you could seek treatment? Ah...the obligatory >make bepatient come back with links to support my argument< tactic. No. But no amount of ME telling YOU that there are LOTS of terrorists in lots of jails in lots of countries will ever convince you that terrorists can be treated as criminals. Or that the criminal justice system is capable of handling them. So I can see that subjecting folks to the criminal justice system >really does< have a soothing effect on the average radical. Hmmmm, "strawman" again, eh? I didn't expect anything more from you. No, jailing terrorists will not stop other terrorists. I didn't say it would. But dealing with terrorists as if they were criminals will stop the "collateral damage" from turning children into terrorists. This is because there won't be any "collateral damage" because we won't be dropping bombs on innocents. Now, the reason this is so important is that there are MANY ways for someone to become a terrorist. Rather than treating they symptoms (firing missles at the country they happen to be occupying at the time), we should be focusing on treating the root causes. Unless you're advocating genocide. But I already suspected you of such political leanings.
|
Post #41,168
6/4/02 5:12:36 PM
|
It seems that your plan is still missing...
...something then. Tell me how you stop the root cause that creates a terrorist. It seems to me that you have suggested blockades, arrests and no more military action. But wait... No, jailing terrorists will not stop other terrorists. I didn't say it would.
But dealing with terrorists as if they were criminals will stop the "collateral damage" from turning children into terrorists. So it >is< military action that creates terrorists. But the suggestion that treating terrorists like criminals breeds more terrorists is responded to with... Hmmmm, "strawman" again, eh? I didn't expect anything more from you. Or didn't you understand when you read the demands for release of prisoners made at the end of the video. Maybe these folks don't recognize the difference between Justice and Military Justice...instead looking at both as unwelcome interference? Ah...the obligatory >make bepatient come back with links to support my argument< tactic.
No. But no amount of ME telling YOU that there are LOTS of terrorists in lots of jails in lots of countries will ever convince you that terrorists can be treated as criminals. Or that the criminal justice system is capable of handling them.
No???? You make these assertions with no links to proof? And you would let anyone who dare disagree with you get away with this? Standard tactic by you. Make a statement and demand that someone >else< prove it with links. DIY My link started this thread. That link show a reporter being beheaded...with a demand that prisoners be released attached to the end....I would venture a guess that treating terrorists as criminals only pisses the other terrorists off based upon that evidence. And your only solution offered to date to stop the generation of more terrorists is to stop military action. Ashton brought about the uneven distribution of wealth...I believe you responded favorably to that but have not offered that on your own...so I retract earlier statements made to you about sending them money. Lets not mix anything up and give you credit for someone else's ideas. You suggested blockades as another deterrent...and then claim decided ignorance of the fact that Iraq has links to terrorist activity...and have been the focus of blockades for quite some time. Blockades...by the way...that end up causing a more even distribution of "collateral damage" to the innocent population...which...I guess...according to your logic...would create more terrorists just like bombing them would. Or are you suggesting that we now have technology that allows "pinpoint blockades"...that only hurt the people we want and leaves the innocent population free from their effects? Inquiring minds.... You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #41,180
6/4/02 6:59:47 PM
|
Bill "Strawman" Pathetic.
You say: So it >is< military action that creates terrorists. No, I've already corrected you on that account. [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=41151|Here] Ah...so you think that its only military action that creates these terrorists. So..just stop the military action and they will mysteriously vanish? Again, your Alzheimer's is really in force today. How about these key words: "Saudi", "Millionaire", "holy land". Ringing any more bells?
How many times will I have to clarify that for you? I'm betting an INFINITE number of times. Why? Because that little fact (that not all terrorists are motivated by the same things) just does not fit your world view. Therefore, you will reject it. Over and over again. Therefore, you will continue to assign me a position I did not state. Military action is NOT the ONLY thing that breeds terrorists. There is also religious conviction (Osama's driving force). There is also poverty. There are many causes. So, to deal with terrorism, we must deal with each of these root causes. But the suggestion that treating terrorists like criminals breeds more terrorists is responded to with... Ah, you see, if it were ME making that statement, I'd have provide a DIRECT QUOTE to illustrate my point. You do not. That's because you don't have one. In other words, you're lieing, again. But what did I expect from Mr. Pathetic. Or didn't you understand when you read the demands for release of prisoners made at the end of the video. Ah, so your point is that the people there would NOT be terrorists if their commrades were NOT in jail. Sorry, Mr. Pathetic, You're wrong. Maybe these folks don't recognize the difference between Justice and Military Justice...instead looking at both as unwelcome interference? Again, Mr. Pathetic. "Military Justice" is NOT what you were discussing. You were discussing military operations. Military Justice is codified by the UCMJ. Please attempt to learn the terminology. No???? You make these assertions with no links to proof? And you would let anyone who dare disagree with you get away with this? Oh, I'm sorry, you must have me confused with someone who cares what your opinion is. Sorry, it's my background. Once I've established a pattern, there's no need to re-establish it. I've previously shown that you will refuse to provide links to support your statements. Therefore, I am not under any requirement to provide links to support my statements to you. If someone else asks, I will provide such information to them. But I don't think that anyone else will ask as anyone else (aside from two people who immediately spring to mind) will already be informed on this subject and will not require that I list terrorists held in prisons. Standard tactic by you. Make a statement and demand that someone >else< prove it with links. DIY Actually, as I said above, that has been established as one of your's. That's why I don't bother anymore when I'm talking at you. My link started this thread. That link show a reporter being beheaded...with a demand that prisoners be released attached to the end....I would venture a guess that treating terrorists as criminals only pisses the other terrorists off based upon that evidence. Ah, while factually true, your statement is designed to mislead. You see, I have never made the statement that jailing terrorists would NOT piss off other terrorists. Just that it would not create NEW terrorists. And your only solution offered to date to stop the generation of more terrorists is to stop military action. Another lie? Why should I expect anything different from you? I could go back and find the posts of mine where I said we should work to improve their economies. Or where I said we needed to marginalize their fundamentalists. But why? To prove it to you? You've already made up your mind and that is why you keep "forgetting" what I've posted. Not to mention the outright lies you post that you claim are from me. Ashton brought about the uneven distribution of wealth...I believe you responded favorably to that but have not offered that on your own...so I retract earlier statements made to you about sending them money. Okay, you're having trouble maintaining coherence from one paragraph to the next. First off, it is that all I've said is to stop military action. Then it is that I've favoured wealth re-distribution. I can understand your problem. It's a complex solution I've offered and you're saddled with a simplistic outlook. You suggested blockades as another deterrent...and then claim decided ignorance of the fact that Iraq has links to terrorist activity...and have been the focus of blockades for quite some time. No, I've suggested blockades IN CONJUNCTION with freezing assets as a means to get countries to turn over terrorists. Not as a deterrent. Or are you using words that are too big for you? Again, complex solutions and you're saddled with a simplistic mind. Blockades...by the way...that end up causing a more even distribution of "collateral damage" to the innocent population...which...I guess...according to your logic...would create more terrorists just like bombing them would. Really? Have you travelled to Cuba lately? Seems that they can do okay even when no one will trade with them (sort of). Hell, look at all those healthy Cuban ball players we import. Damn, those sanctions must REALLY be hurting those Cuban women and children. Or are you suggesting that we now have technology that allows "pinpoint blockades"...that only hurt the people we want and leaves the innocent population free from their effects? No. What I'm SAYING is that you have no idea what you're talking about. You say that my suggestion would result in even MORE suffering than bombing them. Yet Iraq, after 10 years of such sanctions, STILL exists. Cuba still exists. Now, from my experience, after 10 years of bombing, there wouldn't be a country left. Therefore, I say that freezing their accounts and blockading them would do LESS damage than bombing them. This does not meet your world view so you will ignore it.
|
Post #41,188
6/4/02 8:08:38 PM
|
If I may - some comments.
Hi,
Brandioh writes to BP:
I could go back and find the posts of mine where I said we should work to improve their economies. Or where I said we needed to marginalize their fundamentalists.
Part of my problem with your argument is that you don't attach specifics to it. (Another part is your demeaning language, but I won't address that here.)
You make several points that few would disagree with: 1) terrorism has many causes; 2) the US taking actions that many regard as callous or unjust can help fuel anger against it; 3) the military shouldn't be used for law enforcement actions; etc.
But how does one translate these principles into concrete actions in the current circumstances?
How would you marginalize the Wahabi version of Islam that fed OBL's hatred of the US? How would you improve the economy of countries with vocal groups that don't like US interference? What would you do, say, in [link|http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/africa/january97/algeria_1-22.html|Algeria]?
Many have pointed out problems with blockades. E.g. Afghanistan's border continues to be quite porous. It has a long border with a country the US doesn't have diplomatic relations with (Iran). How does one implement an effective blockade in such a situation? The Gulf War cease fire was put in place with a various trade restrictions on Iraq to prevent Saddam from gaining weapons of mass destructions and to force him to comply with the conditions of the cease fire. The blockade hasn't been terribly effective in gaining his cooperation on weapons inspections and the like.
Perhaps I'm misreading you, but it seems to me your posts could be interpreted as saying that military action is only permissible when there is no possibility of civilian casualties. Is that your position? If so, what's to prevent the use of willing (or unwilling) "human shields" causing a veto on military action? Giving them fair warning? Didn't the US try to do that in Afghanistan?
Bringing up the existence of terrorists in prisons around the world merely indicates that countries with functioning governments and legal systems have ways of identifying, arresting, and trying terrorist suspects within their borders. How does that apply to situations where that isn't the case - e.g. Afghanistan.
Finally, let's consider the case of the [link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/panam103/timeline.htm|Pan Am flight 103 bombing]. That happened in December 1988. Two Libyan intelligence officers were charged by the US in 1991. Their trial was in 2001 in the Hague under Scottish law. Just recently Libya has apparently offered to pay compensation to the families, in return for the lifting of sanctions, etc. So the incident is still working its way through the system after nearly 14 years. Would you consider this an example of what should have been done after the attacks on the Pentagon, World Trade Center and the hijacking of the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania? What leverage could have been applied to the Taliban government in Afghanistan to enable a judicial action? If the actions had been done by agents of the Taliban government, would you regard them as an act of war? Would you change your mind if the reports of al Quaida and the Taliban being effectively the same organization (e.g. intermarriage of principals, etc.) were true?
I think al Quaida took an overt act of war against the US. Their actions weren't of the same character as Capone or a Mafia. E.g. The Mafia is a criminal organization that hasn't done tens of billions of dollars of economic damage to a country and killed nearly 3000 people in the span of an hour or so. Military action against them and their supporters and protectors (the Taliban) in Afghanistan was and is appropriate, in my opinion.
I'm not trying to pick an argument with you, just hoping you'll clarify your position and give specific examples of what you think should have been done instead of the actions the US took in October 2001.
Thanks.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #41,197
6/4/02 9:14:57 PM
|
Answers.
But how does one translate these principles into concrete actions in the current circumstances? By "current circumstances" you may mean a few different things. #1. How could the current situation have been handled different? I've addressed this by saying we should have provide the Taliban (and the world) with the "proof" we had of Osama's involvement. Unilateral action is BAD. If the Taliban didn't want to deal, then freeze all of their accounts and blockade them. #2. How can we handle the situation we have right now? Move away from military force. Work to have the various governments share their anti-terrorist information and fund Interpol so they can turn this information into arrests. If a country is sheltering a terrorist that Interpol wants to arrest, then freeze their accounts and blockade them also. #3. Clarify our definition of "terrorist" and then follow our own definition. That means that Yasser would be arrested by Interpol. How would you marginalize the Wahabi version of Islam that fed OBL's hatred of the US? We'd have to re-evaluate our diplomatic relationship with Saudi Arabia. [link|http://www.state.gov/www/global/human_rights/irf/irf_rpt/1999/irf_saudiara99.html|Here] Which also ties into our dependency upon their oil. We need to get off of it. How would you improve the economy of countries with vocal groups that don't like US interference? We don't. We work with friendly countries. Over time, the friendly countries should become more prosperous and the unfriendly will have less of a reason to hate us. Also, the regular immigration from one country to the other will transfer the benefits, in theory. What would you do, say, in Algeria? Isn't that a civil war? Unless they're exporting terrorists it should be handled under a different heading. E.g. Afghanistan's border continues to be quite porous. It has a long border with a country the US doesn't have diplomatic relations with (Iran). And others. I didn't say it would be easy. But we can do it. How does one implement an effective blockade in such a situation? Helicopter gunships, fighter jets, etc. Define the border and shoot anything approaching it. That way, the only people killed are people who travel into fire zones. The Gulf War cease fire was put in place with a various trade restrictions on Iraq to prevent Saddam from gaining weapons of mass destructions and to force him to comply with the conditions of the cease fire. The blockade hasn't been terribly effective in gaining his cooperation on weapons inspections and the like. Like I said, it won't remove an established government. But Iraq has been, effectively, neutralized. Perhaps I'm misreading you, but it seems to me your posts could be interpreted as saying that military action is only permissible when there is no possibility of civilian casualties. No. But I don't see the difference between them killing civilians and us killing civilians and both of us claiming that such killing "has" to be done or is "permissible" or "justified". Dead civilians are dead civilians to me. If so, what's to prevent the use of willing (or unwilling) "human shields" causing a veto on military action? It sounds like you're talking about hostages. Now, it is rather difficult to have hostages involved in military operations. They don't travel easy. I would question whether a group holding hostages (If they're willing shields, they're not "innocent". Only the unwilling are hostages.) would require military response. What happens when a bank robbery involves hostages? If it is military action, then we have established precedents for burning how cities down to destroy strategic resources. What I'm seeing with al Queda is a Mafia type organization. And we do NOT bomb cities to get thugs. Giving them fair warning? Didn't the US try to do that in Afghanistan? Again, I see these as completely different situations. We were at war with Iraq over Kuwait. Bombing cities in Iraq to take out strategic resources is one thing. We were not at war with Afghanistan. They hadn't invaded anyone. We were targeting a criminal organization that occupied some of their territory. Bringing up the existence of terrorists in prisons around the world merely indicates that countries with functioning governments and legal systems have ways of identifying, arresting, and trying terrorist suspects within their borders. How does that apply to situations where that isn't the case - e.g. Afghanistan. That is when freezing the accounts of the rogue government and blockading it comes into play. But not unilaterally. That is why we need to organize the other governments to support this. Would you consider this an example of what should have been done after the attacks on the Pentagon, World Trade Center and the hijacking of the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania? I'd do it a bit differently, but the structure would be the same. I'd recommend a more complete lockdown of their country. Look at the results. What leverage could have been applied to the Taliban government in Afghanistan to enable a judicial action? Okay, I'll short hand it to fab (freeze their accounts and blockade their country). If the actions had been done by agents of the Taliban government, would you regard them as an act of war? Yes. The Taliban is the government of Afghanistan. If one government orders an attack on another country, it is an act of war. Would you change your mind if the reports of al Quaida and the Taliban being effectively the same organization (e.g. intermarriage of principals, etc.) were true? Expand on this, please. Are they any more similar than the governments of England and Canada? Or Germany and Austria? I think al Quaida took an overt act of war against the US. I think it was a criminal act of terrorism. Not war. Their actions weren't of the same character as Capone or a Mafia. E.g. The Mafia is a criminal organization that hasn't done tens of billions of dollars of economic damage to a country and killed nearly 3000 people in the span of an hour or so. I'll grant you the "in the span of an hour or so". But not the rest. They've killed people. They have done billions of dollars of economic damage. They just do it less publicly. Military action against them and their supporters and protectors (the Taliban) in Afghanistan was and is appropriate, in my opinion. And you are welcome to your opinion. Now, if I could show that the Mafia had billions of dollars of adverse effect on our economy and had killed 3,000 people, would you recommend military action against them? And by military action I mean bombing cities.
|
Post #41,245
6/5/02 7:36:06 AM
|
Clarifcation of my inquiry.
Thanks for your reply.
Brandioch wrote:
#1. How could the current situation have been handled different? I've addressed this by saying we should have provide the Taliban (and the world) with the "proof" we had of Osama's involvement. Unilateral action is BAD. If the Taliban didn't want to deal, then freeze all of their accounts and blockade them.
There were legitimate reasons why turning over evidence to the Taliban wasn't appropriate. And evidence subsequently became public - e.g. OBL's boasting tape. Finally, [link|http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/blockade-act-war.html|blockades] are traditionally regarded as an act of war, so wouldn't the end result be the same? That is, a blockade isn't a police action somehow separate from war.
How does one implement an effective blockade in such a situation?
Helicopter gunships, fighter jets, etc. Define the border and shoot anything approaching it. That way, the only people killed are people who travel into fire zones.
Such a similar approach isn't working too well in Afghanistan, and we have troups on the ground there. Helicopters have trouble over 14,000 feet or so. Helicopters need bases in the area, so the military would have to have a presence on the ground in the country in question. Fighters can't loiter. And AFAIK, the US isn't patroling the Iranian border.
Such an approach might be useful in a small area, but it has practical problems that mean that extensive military action would be required for a blockade to be effective if the country in question wasn't cooperative.
If so, what's to prevent the use of willing (or unwilling) "human shields" causing a veto on military action?
It sounds like you're talking about hostages.
I'm thinking more in terms of Saddam building extensive communications and intelligence infrastructure and inviting in families. Or Somalia where, IIRC, gunmen would roam the streets hiding behind women and children. Or in Palestine where children are often involved in attacks on Israeli soldiers. If action is prohibited where the possibility of deaths of children and non-combatants exists, then action will always be prohibited (because terrorists and others will take advantage of this prohibition).
Now, it is rather difficult to have hostages involved in military operations. They don't travel easy.
See above.
I would question whether a group holding hostages (If they're willing shields, they're not "innocent". Only the unwilling are hostages.)
Don't they also have to have the ability to make a choice? How does a child make a choice like that? How does someone living under a military dictatorship make that choice?
would require military response. What happens when a bank robbery involves hostages?
A bank robbery isn't an act of war. A robbery's purpose is to gain money and get away without capture. An act of war's purpose is to impose the will of a government or a foreign political organization on another country or foreign political organization. Which comes closer to fitting al Quaeda's aims? I choose "act of war".
We were not at war with Afghanistan.
The US Congress used very similar language to the Delaration of War against Japan in the legislation passed in September or October. We are at war with the former government of Afghanistan because of its complicity with the attacks on 9/11/01. Germany hadn't invaded us when we declared war against her in 1917. She hadn't attacked our soil directly. Wilson asked for a [link|http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/usawardeclaration.htm|declaration of war against Germany] because of her attacks against our ships and because "armed neutrality ... is impractical".
I think acts of war can be committed by relatively small groups. Only a few people in Germany decided to invade the USSR, even though they were the government of Germany. Before governments existed, warfare existed.
If the actions had been done by agents of the Taliban government, would you regard them as an act of war?
Yes. The Taliban is the government of Afghanistan. If one government orders an attack on another country, it is an act of war.
Would you change your mind if the reports of al Quaida and the Taliban being effectively the same organization (e.g. intermarriage of principals, etc.) were true?
Expand on this, please. Are they any more similar than the governments of England and Canada? Or Germany and Austria?
I'm referring to a post by boxley that talked about OBL's daughter marrying into Omar's family. I believe Powell and/or Rumsfeld or someone else in the administration also used this, and other facts, as evidence that al Quaeda and the Taliban were effectively the same organization. If al Quaeda is a terrorist organization, the the Taliban is as well. (And there's independent reporting of actions like skinning people alive that also points to the Taliban being a terrorist organization.) The Taliban protected al Quaeda (they wouldn't turn over OBL and others).
Now, if I could show that the Mafia had billions of dollars of adverse effect on our economy and had killed 3,000 people, would you recommend military action against them? And by military action I mean bombing cities.
No, I'd not recommend military action. The time scale of the damage and the aims of the actions are important, to me, in deciding whether something is a criminal act or an act of war. The aims of the actions are completely different in comparing the Mafia and al Quaeda.
A better example of what you're talking about, IMO, is what's happening in Columbia. Armed groups are involved with kidnapping, drug production and trafficing, attacks against the government, and a civil war. That's a much more complicated situation than what's happening between the US and al Quaeda. I regard it as a civil war that's being coopted by criminals and terrorists and think that military and police action are needed, as well as government reforms. Finding the right balance will probably be very difficult.
Thanks for clarifying your position. Gotta run.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #41,278
6/5/02 1:28:30 PM
|
More.
There were legitimate reasons why turning over evidence to the Taliban wasn't appropriate. I'll agree that there MAY have been legitimate reasons. But I don't recall that any were given. Nor did we share it with anyone else. And evidence subsequently became public - e.g. OBL's boasting tape. Which came out AFTER we started the attack. We're back to the Rule of Law as opposed to Might Makes Right. Would we have turned over one of our people to the Taliban if it demanded him and wouldn't provide any evidence that he did anything wrong? No. But we expect the world to provide us with the consideration that we will not provide it with. Finally, blockades are traditionally regarded as an act of war, so wouldn't the end result be the same? Only if you regard the declaration of war as being the end result. I don't. Rather, I view it as establishing that a certain Rule of Law exists between countries and that any countries that do not follow such will not be allowed to trade with the others. That is, a blockade isn't a police action somehow separate from war. No, the blockade comes AFTER the police action has failed to extract the individual(s). The blockade ONLY happens when the individual(s) are in a country that will not extradite them nor allow Interpol in to capture them. Steps and stages. Such a similar approach isn't working too well in Afghanistan, and we have troups on the ground there. It isn't being tried in Afghanistan. There are enough reports of our failure to cooperate with troops from other countries and our use of local forces in attacks. That is politics. Helicopters have trouble over 14,000 feet or so. Helicopters need bases in the area, so the military would have to have a presence on the ground in the country in question. Fighters can't loiter. And AFAIK, the US isn't patroling the Iranian border. 14,000 feet is pretty high. Like a mountain. If they stay in the mountain, in caves, they are, effectively, neutralized. If they leave the mountains, they are killed. Helicopters can operate from jump FARP's (Forward Arming and Refueling Points). Fighters don't loiter. They patrol long stretches of flat terrain. And the US isn't patrolling many borders. That doesn't mean we can't. Such an approach might be useful in a small area, but it has practical problems that mean that extensive military action would be required for a blockade to be effective if the country in question wasn't cooperative. I never said it wouldn't be an extensive military action to blockade a country. I even said that we shouldn't do it unilaterally. I did say that we wouldn't be killing innocents with our bombs. I'm thinking more in terms of Saddam building extensive communications and intelligence infrastructure and inviting in families. Okay, let's look at this on a time line. At one point, the family is living somewhere. That place is NOT militarily significant. The family, willingly and knowingly, moves to a place that is militarily significant. With me so far? So the family has, willingly and knowingly, placed itself in a target location. I think that removes their "innocent" status. This would also qualify as "child endangerment" in the US. Or Somalia where, IIRC, gunmen would roam the streets hiding behind women and children. Different scenario. That's a hostage situation. And it's kind of hard to hide an army behind a hostage. Unless the women were willingly shielding them. In which case, they aren't "innocent". Or in Palestine where children are often involved in attacks on Israeli soldiers. By "attacks" do you mean "throwing rocks"? Or do you mean "carrying a bomb"? Or do you mean "providing a shield for gunmen"? Each situation is different. Again, "child endangerment" is the term that comes to mind. If a terrorist is hiding behind a willing shield, then they are both criminals. The terrorist for attempted murder and the shield for aiding and abetting. If action is prohibited where the possibility of deaths of children and non-combatants exists, then action will always be prohibited (because terrorists and others will take advantage of this prohibition).
Okay, from my previous post responding to your questions. Perhaps I'm misreading you, but it seems to me your posts could be interpreted as saying that military action is only permissible when there is no possibility of civilian casualties. No. But I don't see the difference between them killing civilians and us killing civilians and both of us claiming that such killing "has" to be done or is "permissible" or "justified".
Dead civilians are dead civilians to me.
I also stated: If it is military action, then we have established precedents for burning how cities down to destroy strategic resources.
What I'm seeing with al Queda is a Mafia type organization. And we do NOT bomb cities to get thugs. I hope I have made this very clear at this point. Don't they also have to have the ability to make a choice? How does a child make a choice like that? How does someone living under a military dictatorship make that choice? If they do not have the ability to make that choice, then they are unwilling. By definition. If they were willing, they wouldn't care that they couldn't refuse. As for children, indoctrination is very effective. But, since a child cannot make an informed decision, they are classified as "unwilling" and the criminal is charged with "child endangerment" and "illegal restraint" or whatever the legal terminology for taking a hostage is. As for a military dictatorship, again, willing or unwilling depends upon the person. A bank robbery isn't an act of war. That's right. Unfortunately, you've already defined, in your mind, that terrorism is an act of war. So, even when I provide another example with very similar factors, you will not view it as a similar situation. You will still consider it as "act of war" or "not an act of war". I, on the other hand, do not think in those terms. I look at similar situations and what the final goal is. A robbery's purpose is to gain money and get away without capture. An act of war's purpose is to impose the will of a government or a foreign political organization on another country or foreign political organization. And the reason to impose their will on the other organization? Check back in history. Most wars are fought over "property". And money is "property". The only difference is who is doing the taking from whom. Iraq invaded Kuwait, not because Iraq wanted to change Kuwait's political agenda, but to get the oil fields. Because oil == money. Which comes closer to fitting al Quaeda's aims? I choose "act of war". I know you do. And I don't agree. I don't see them as any different from the Mafia. They want us off their turf and they're willing to kill to get us out. They deal in drugs and launder money. They buy political influence where they can to protect them from prosecution. Just like the mob. The US Congress used very similar language to the Delaration of War against Japan in the legislation passed in September or October. We are at war with the former government of Afghanistan because of its complicity with the attacks on 9/11/01. I seem to recall that we were just going into Afghanistan to get Osama. Over time, the "mission" has changed. But there was never, to my knowledge, any particular point where we stated that we were at war with Afghanistan. At war with "terrorists" I recall. But never Afghanistan. We've just moved into something that we can accomplish easier. Beatting a third rate country. Germany hadn't invaded us when we declared war against her in 1917. I didn't ask about invasion. Have we declared war on Afghanistan? If so, when? I think acts of war can be committed by relatively small groups. Yes, but not smaller than the government of a country. Only a few people in Germany decided to invade the USSR, even though they were the government of Germany. I think you're losing your train of thought here. Only the GOVERNMENT of a COUNTRY can order an ACT OF WAR be committed. Only the GOVERNMENT of a COUNTRY can declare war. Before governments existed, warfare existed. Governments have always existed. Even amongst the primates there is a "chief" and "territory". The "chief" is obeyed and "territory" is defended. I'm referring to a post by boxley that talked about OBL's daughter marrying into Omar's family. No. And I'm surprised that you'd even ask that. Particularly given the status of women over there. I believe Powell and/or Rumsfeld or someone else in the administration also used this, and other facts, as evidence that al Quaeda and the Taliban were effectively the same organization. So if our president had fucked a cute Russian interpreter, we'd be suddenly Communistic? If al Quaeda is a terrorist organization, the the Taliban is as well. No. No more so than if the US would be Mexican if one of our congress critters married a Mexican. (And there's independent reporting of actions like skinning people alive that also points to the Taliban being a terrorist organization.) Okay, what are you talking about? We have capital punishment. Does that make us a "terrorist organization"? Or is it just the gruesomeness of the punishment that defines "terrorist organization"? The Taliban protected al Quaeda (they wouldn't turn over OBL and others). Covered previously. We wouldn't turn over anyone on our soil without proof so why should they? No, I'd not recommend military action. The time scale of the damage and the aims of the actions are important, to me, in deciding whether something is a criminal act or an act of war. So, how many people could a terrorist kill, per day, before it would be considered an "act of war" by you? And the aims are the same. They want people off their turf.
|
Post #41,215
6/4/02 11:06:25 PM
|
I see your originality is still intact
Why? Because that little fact (that not all terrorists are motivated by the same things) just does not fit your world view.
Therefore, you will reject it. Over and over again. Well...you see...the problem with you saying that about >my< position (which is that there are many motivations for terrorists...so you can't even guage my position)...is that you continue...in multiple posts...to say only... But dealing with terrorists as if they were criminals will stop the "collateral damage" from turning children into terrorists. Oh..I forgot...you have discussed some mythical "root cause"...which it took Another Scott to finally drag out of you. That's because you don't have one. In other words, you're lieing, again. Maybe you should watch the video I linked again. Specifically where the terrorist group demanded the release of prisoners. One would hardly have to make a huge leap in thought (maybe too far for you though) to the conclusion that taking prisoners may just have been a motivator for the beheading of Danny Pearl. Maybe not the only one..but certainly on of the reasons...otherwise...why would they demand their release. [link|http://www.namibian.com.na/2001/August/world/015DB273E.html|It may be to cliche for you...but terrorists often ask for release of their brethren from prison] Ah, so your point is that the people there would NOT be terrorists if their commrades were NOT in jail. Quite possibly. All of these "injustices"...prisoners, starvation, cultural imperialism...etc...are used to recruit new terrorists. It is very possible that without those prisoners being taken...the second group would never have been recruited. Logical stretch...but far from your lofty assertion of... Sorry, Mr. Pathetic, You're wrong. Oh...and... Oh, I'm sorry, you must have me confused with someone who cares what your opinion is. You must, loverboy...otherwise you wouldn't spend so much energy trying to prove it wrong...poorly, I might add. No. What I'm SAYING is that you have no idea what you're talking about. You say that my suggestion would result in even MORE suffering than bombing them. Yet Iraq, after 10 years of such sanctions, STILL exists. Cuba still exists. Not even close. I say that blockades also create collateral damage. You know...hardship and starvation of the general population...or haven't you [link|http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/000303/2000030332.html|read ]about the effect of sanctions on the general pop of Iraq. However..they may create more collateral damage than bombing...depending on what it is you're actually bombing. We did spend alot of time blowing up caves. Before you take that to heart (you have a problem understanding sarcasm) ...I did not say that sanctions create more collateral damage than bombs. You made that up. Creative little devil...aren't you? BUT...all that aside...you are making a suggestion to ...(let me be very careful with this so you get it)..convince people to turn over terrorists with a tactic that you say will turn children into terrorists. After all...your quote is right up above...wait...I'll bring it down to make it easy on you... But dealing with terrorists as if they were criminals will stop the "collateral damage" from turning children into terrorists. Your words. Collateral damage turns children into terrorists. So...isn't your suggestion just a touch counter-productive? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #41,281
6/5/02 1:44:33 PM
|
Reading.....with comprehension.
Oh..I forgot...you have discussed some mythical "root cause"...which it took Another Scott to finally drag out of you. Really? He had to drag it out of me? Shall I refute that statement? Here, from his ORIGINAL post to me in this thread. You make several points that few would disagree with: 1) terrorism has many causes; 2) the US taking actions that many regard as callous or unjust can help fuel anger against it; 3) the military shouldn't be used for law enforcement actions; etc. [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=41188|If I may - some comments.] So, how did he drag it out of me if his original post stated my position clearly? Again, you'll tell any lie to attempt to discredit my position rather than do your own research. You are Pathetic.
|
Post #41,148
6/4/02 3:53:59 PM
|
lotsa criminals and no Justice :)
TAM ARIS QUAM ARMIPOTENS
|
Post #41,002
6/3/02 5:07:05 PM
|
You may be quite right re the outcome.
(Of course, we might.. 'lose' - but: Nobody Else will Possibly Win)
We (as a country) have obviously lacked the balls to face squarely our mini-version of the 'division of world wealth' as lies near the root of all these interactions.
And *wealth* IS our God, signified by the willingness of most Muricans to accept the one-word self-description, Yes, I am a capitalist - in certain conversations. (Not.. I am a human being; I value ___ and ___ and ___ / stand against ___ and ___ Etc.)
We (as a country) have settled for the siren song of 'consumption' - as the main reason to exist here, and as rationalization for why we will daily put up with (the office conditions oft described here? for just one mildest example).
We daily swallow the overt lies of all marketers, sharing the Disneyland fantasy. We abide the smarmy personal-greed of the congenital enterpreneur. We Lionize the ilk of Billy and Trump and the other symbols of modern-day Royalty -- who disproportionately Own most everything tangible as well as *the daily working lives* of their serfs, (not to mention a lot of evenings).
A nation of consuming serfs would seem to be most unlikely to observe the worldwide effects of the wealth-concentration which follows inexorably from unrestrained 'capitalism' -- never mind noticing the ethical vacuum in which it always thrives best. Enron IS our 'Entrepreneurial Ideal' = Win it All. By any means. They just happened to get caught, via some tactical errors.
Our poor may be 'wealthy' compared to most other 'poor' - but our national attention is ever focussed upon acquiring More; this especially for those who already have vastly Much. All the religions have a name for this aberration / tendency of juvenile homo-saps to become besotted, to seek excess. But our God is not any of those Gods.
How could such a group possibly grok the forces at work, which prompt the desperate to behave today - *as if* they were in the midst of a shooting war, in which their own lives are in the sights of 'enemy' gunners, ready to shoot them & theirs: next? (And it is -still- most often metaphorically, despite the literal examples we now, finally! worry about)
Not a nation obsessed with UAVs and entertainment from 500 sources. The gap from there, to the daily 'reality' for most of the planet is just too large a stretch. If we can't see or do not care about the manipulations at home -- the plight of billions, from whom we extract the materials we consume, just cannot be experienced vicariously (even if we wanted to slum for a few minutes of feigned 'humanity' break).
So, I think we'll escalate the Force and guarantee that the outcome will be appropriate. Pyrrhic Victory. We, of course could Never [allow ourselves to] 'Lose': before that eventuality we would indeed* "reduce the planet to a burned-out cinder" (in the immortal words of Klaatu - accompanied by His Gort Robot). And feel smug about the Righteousness of it all, just before - -
* Why ?!?
Because we Can. And because we Must 'Win'. Never mind 'What'.
Ashton
noting that - even in 2002, there are many who believe, "we coulda Won Vietnam! / and Should Have"
"... I couldn't see how anyone could be educated by this self-propagating system in which people pass exams, teach others to pass exams, but nobody knows anything." --Richard Feynman (via Ben T)
|
Post #40,955
6/3/02 11:07:54 AM
|
Again, I must disagree...
They aren't even playing the political game. This is a whole new breed of asshole that hopefully will be not be around too much longer.
I'm sorry, but they are NOT a new breed...and they have been around far longer that the USA has been in existance. And you're right, the leftist "peace at any price"/"teach the world to sing" are nothing but lambs going forward to slaughter. They don't understand the world. However, the "fanatics to breed fanatics" approach from the other side is equally flawed. No one wants to live in that world either. A brute kills for pleasure. A fool kills from hate. -- Notebooks of Lazurus Long
|
Post #40,975
6/3/02 1:03:56 PM
|
Hatred, not at their level
if we give in to hate, aren't we becoming as bad as they are? Still some action needs to be done. Maybe bombing the mountains that terrorists are known to be camped up in? Dropping napalm in open caves that terrorists are known to be in?
This may have to be settled by declaring war and sending in our troops to find these *ssholes.
I am free now, to choose my own destiny.
|
Post #40,977
6/3/02 2:22:06 PM
|
We are as bad as they are and... as good.
Orion,
I think I understand your sentiment. But I don't feel that it is "good enough" just to kill the current crop. It is a potential in all of our genes to be heartless as well as heartful. We can cultivate and nurture either emotion. These boys were cultivated into non-empathetic haters. I'm affraid that we cannot do much about these people who would strap a bomb to their own backs. They do not value even their own lives. There is no way to "rationally" deal with this type of individual other than to exterminate them. If we do it with a cold efficency, then maybe it will work as a deterrent for the next generation of would be terrorists' - parents. As I said, I think the current bred crop of terrorist are beyond hope. They do have parents and family. These survivors are the key.
If they cannot "respect" us, they can at least fear us. I hope that we will take whatever measures are needed to instill that fear - even including neutron bombs if needed. It makes no difference to me as an American. All I'm interested in is a decent future for my own children.
The concept that we would be "sinking" to their level is sort of meaningless to me. We aren't that pious or "good" and, if push came to shove, I'm sure just about any of us could "sink to their level" to protect our families and friends.
As for the current situation, I think the Indians will be taking care of most of the fanatics in Pakistan... But the rest of the "civilized" world will need to police the rest of the world. If countries do not have the political will or means to police their own, then I think we (the U.S., Europe, Russia, et all) need to provide those services, whether wanted or not... I could be wrong.
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"As people assemble, civilization Is trying to find a new way to die,
But killing is really, merely scene changer,all men are bored, with other men's lives"
...
"We all know success, when we all find our own dreams
And our love is enough to knock down any walls
And the future's been seen, as men try to realize
The simple secret of the note in us all
in us all"
P. Townshend - Pure and Easy
|
Post #40,980
6/3/02 2:51:42 PM
|
That type of thought process used to amaze me.
If they cannot "respect" us, they can at least fear us. I hope that we will take whatever measures are needed to instill that fear - even including neutron bombs if needed. It makes no difference to me as an American. All I'm interested in is a decent future for my own children. You're willing to nuke thousands of innocents to get a few "bad" guys. And you're worried about the safety of YOUR children? These boys were cultivated into non-empathetic haters. Well, it seems that they weren't the only ones. Allow me to phrase this in a more personal manner. You live in a house, on a block, in a city. Now, someone comes to your house and kills your family because someone living a couple blocks over pissed him off. Would you be "empathic" to the person who just killed your family? Or would you be angry at the person who just killed your family? What would you teach your future children? And THAT is the crux of the issue. We have a problem with SOME SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS over there. So we "accidentally" kill innocents. But the families of those innocents are NOT supposed to hate us for our actions. They're supposed to feel empathy for us. Why do you expect the families of the people we've murdered to be more understanding than OUR OWN PEOPLE? Yes, it's easy to live in a world where everyone else is a saint.
|
Post #40,981
6/3/02 3:14:57 PM
|
But Brandioch...
And THAT is the crux of the issue. We have a problem with SOME SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS over there.
So we "accidentally" kill innocents.
But the families of those innocents are NOT supposed to hate us for our actions. They're supposed to feel empathy for us.
<sarcasm mode> If they continue to hate us, and they refuse to learn, then we'll be forced to kill them too. It won't be our fault. I really don't understand your complaint. Nothing less that complete security is acceptable -- do you want MORE planes flying into buildings? More deaths of Americans? Genocide is a perfectly acceptable answer. If they're all dead, they can't fly planes into our buildings. And...if anyone wants to complain, they're with the terrorists...and we can kill them too. </sarcasm mode>
|
Post #40,984
6/3/02 3:39:11 PM
|
what to do
"Now, someone comes to your house and kills your family because someone living a couple blocks over pissed him off."
"Would you be "empathic" to the person who just killed your family?" Yes I would tell him G_d understands his error just before his execution
"Or would you be angry at the person who just killed your family?"
No anger and retribution are two different things. One is to allow the folks that dont know you that it is a bad idea to mess with you. Also be sure and kill the ahole that started the whole mess, and maybe a few family members of both then adopt their kids.
"What would you teach your future children."
Only you can protect yourself, everyone else can examine the postmortem and come to conclusions.
thanx,
bill
TAM ARIS QUAM ARMIPOTENS
|
Post #40,986
6/3/02 3:49:09 PM
|
Close
The person who just killed my family would lose his family, his in laws and anyone who visited him over the course of the past year...slowly...and with alot of pain.
And just because...the neighbor that he was fighting with...and possibly their entire family as well.
The Chicago way.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #40,995
6/3/02 4:26:46 PM
|
Now put some names to those people and you'll see the prob.
So, the US does something that Osama doesn't like.
So Osama strikes at the US.
So the US kills innocent Afghans.
In my example, your family would be one of the Afghans.
Now, you will want to strike back at the US. How do you do so?
And the cycle continues.
|
Post #41,014
6/3/02 6:40:05 PM
|
Yes
I do not expect that you will agree. You may be basing your logic on a flawed assumption. You are assuming that this is a "criminal" matter (as evidenced in many of your posts) that should be dealt with using a non-military solution. This is, in fact, logical only if you can assume that countries where terrorists live and operate have police forces and governments that have the means or will to accomplish the criminal prosecution of these individuals. You have implied that our actions against the Taliban government were "unjust" by claiming that we have not achieved our objective of "getting" Bin Laden. I think that you either are being coy or missed a basic point - that the Taliban government which housed Bin Laden was uncapable of "policing" him, so we either went in ourselves or let it go... IMHO, we did what we had to do..
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"As people assemble, civilization Is trying to find a new way to die,
But killing is really, merely scene changer,all men are bored, with other men's lives"
...
"We all know success, when we all find our own dreams
And our love is enough to knock down any walls
And the future's been seen, as men try to realize
The simple secret of the note in us all
in us all"
P. Townshend - Pure and Easy
|
Post #41,015
6/3/02 7:00:10 PM
|
Can you locate the USofA on a map?
You are assuming that this is a "criminal" matter (as evidenced in many of your posts) that should be dealt with using a non-military solution. That is true. This is, in fact, logical only if you can assume that countries where terrorists live and operate have police forces and governments that have the means or will to accomplish the criminal prosecution of these individuals. Considering that the CIA knew for 18 months that terrorists were living here, does that make the US one of those countries? Or did you mean something different by "live and operate"? You have implied that our actions against the Taliban government were "unjust" by claiming that we have not achieved our objective of "getting" Bin Laden. No. It was "unjust" because we killed innocent people. It was stupid because we didn't get Osama. I think that you either are being coy or missed a basic point - that the Taliban government which housed Bin Laden was uncapable of "policing" him, so we either went in ourselves or let it go... IMHO, we did what we had to do.. Really? I recall the Taliban asking for our "proof" that Osama was behind it. Never that they said they WOULD NOT surrender him. I'm glad that you have an opinion. That we "had" to kill innocent civilians. It makes their death so much more noble than people killed by terrorists. Of course, you can ask Osama and he'll say that they "have" to kill us. What I'm questioning is that mindset. WHY do you think that we "have" to kill them? And don't tell me that it is "them" or "us". We killed INNOCENT CIVILIANS. Once again, my point is that they have to LEAVE those countries and TRAVEL to other countries to strike at us. All we have to do is ARREST them when they leave. We freeze their assets. If a country is protecting them, we blockade that country and freeze their assets in the US. We are allies with most of the developed world. If we have proof that a country is harbouring a known terrorist, why wouldn't our allies support our blockade and such until such a person is turned over? No. I see this as pure, misguided vengence. We were hit so we "had" to hit back at something. Anything. It seems to work out a lot better when you THINK through a situation rather than just letting your emotions go.
|
Post #41,030
6/3/02 10:55:06 PM
|
Doesn't work
If a country is protecting them, we blockade that country and freeze their assets in the US.
We are allies with most of the developed world. If we have proof that a country is harbouring a known terrorist, why wouldn't our allies support our blockade and such until such a person is turned over? Why? Because a blockade hurts women and..of course...the cheeldrun...in those countries. And of course...as your argument goes...they are INNOCENT people caught in the struggle. So...you have a country that supports them and will not police them. What do you do? What we did. We could have turned Afghanistan into a very large sheet of glass. That would have killed quite a few more innocent people. Did innocent people die in Afghanistan. Yep. We had a few innocent folks die ourselves. Now the terrorists have to find somewhere else to train...and I'm sure that the other governments in the regoion will think once or twice before they allow it on their soil. And what...by chance...do you arrest a suicide bomber for BEFORE he's blown himself up? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #41,032
6/3/02 11:14:22 PM
|
Yeah...
Okay, I'm with you on a number of points, not on a number of others. I'll give you that by definition, the USA was harboring terrorists. We payed a hell of a price for it already. Or did you miss the Pentagon and World Trade Center bombings?
It's apparent to me that these events didn't seem to have any kind of profound effect on your sense of moral equivalency. It did on mine... Shame on me.
You write:
"Once again, my point is that they have to LEAVE those countries and TRAVEL to other countries to strike at us. All we have to do is
ARREST them when they leave."
To which I ask, what about EMBASSIES? What about tourists? What about the poor bastard jouralists that is trying to make a living?
As to your plans for economic sanctions against these countries... Weren't they there already? It real well before... Besides, I thought the reason these twisted bastards were lashing out was because they had no economic prospects and had nothing to lose... Let's really fuck up their economies? I mean, I thought that this was the ROOT CAUSE, poverty and despair... Natch Natch...
I think you have a very simplistic answer for a very complex problem... Unless... We just all agree to stay here in the good old USA and never go abroad for any reason... And once proven in a court of law (Argentina?), and found to be a harboring terrorist country, we blockade them and make the poor suffering bastards poorer... They'll like us then.
The civilians that were killed in Afghanistan were tragic. They were pawns in a larger game that their government played. You claim to have been in intelligence? Every second that we lost while the Taliban "demanded proof" was more time for Bin Laden to ease into another host country. We were there in a month. Our bombs could have been there in days, if not hours. How long should we have waited. What proof did that government deserve? WE KNEW IT. We gave them a choice, turn him over or cease to be a government. They chose. It was quite simple. Think about it before you post.
The concept of a "just" war is really a throughback to the First Wave Warfare style of chivalry and other medieval nonsense. Even in medieval warfare, the victors routinely sacked the town and killed all the women and children. The weapons have changed, the game has not. The numbers have just gotten magnified immensely.
As a human being, I am deeply concerned with human suffering. As an American, I am most concerned with American suffering. We did not take this conflict to the poor bastard fanatic Muslims. They brought it to us... I will not allow myself to find any moral equivalencies between us and them. It is completely irrelevent to me at this time. YMMV.
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"As people assemble, civilization Is trying to find a new way to die,
But killing is really, merely scene changer,all men are bored, with other men's lives"
...
"We all know success, when we all find our own dreams
And our love is enough to knock down any walls
And the future's been seen, as men try to realize
The simple secret of the note in us all
in us all"
P. Townshend - Pure and Easy
|
Post #41,049
6/4/02 1:30:46 AM
|
Ummm, did you miss the heading of this forum?
I'll give you that by definition, the USA was harboring terrorists. No, they were living here. We payed a hell of a price for it already. Or did you miss the Pentagon and World Trade Center bombings? Check the title of this forum. Or are you proposing that we settle for the "justice" metted out by the terrorists? It's apparent to me that these events didn't seem to have any kind of profound effect on your sense of moral equivalency. It did on mine... Shame on me. Yes. Because you are now willing to kill innocent women and children to statisfy your need for vengence. Accourding to our sources there is ONE man "responsible" for this attack. Instead of working to capture/kill him, we're spending time killing women and children. But that is okay with you because you don't know those women and those aren't your children. To which I ask, what about EMBASSIES? What about tourists? What about the poor bastard jouralists that is trying to make a living? What about them? Are you concerned about attacks on them? Maybe you can expand on that concept? With examples? As to your plans for economic sanctions against these countries... Weren't they there already? In two words FUCK NO! Shall I say it again to make it clear to you? FUCK NO! Osama's funds were NOT frozen. In fact, the current regime decided to NOT pursue that course when they took control. The same thing with Taliban funding. Definately not frozen. It real well before... Besides, I thought the reason these twisted bastards were lashing out was because they had no economic prospects and had nothing to lose... Let's really fuck up their economies? No, that is the reason SOME of them resort to terror attacks. Not all of them. Osama definately isn't hurting for cash. I mean, I thought that this was the ROOT CAUSE, poverty and despair... Natch Natch... Okay, if I have to explain to you that Osama is a millionaire then you, obviously, do not have the background knowledge to hold a rational discussion. Why don't you do a bit of research and try again when you're better informed? The civilians that were killed in Afghanistan were tragic. They were pawns in a larger game that their government played. Strange how it was US bombs dropped by US troops on a US mission that killed them then. Every second that we lost while the Taliban "demanded proof" was more time for Bin Laden to ease into another host country. Gee, and we could have just provided the "proof" and had their permission to go get him. Instead, we didn't waste any time waiting for him to escape to another country and went right in and........ Let him escape to another country. Ah, I see how your solution would have resulted in the capture/killing of Osama while mine would not have. What proof did that government deserve? WE KNEW IT. I think that says enough right there. Buh bye.
|
Post #41,092
6/4/02 10:58:33 AM
|
Nope...
I say:
I'll give you that by definition, the USA was harboring terrorists.
To which you reply:
No, they were living here.
What the heck is the difference, Kiddo? Are you implying that they were
citizens? Pedantic R We...
Score: Child = 1? Me = 0
I say:
We paid a hell of a price for it already. Or did you miss the Pentagon
and World Trade Center bombings?
To which you reply:
Check the title of this forum. Or are you proposing that we settle for
the "justice" meted out by the terrorists?
I'm not the one proposing that we find some type of moral equivalence
between - to quote Dick Gebhart -
[link|http://apnews.excite.com/article/20020604/D7JUB6580.html|"There is no moral equivalence between suicide bombings and defending against them."]
Which is what you have been childishly screaming for the last 6 months in these fora.
I write:
It's apparent to me that these events didn't seem to have any kind of
profound effect on your sense of moral equivalency. It did on mine...
Shame on me.
To which you reply:
Yes. Because you are now willing to kill innocent women and children to
satisfy your need for vengeance.
You are making a huge assumption there, child. One, that I am willing or
want to see the death of women and children and two that I feel a NEED
for vengeance (sp) In your own words, BACK UP THAT CLAIM!
Score - Child = 2? Me = 0
You write:
According to our sources there is ONE man "responsible" for this attack.
Who or what is your DIVINE Source? BACK UP THAT CLAIM! You may have
assumed in your childish mind that this is some sort of fact, but I have
not seen any documents saying that Bin Laden acted or plotted alone.
Which plane was he on? Earth to Khasim... If you repeat something enough you think it becomes fact?
You further pontificate:
Instead of working to capture/kill him, we're spending time killing
women and children.
But that is okay with you because you don't know those women and those
aren't your children.
No, sir. You can't get away with that shit. BACK UP THAT CLAIM. We are spending our military resources
routing out -cave by cave- men-soldiers/terrorists. The women and children are not targets.
You are an asshole to even suggest that the women and children are
targets. Your rhetoric in this area is continually offensive to me and
any thinking person. Shame on you. And it is not okay with me that
innocents are killed which is why I wrote in this thread to begin with.
To protest the death of an innocent reporter. Although I'm sure it would
have been better somehow in your sense of equivalency had he been a
woman or child?
Score - Child = 3? Me = 0 (You are really starting to rack up the points).
I write:
To which I ask, what about EMBASSIES? What about tourists? What about
the poor bastard journalists that is trying to make a living?
To which you reply (stupidly, I might add):
What about them? Are you concerned about attacks on them? Maybe you can
expand on that concept? With examples?
Examples that come immediately to mind: African Embassies, USS Cole, Daniel Pearl, Philippines, Kashmir
(man, you are making this easy). Your childish suggestions about
sanctions and freezing bank accounts imply that we never under any
circumstance TRAVEL or Work abroad. Come on. If we freeze their assets,
they will simply change to barter or cash economy. You do remember that
they at one time had access TO POPPIES? HEROIN? The key being, at one
time, before we went over and didn't achieve anything in
Afghanistan. Which is why Bill Patient's Capone analogy makes a lot more
sense than you gave him credit for. I'm sure that all their bank
accounts are in their own names and they list their occupation as
INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST or Al-Quaida enthusiast?
Score - Child = 4? Me = 0 (Man, I can't win)
I write:
As to your plans for economic sanctions against these countries...
Weren't they there already?
To which you ooze:
In two words FUCK NO!
Shall I say it again to make it clear to you?
FUCK NO!
Osama's funds were NOT frozen. In fact, the current regime decided to
NOT pursue that course when they took control.
The same thing with Taliban funding.
Definitely not frozen.
Yo, Rainman, I may be really stoopeed, but I don't remember calling Bin Laden a
country. Definitely, definitely not a country...(Context, my child, read for context). I was referring to a
country called AFGHANISTAN and indeed, not only were sanctions in place,
we (along with every nation in the world save 3) didn't even recognize
them as a legitimate country. Are you really trying to annoy me with
your lack of reading ability and comprehension? Or are you just happy to say fuck repeatedly?
I write:
It real well before... Besides, I thought the reason these twisted
bastards were lashing out was because they had no economic prospects and
had nothing to lose... Let's really fuck up their economies?
To which you coo,
No, that is the reason SOME of them resort to terror attacks. Not all of
them. Osama definitely isn't hurting for cash.
You sort actually have a point here, YEAH! (Child = 1) And because I
forgot to put the word "worked" into "It (sanctions) really worked well
before", I'll give you yet another point! You are on a roll now. But fighting a war with the
free world costs more than a few million bucks, bucko. Running an
international terror ring isn't cheap, especially if you are trying to
take on the United States and Israel and the rest of the free world...
How much money do you think Bin Laden has? Enough? Enough to buy guns
and Ammunition for all his buddies and put out training videos and pay for
flight schools and ad nauseum? But, in your mind he has enough and acted
alone, so... I guess that's that.
I sarcastically write in deference to your root cause threads (with apologies to Ashton):
I mean, I thought that this was the ROOT CAUSE, poverty and despair...
Natch Natch...
To which you obfuscate:
Okay, if I have to explain to you that Osama is a millionaire then you,
obviously, do not have the background knowledge to hold a rational
discussion.
Why don't you do a bit of research and try again when you're better
informed?
Pot - kettle - black. No, you don't have to explain to me that Bin Laden is a millionaire again (unless you really feel like it) unless you want me to explain to you that he isn't rich enough to fund even the ammo for his "troups". This was my feeble attempt to show how ridiculous your
oversimplifications of complex problems are. You must think this guy has
godzillions of bucks... But, I'll do some more research on how to
communicate with children (or chimpanzees) and get back with you with an
abstract that is appropriate for your cognitive skills. Kay?
I write:
The civilians that were killed in Afghanistan were tragic. They were
pawns in a larger game that their government played.
Every second that we lost while the Taliban "demanded proof" was more
time for Bin Laden to ease into another host country.
to which you reply:
Strange how it was US bombs dropped by US troops on a US mission that
killed them then.
Gee, and we could have just provided the "proof" and had their
permission to go get him.
Instead, we didn't waste any time waiting for him to escape to another
country and went right in and........
Let him escape to another country.
I actually was stating, and you have a right to disagree, that we should
have acted within days, not months, carpet bombing the last known areas
he was in. The Taliban government was in no position to require anything
from us. We didn't even recognize them as a government. Again, if you
want to beat the moral righteousness of the poor misunderstood Taliban horse,
go for it. You'll get no points from me for it though.
You further scribe:
Ah, I see how your solution would have resulted in the capture/killing
of Osama while mine would not have.
What proof did that government deserve? WE KNEW IT. I think that says
enough right there
Buh bye.
I think it says it right there too. Triumphant bit of pure crap on your point... Whatever you POINT is?
Buh Bye backatcha.
Oh, and final score - child = 4? Me = 0 I guess you win!
Oh, and by the way, your new style of debate is quite refreshing...
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"As people assemble, civilization Is trying to find a new way to die,
But killing is really, merely scene changer,all men are bored, with other men's lives"
...
"We all know success, when we all find our own dreams
And our love is enough to knock down any walls
And the future's been seen, as men try to realize
The simple secret of the note in us all
in us all"
P. Townshend - Pure and Easy
|
Post #41,135
6/4/02 2:20:32 PM
|
Score it however you want to.
Whether you claim you're right or not does not change whether you were right or not. I'm not the one proposing that we find some type of moral equivalence between - to quote Dick Gebhart -
"There is no moral equivalence between suicide bombings and defending against them."
Which is what you have been childishly screaming for the last 6 months in these fora. Ah, and I'm sure that those children we killed in Afghanistan were terrorists who were threatening us. You see, I have no problem defending against terrorists. We've been over this. You can claim whatever you want. It's the actions you take that tell the truth. Killing children in Afghanistan is NOT "defending against terrorists". Except in your mind. You are making a huge assumption there, child. One, that I am willing or want to see the death of women and children and two that I feel a NEED for vengeance (sp) In your own words, BACK UP THAT CLAIM! Read your post. Note the use of BOLD. If you are not willing to see us killing women and children in Afghanistan, then you had better start protesting our killing women and children in Afghanistan instead of trying to portray such killing of women and children in Afghanistan as "defending against terrorists". You advocate the killing of people who were in NO WAY involved in the attack and you then claim that this isn't because of your need for vengence? Whatever. Who or what is your DIVINE Source? BACK UP THAT CLAIM! George W. Bush. President of the USofA. You may have assumed in your childish mind that this is some sort of fact, but I have not seen any documents saying that Bin Laden acted or plotted alone. I am willing to say that you have not seen ANY documents related to the attack. As for acting alone, you will recall that there were 19 hijackers. So "acting alone" with 19 other people? Whatever. Ah, again, your problem with language. When I say "responsible" you translate it into "acted alone". Typical. No, sir. You can't get away with that shit. BACK UP THAT CLAIM. What claim? That we killed women and children in Afghanistan? Are you questioning that? Tell me if you question that. Then, when I provide proof that we did, you will admit that you are uninformed on the situation and apologize, right? Or are you just going to keep demanding that I substantiate every fact that should already be known by anyone familiar with the situation? We are spending our military resources routing out -cave by cave- men-soldiers/terrorists. We started with a bombing campaign. During that campaign, we killed women and children. The women and children are not targets. I did not say they were targets. They are "collateral damage". You are an asshole to even suggest that the women and children are targets. Okay, so, I'm pedantic when I correct your usage of language, but if I don't correct it, you have problems understanding what I say. To clarify, I never said that women and children in Afghanistan WERE TARGETS. They are people killed because our bombs EXPLODE and take out an AREA. If they're in that AREA, they are damaged (collaterally). YOU are the one with the language problem who keeps assuming I'm saying we're TARGETING women and children. We just don't CARE if they happen to be in the area when we drop the bombs. Your rhetoric in this area is continually offensive to me and
any thinking person. Well, I'm glad that every thinking person has finally managed to get together and elect YOU as spokesperson for them. Did they have cookies and juice during the election? And it is not okay with me that innocents are killed which is why I wrote in this thread to begin with. So, what are you going to do about it? To protest the death of an innocent reporter. Ah, once again, when it is one of OUR'S it is an "innocent". When it is one of THEIR'S, it doesn't exist. Although I'm sure it would have been better somehow in your sense of equivalency had he been a woman or child? Actually, I see a great difference between someone who leave the US, flies to a foreign country, knowing that it is dangerous and then seeks out dangerous people -and- someone living in the same city she's always lived in suddenly getting some hot shrapnel in her guts courtesy of Unka Sam. But you won't see that difference. All you'll see is "one of our's" and "", well, you won't even see her, will you? She doesn't exist. Examples that come immediately to mind: African Embassies, USS Cole, Daniel Pearl, Philippines, Kashmir (man, you are making this easy). That's good. When it's easy, you can learn. Now, Kashmir. I know that name, location and that India and Pakistan are fighting over it. What does Kashmir have to do with terrorist attacks against the US? Your childish suggestions about sanctions and freezing bank accounts imply that we never under any circumstance TRAVEL or Work abroad. Really? I see absolutely no problem with travelling and working in Britain. Or Germany. Or Australia. and so on and so forth. Perhaps you can explain to me how freezing Afghanistan's accounts would result in problems for US citizens working or living in Britain. Hmmmm? Come on. If we freeze their assets, they will simply change to barter or cash economy. Cool. Good for them. What was your point? Ahhh, do you think that they will be able to trade goods for aircraft training in the US? Hmmmmm? You do remember that they at one time had access TO POPPIES? HEROIN? The key being, at one time, before we went over and didn't achieve anything in Afghanistan. Hmmmm, you seem to have a severe mental disorder. Perhaps you would care to link to the post where I said we did not accomplish anything in Afghanistan? I can provide links showing where I said we destroyed their existing government and so on. Ahhhh, once again, your translation is flawed. What I said is that we did not get Osama. You read that as "we did not accomplish anything in Afghanistan". Your fault. Not mine. Which is why Bill Patient's Capone analogy makes a lot more
sense than you gave him credit for. Considering that you have, repeated, in this very post, illustrated how you misread what I've posted, I don't think I'll take your word on whether someone else's analogy was correct or not. Thanks anyway. I'm sure that all their bank accounts are in their own names and they list their occupation as INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST or Al-Quaida enthusiast? Actually, one of them was. In California. Ah, I see, your ignorance extends to modern criminal investigations. Don't you find it strange that we had the information we needed to freeze those accounts AFTER the attack? Particularly when you claim that we would not be able to identify them? Yes, we did freeze the accounts after the attack. Yo, Rainman, I may be really stoopeed, but I don't remember calling Bin Laden a country. That's right, you didn't. I was referring to a country called AFGHANISTAN and indeed, not only were sanctions in place, we (along with every nation in the world save 3) didn't even recognize them as a legitimate country. Are you really trying to annoy me with your lack of reading ability and comprehension? Or are you just happy to say fuck repeatedly? Ah, I understand now. You're off on a "tangent". While I was talking about terrorist attacks against the US and how to halt future ones, you were off about Afghanistan. No, we didn't freeze Osama's accounts. We didn't freeze al Queda accounts. We didn't freeze accounts used by people in Afghanistan. "Afghanistan" itself doesn't have any accounts. Banks usually don't let rocks open them. The Taliban has accounts. Some may have been frozen, others were definately not frozen. Ah, I see you've also managed to miss the part where I talk about a blockade. Allow me to refresh your memory. [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=41015|Can you locate the USofA on a map?] If a country is protecting them, we blockade that country and freeze their assets in the US. But fighting a war with the free world costs more than a few million bucks, bucko. The price of flight training and 19 plane tickets. I don't see that as costing very much at all. Running an international terror ring isn't cheap, especially if you are trying to take on the United States and Israel and the rest of the free world... Actually, it is far less expensive than you imagine. Also note that al Queda is leaving Israel to others. Like I said, flight training and 19 tickets isn't very expensive. How much money do you think Bin Laden has? Enough? Enough to fund the attack on the Pentagon and the WTC? Yes. Why do you ask? Do you think he didn't have enough to fund those? Enough to buy guns and Ammunition for all his buddies and put out training videos and pay for flight schools and ad nauseum? Okay, I see you've lapsed into the "I'm out of facts so I'll ask rhetorical questions". #1. M16A2 is $800 on the open market. #2. Flight training is under $25,000. [link|http://www.airmanflightschool.com/pricing.htm|Here] #3. A ticket from NYC to LAX depends upon when you purchase it. So, someone with a million dollars (only) could fund HOW MANY attacks? Or do you have as much trouble with math as you do with reading? But, in your mind he has enough and acted alone, so... I guess that's that. Hmmm, I think you have another problem here. I didn't say that I thought he was the one behind the attacks. I said that GEORGE W. BUSH said so. And that Osama was our TARGET when we attacked. Pot - kettle - black. No, you don't have to explain to me that Bin Laden is a millionaire again (unless you really feel like it) unless you want me to explain to you that he isn't rich enough to fund even the ammo for his "troups". Hmmm, I guess that you do have trouble with math. Or is that reality? Osama doesn't have "troops". "Troops" imply "military". Osama is part of al Queda. He has "operatives". Ammo costs for "operatives" are very low. An excellent example would the the WTC attack. 19 people, box cutters, etc. All easily finance by Osama. You must think this guy has godzillions of bucks... But, I'll do some more research on how to communicate with children (or chimpanzees) and get back with you with an abstract that is appropriate for your cognitive skills. Kay? No. And I've already shown, with clear examples, how much it would cost to fund the attack. You're off on some tangent (again) about his "troops" and their ammo costs. No "ammo" was expended during the attack. In fact, I can't think of any terrorist attack that used more than a couple hundred rounds. The Taliban government was in no position to require anything
from us. We didn't even recognize them as a government. Strange how, since we didn't recognize them, that we dealt with them as if they were the government. That we even went to them first. Again, you say one thing, but the facts of the situation seem to show something else. Let me put it to you in a clear example. I don't recognize you as owning the floor above me. So I'm not ever going to ask you if I can go there. That's what "not recognized" means.
|
Post #41,043
6/4/02 12:55:02 AM
|
No, I cannot locate the USofA on a map.
The USA is everywhere in the world. If we bomb someone, we bomb ourselves. If we blockade someone, we blockade ourselves. The USA is everywhere in the world, and the world is here in the USA as well. Perhaps that's not so obvious in Podunk, but you certainly can't miss it in Los Angeles.
Crooks, criminals and warloards love blockades. It increases the price they can demand for the goods they control the flow of, and it increases their control over the innocents within their sphere - in fact, the only people hurt by blocades and "economic sanctions" are those sainted innocents.
Notice how quickly our blockade removed Castro from power in our own back yard, and how much it benefitted the innocent people of Cuba. The only reason that moronic blockade stands is to please a strong block of votes in a state upon which presidential elections sometimes hinge.
Sure we are allies with most of the developed world. We have also been at war with most of them at one time or another. Their cooperation with our blocades has been on a par with our cooperation with their blockades - approaching Zero as a limit - often as the upper limit rather than the lower.
Freezing assets works even better than blockades. As often as not we find the assets we are freezing are our own assets as well. And if we get too liberal with freezing assets within our reach, everyone will become accustomed to keeping assets out of our reach, which will not work at all to our advantage.
You cannot (we hope, anyway) legally arrest people on speculation, nor just because they associate with people of whom you do not approve, or because you disagree with their political opinions. We tried that once or twice and it's called McCarthyism and witch hunting. People can't even be arrested because they come from a hostile country - most of us have at one time or another, and when this has been done it is soon revaled as needless persecution of innocents and allies.
Yes, killing innocents is unjust - but justice is a conceit of human society, it does not exist in nature. Unfortunately it is the nature of innocents to be killed - that, in fact, defines innocents. If they hadn't been killed they'd probably be found to be just a guilty as the rest of us.
Life exist by killing life. Even if you are a vegetable, you strive to block out the sun and suck up the moisture, to your neighbor's detriment. Forest trees strive for harder wood so their limbs can saw down their neighbors in the wind - while that neighbor grows soft wood to accelerate growth so as to shade the hardwood to death. Sometimes one wins, sometimes the other depending on circumstances. If you are not a vegetable you live by killing life and eating it.
As humans we strive for a "higher" ideal, which is of our own design and craft, and has nothing to do with nature - but we still must live as creatures of nature, "red of tooth and claw". Sometimes we have to make the hard choices in violation of our self made ideals. Sometimes we have to kill innocents - before they get a chance to kill us. In life, nobody is a non combatant.*
Please pardon me for jumping into the middle of a thread I haven't read all of, but it looked too tedious for my very limited attention span.
* See Ambrose Beirce: Non Combatant, n. A dead Quaker.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #41,052
6/4/02 1:52:34 AM
|
Minor disagreement.
Notice how quickly our blockade removed Castro from power in our own back yard, and how much it benefitted the innocent people of Cuba. Blockades do NOT work to remove an existing government. That's why Castro and Saddam are still in power. Freezing assets works even better than blockades. As often as not we find the assets we are freezing are our own assets as well. Eh? What do you mean? And if we get too liberal with freezing assets within our reach, everyone will become accustomed to keeping assets out of our reach, which will not work at all to our advantage. Ummm, Andrew, check that logic. If we take the money from the criminals often enough, then the criminals won't leave their money where we can take it? Damn, they're some lazy criminals if they haven't moved what money they can already. You cannot (we hope, anyway) legally arrest people on speculation, nor just because they associate with people of whom you do not approve, or because you disagree with their political opinions. Eck-fucking-zactly! We need PROOF. (or a legal rendition thereof). Otherwise, we're just another bully warlord with the biggest stick on the planet. Yes, killing innocents is unjust - but justice is a conceit of human society, it does not exist in nature. Again, eck-fucking-zactly! And "hypocrisy" is another human conceit. Claiming it is "just" for you to kill innocents but "unjust" for someone else to do so. As humans we strive for a "higher" ideal, which is of our own design and craft, and has nothing to do with nature - but we still must live as creatures of nature, "red of tooth and claw". I'll agree. But only with the basis. Sometimes we have to make the hard choices in violation of our self made ideals. And this is the part that I disagree with. If you "violate" your "ideals"...... Well, in MY opinion, you can NEVER violate your ideals. You just haven't CORRECTLY stated your ideals. Which is why I keep hammering on how our actions are identical to the terrorist's actions. OUR ideals are EXACTLY the same as THEIR'S. Kill anyone who opposes us. Be they soldiers, women or children. We can find it within ourselves to rise above the law of the jungle. Yet there will always be those who will not. The problem with morals and ideals is that they RESTRICT your actions. Not that they demand recompensation AFTER you've performed the action. Having morals and ideals mean that there are actions you will NOT perform. If you will perform such actions, no matter how you justify them or rationalize them or claim that you "had" to do them... It is still the same. You claimed ideals and morals you did not posses. And all such human conceits as "justice" and "freedom" and "equality" are ONLY available as long as we NEVER try to rationalize setting them aside. No matter WHAT the provocation. Please pardon me for jumping into the middle of a thread I haven't read all of, but it looked too tedious for my very limited attention span. No problem. But I think we've gone off of the thread and into philosophy.
|
Post #41,006
6/3/02 5:29:21 PM
|
Et tu Brute?
Then fall C\ufffdsar.
You have a family. 'They' have a family. Think they 'feel' any differently than you?
*Which* 'They' then: the 99.867% who despise all the killing as much as anyone else? Or the 0.133% of (occasionally-collected together) individual criminals, who perform the acts in question?
Respect Us -- Respect! is what you want from 'them' ???
Tell me then about: our accomplishments, about the egalitarian democratic, happy peaceful society (and its worldwide activities on 'their' behalf) - which would prompt this feeling of.. Respect.
Please.
Must we *Always* pick the EZiest no-brainer instant response to a stimulus, thinking with our viscera? Again ?? Yeah I Know: It's Traditional. Still - C'mon Dan..
Cheers,
Ashton
Time for a reading break at the ivied lib? Check out the relationship between self-Righteousness and 'agitation to yet more violence' for violence' sake of Feelin Good! about Oneself, and the expected results approx 100.0% of the time (?) \ufffd.01%
Will light candle.
|
Post #41,034
6/3/02 11:31:18 PM
|
The evil that men do lives after them...
the good is oft interred with their bones.
I think what you are getting at is moral equivalency. I do not mean respect in the sense of greeting us in polite manner. I mean respect the fact that however rude that we are, in this period of our history, we can easily subjugate them either militarily or economically. If they cannot police their own crazies, then we will do it for them and most probably in a manner that they will not care for. When I say fear, I mean, that if they don't at least respect us in the manner that I described above, then they will fear the near holocaust that will ensue... Remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Most don't. That generation is almost gone.
Say what you will about the morality of the a bomb, but just the "threat" of us using it AGAIN kept many countries from agression towards us. The world has changed. Even Pakistan (the home of Bin Laden) has the Atomic bomb now. There is a new reality and talk about mass destruction is not just an academic exercise. For my children, I would rather our country be the subjugators and not the subjugatees...
Back to moral equivalencies... I love dogs. When I read about a dog that has attacked a human and is euthanized, I think "poor bastard"... But we can identify in animals, that when one "goes bad" he cannot be "fixed"... I think when one is willing to give up his desire for self preservation - no matter what the cause - he cannot be "fixed". He should be put down. For the greater good. Whether this analogy applies to a few "rotten individuals" or a few rotten countries. I think there was a song about how one insect can destroy so much grain...
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"As people assemble, civilization Is trying to find a new way to die,
But killing is really, merely scene changer,all men are bored, with other men's lives"
...
"We all know success, when we all find our own dreams
And our love is enough to knock down any walls
And the future's been seen, as men try to realize
The simple secret of the note in us all
in us all"
P. Townshend - Pure and Easy
|
Post #41,010
6/3/02 5:47:41 PM
|
During WW-II, the Japanese were considered to be...
sub-human because of the effective US war propaganda and they were treated as such by US forces. Beliefs changed some only after Okinawa was invaded, civilians encountered and Japanese humanity became apparent.
Hate is easy for most anyone, including Americans.
Our differences are skin deep.
Alex
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." -- Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
|
