I disagree with you a lot but in this case

Post #50,238 by boxley 8/22/02 11:08:53 PM Reply	I disagree with you a lot but in this case Define al Queda, do we define or them if us cannot in certain political circumstances can we define planned parenthood as "members" of al queda? or the "anti abortion folks" as al queda. What is the criteria for admittance to the enemies list? Islamic Jihad WDYHASM are the legit targets? Is the Aran Brotherhood who has almost the exact aims as the Nation of Islam gonna join? We cant target off shore criminal gangs the same way as domestic because of jurisdictional disputes. We need to use the rule of law to target these actors and regimes the same way we did the barbary pirates, The malasian piratical regimes and the japanese shogunates. Private entities with carte blanc to use and abuse until they kowtow to us and "join" rational regimes. Bloodthirsty traders and exploited by American warships will settle their hash rather quickly. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/Resume.html\|skill set]
Post #50,275 by Brandioch 8/23/02 11:00:12 AM Reply	You can "define" them as such. Define al Queda, do we define or them if us cannot in certain political circumstances can we define planned parenthood as "members" of al queda? or the "anti abortion folks" as al queda. You can, if you want to. But al Queda isn't a belief system. It is a group, headed by Osama. What is the criteria for admittance to the enemies list? Membership in al Queda. Islamic Jihad WDYHASM are the legit targets? If we declare war on them, then they are. If we declare war on al Queda, then only the members of Islamic Jihad who are also members of al Queda would be legitimate targets. Is the Aran Brotherhood who has almost the exact aims as the Nation of Islam gonna join? Same as above. We can declare war on Aryan Nation, if we wanted to. We cant target off shore criminal gangs the same way as domestic because of jurisdictional disputes. I'd rather say that we SHOULD NOT BE ABLE to "target off shore criminal gangs the same way as domestic because of jurisdictional disputes". I'm afraid we do, many times. We even invaded Panama to help stop the flow of drugs. The great thing about off shore criminal gangs is that they don't affect us in the US. We only have to worry about criminals on our shores. We need to use the rule of law to target these actors and regimes the same way we did the barbary pirates, The malasian piratical regimes and the japanese shogunates. Similar, but sufficiently different enough to warrant different action. If we sank one of the pirate's ships, that reduced the pirate's ability to be a pirate. The terrorists are suicides. They expect to die in the completion of their mission. The pirates wanted money. The terrorists want us out of the mid-east. And, finally, the pirates were operating far away from the US. The terrorist "threat" is that they will operate in the US. Now, if the terrorists were cruising around in tanks and holding US citizens as hostage for money, my response would be different. Tanks are military equipment and you need military force to take out military equipment. The loss of a tank would adversely affect them (tanks are expensive and hard to come by). It is also very difficult for innocent civilians to be injured when you're attacking a tank. The tanks are very visible and make a lot of noise. Civilians know when they're near a tank.
Post #50,404 by dmarker2 8/25/02 3:14:00 AM Reply	Re: Some difficulties in definitions It may be very difficult to declare any meaningful war against an idea. What is 'Al Qaeda' but a word coined by certain people ? - if it is a formal organisation then the identification is very easy - if not then who do we brand as Al Qaeda for the purpose of calling them enemy - this is where we may step into very dangerous ground as to call someone Al Qaeda is to call them enemy but who does the calling ??? - Senator McCarthy ??? - McCarthy's grandson ??? - Mr Cheney ??? We can take this down a path where we agree to accept a rule that says 'anyone associated with Osama Bin Laden' can be legally called Al Qaeda & thus be declared enemy. But again by whose definition ? The problem I see is that a lot more people who were ever associated with Bin Laden are being called Al Qaeda because we have created a bogeyman from the word & we can throw the word at those we choose to vilify. So if we want to blacken someone we just call them this - it is almost(well perhaps it already has been) happening with Saddam Hussien'. Again in the case of Hussien - if we have clear cut evidence lets get him but if not let us beware of those who want to get him until we clearly understand their real motives. Doug M
Post #50,643 by Brandioch 9/5/02 3:06:13 PM Reply	Definitions. It may be very difficult to declare any meaningful war against an idea. This is an idea: "All men are created equal" Al Queda is an organization. And organization is usually composed of people who share the same ideas. You can't win against an idea. You can win against an organization. That will not stop the idea. We can declare war on al Queda. We can win a war against al Queda. We cannot declare a war on "terrorism". Well, we can, sort of. Well, we can SAY we're at war with "terrorism". What is 'Al Qaeda' but a word coined by certain people ? - if it is a formal organisation then the identification is very easy - if not then who do we brand as Al Qaeda for the purpose of calling them enemy - this is where we may step into very dangerous ground as to call someone Al Qaeda is to call them enemy but who does the calling ??? - Senator McCarthy ??? - McCarthy's grandson ??? - Mr Cheney ??? Fortunately, it is a formal organization, with training grounds and leaders and financing and so forth. We can take this down a path where we agree to accept a rule that says 'anyone associated with Osama Bin Laden' can be legally called Al Qaeda & thus be declared enemy. But again by whose definition ? If you want to. But is anyone associated with Bush a "Republican"? The problem I see is that a lot more people who were ever associated with Bin Laden are being called Al Qaeda because we have created a bogeyman from the word & we can throw the word at those we choose to vilify. Pretty much. It doesn't help matters that "al Queda" and "Taliban" seem to be interchangable in the press now. But we didn't declare war on al Queda. We declared war on "terrorism". We just happened to take out the Taliban because they were associated with Osama and so forth. So if we want to blacken someone we just call them this - it is almost(well perhaps it already has been) happening with Saddam Hussien'. Yep. And we have a long history of exactly that. Check out "Communist" and McCarthy. Even now, label someone a "terrorist" and his/her rights are automatically revoked. Even if s/he is a US citizen. I believe this is because the majority of the citizens in this country are moronic sheep. As long as it isn't happening to THEM or anyone THEY can sympathize with, it doesn't matter. We're going into Iraq so we can secure a steady supply of cheap oil. This is okay with the sheeple because it means they will pay less to fuel their cars. Besides, no one over here LIKES Saddam. Nor are we particularly fond of Iraqis in general. Or in specific. Kill a bunch of camel jockeys for cheap oil. They're most likely "terrorists" any way.

Welcome to IWETHEY!