Sounds like your Alzheimer's is kicking in with a vengence.

Post #41,112 by Brandioch 6/4/02 1:01:45 PM Reply	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 by bepatient 6/4/02 1:30:28 PM Reply	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 by Brandioch 6/4/02 2:32:17 PM Reply	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 by bepatient 6/4/02 3:36:48 PM Reply	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 by Ashton 6/4/02 4:04:28 PM Reply	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 by Brandioch 6/4/02 4:18:14 PM Reply	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 by Brandioch 6/4/02 4:09:46 PM Reply	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 by bepatient 6/4/02 5:12:36 PM Reply	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 by Brandioch 6/4/02 6:59:47 PM Reply	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 by Another Scott 6/4/02 8:08:38 PM Reply	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 by Brandioch 6/4/02 9:14:57 PM Reply	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 by Another Scott 6/5/02 7:36:06 AM Reply	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 by Brandioch 6/5/02 1:28:30 PM Reply	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 by bepatient 6/4/02 11:06:25 PM Reply	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 by Brandioch 6/5/02 1:44:33 PM Reply	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 by boxley 6/4/02 3:53:59 PM Reply	lotsa criminals and no Justice :) TAM ARIS QUAM ARMIPOTENS

Welcome to IWETHEY!