I am here to kill you

[Apokalupsis]

That is my purpose. To cease the existence of your life. You are evil, you are a great threat to what is right and just. You are heathen for not following my belief system. You are filled with lust, greed, dishonor, and hate. You must be destroyed.

You are weak, you do not have resolve. I will hide in holy places you will not attack. I will hide amongst women and children, for you will not harm them. I will hide in the homes of civilians. I will use your government, your society, your economic system...all for my benefit and goal.

I am here to destroy you. I will kill your family, for they are just as guilty and filled with evil. I do not distinguish between soldier and child. For that child has been just as morally corrupted as the soldier, and when the child grows, will be capable of causing great harm to what is good. You see a child die, I see a soldier as well as your spirit die. Fools, you are so near-sighted, you are weak. I will exploit this foolish passion of individual life you have to my advantage. The evil and dishoner you bring can only be washed away by your blood.

My cause is right, my cause is just, my cause is noble, my cause is to kill you, your wives (or husbands), your daughters, your sons, your countrymen. I, and those like me (for we are many), will not stop until our goal is attained. I do not wish to "negotiate", I do not wish to bargain.

Some of your people wish to "understand" me. Fools. I care not for them. They are just as guilty of the sins against me, my people and philosophy. Your people are weak and dishonorable. I will exploit this weakness and use it against you. You cannot stomach the fight. Your vision is too shallow. You see a fallen comarade and run. I will exploit this weakness as well. I will destroy your spirit, and by doing so, your flesh becomes even more weak.

My cause is just, my cause is right, my cause is good. I have no fear of death, I place no value upon your heathen life nor any of your heathen friends or family. Your culture spawns such great evil, it must be destroyed. I will prevail, my cause is righteous.

Sincerely,

The mind of a terrorist

------------------------------------------------


Now...how does one fight, negotiate, understand, or respond to that?

_{Part 2 forthcoming - later in the discussion.}

[HappyLady]

The mind of a terrorist

Funny, I thought you were talking about poverty, pride, power, and other plights of humanity.


Now...how does one fight, negotiate, understand, or respond to that?

Yes, how does ONE? I don't think it takes just ONE. It takes multitudes.

[Apokalupsis]

Funny, I thought you were talking about poverty, pride, power, and other plights of humanity.
Well that would make you mistaken now wouldn't it? ;)



Yes, how does ONE? I don't think it takes just ONE. It takes multitudes.
ONE doesn't necessarily represent any single individual. I think it is rather foolish to believe that ONE PERSON is able to fly solo against millions with a particular ideology. I certainly hope you didn't believe the post was inferring this.

ONE here represents a togetherness or a group that obviously opposes or is the target of first post. Perhaps I should rewrite it make this more obvious? I thought it was easily understood...

[Withnail]

I don't know, Apok.
One trick would seem to be containment, and not creating an environment where the terrorists can multipy.
How do you fight a hive of wasps? With a stick, or with smoke?

[Apokalupsis]

Is fighting the answer? I believe so, but others may not. I'm interesting in their alternate views.

For those who do believe that fighting such philosophy is necessary..."how to" is surely the million dollar question, and I don't believe it is an easy one.

I don't see containment being a valid strategy though. How do you contain those who cannot see? It is a covert conflict. Philosophical change is obviously necessary...but how does one go about doing this? Force? For extreme views represented above, I think responsive force is perhaps the most logical recourse to take. But it could be seen as just chopping at the branches, and not the root.

[AntiMaterialist]

The answer, although it will take many generations to succeed, lies in individual empowerment. We will not eliminate nutcases, such as Timothy McVeigh, but we will eliminate psychotic group thinking, such as is found in Al-Qaeda. I firmly believe reason will win out - call me an optimist.

People need to be taught to think for themselves, not to blindly believe the words of some mullah, preacher, or any other self-proclaimed authority. Not that they should not listen to such people, just that they should think for themselves, so they can reject their words when they are told to kill innocents.

A fair legal system, an empowering economic system, and a really good education system are what we need, and what the whole world needs. This, of course, is directly in opposition to conservative Islamic thinking, which, for example, oppresses women in the worst way.

So, each nation must have a just system. In many nations, it will take force to achieve that - preferably a multinational force combined with internal rebellion - but where that is not possible, outside intervention by a single nation may still be warranted.

Ultimately, it will take a strong, honorable U.N. to achieve this - which I think will take decades or even centuries to build. I have hope it can be done though.

[Slipnish]

Now...how does one fight, negotiate, understand, or respond to that?

_{Part 2 forthcoming - later in the discussion.}

You kill them. I think we have the right and the duty to protect our soldiers regardless of the historical importance of the surroundings.

Post notices to the civilians to leave the areas.
Slag the mosque. Fuel Air Bombs work wonders.

On this issue, I do not care about future consequenses. When you get down to it, what physical object am I willing to trade for one American soldier's life? Not a damn one.

Blow'em up high enough so the snipers can shoot'em before they hit the ground!

No mercy.

[3rdPersonPlural]

The way to counter extremism is with an overwhelming dose of moderation over several generations.

Remember that itty bitty issue we had with the communists in Viet Nam? We left, locked the door behind us, and told them to knock when they wanted to let us back in and be nice to us. 25 years later, they lead the world in inward capital investment per capita.

It's hard to stalk out of the Islamic world and not look back because they have oil, but we have the technology available NOW to replace a vast amount of our electrical generating requirements with alternative sources and I'd rather trade my wife's SUV for a hybrid than establish an anti-Muslim police state. We could be out of the middle east in 5 years if we applied 30% (or so) of the money it would cost to police that place to alt. energy.

Build secular schools throughout the ME. All they have now is a religious educational network, which is an excellent way to breed intolerance and hatred.

Then see what happens.

[3rdPersonPlural]

You kill them. I do not care about future consequenses. No mercy.

Slip, yer an idiot.
:evil:

[Apokalupsis]

All sound reasonable. All are responses to the philosophy...but what about those hold that very philosophy? Some have suggested that "kill or be killed" is the course of action to be taken. Is that the general consensus here?

[HappyLady]

ONE doesn't necessarily represent any single individual.

Duh...I knew that. ;)

My point was implying that there are multitudes of people on this Earth who promote peace, and there are multitudes of people on this Earth who promote power. (End of implication.) The people in power hide power under the facade of peace. Bush says he's just trying to make peace. How can you make peace when you are killing people??? I just don't get it! He's not trying to make peace. He's trying to gain power.

Until our world makes a shift where we shed the the emphasis on power, to truly making peace our central focus, we won't have peace...just power and all the horrific things that come of it.

Solution...I'd like to take all of the political leaders, put them in a room together in Dr. Phil style and say, "How's this workin' for ya??" I think some intense group therapy is in order.

[sjjs]

Is that really the mind of a terrorist? It does not take much tinkering to make that the mind of almost any fanatic.

[Symantix]

"Fanatic" is a larger category of "terrorist". Not all fanatics are terrorists, but all terrorists are fanatics.

So your point is....?

[Slipnish]

Slip, yer an idiot.
:evil:

Yeah, well... I am mostly incensed about the cowards who hide in the Mosques. Screw that. Fuel Air Bombs = Crispy Terrorists.

As for the whole war thingy... We need to get out. I agree with that part. My sticking point is the, "How much stuff do we need to do to avoid much bigger problems down the road" vs "does it really matter if we do anything at all, cause a lot of those folks are gonna hate us anyway" design.

I wish there were some way to know for sure.

I do feel we are obligated to put things back together, but I have a problem with trying to do that while the loyalists are shooting at us.

Maybe I should have said, NO MERCY for those that won't allow the war to die.

Clear as mud now? ;)

[Slipnish]

Duh...I knew that. ;)

My point was implying that there are multitudes of people on this Earth who promote peace, and there are multitudes of people on this Earth who promote power. (End of implication.) The people in power hide power under the facade of peace. Bush says he's just trying to make peace. How can you make peace when you are killing people??? I just don't get it! He's not trying to make peace. He's trying to gain power.

Until our world makes a shift where we shed the the emphasis on power, to truly making peace our central focus, we won't have peace...just power and all the horrific things that come of it.

Solution...I'd like to take all of the political leaders, put them in a room together in Dr. Phil style and say, "How's this workin' for ya??" I think some intense group therapy is in order.

Philistine!!! :D

I think we should solve it all with Pay Per View events. We have an international issue. Each side gets 100 men. They meet in a randomly selected terrain. Weapons are chosen by time line. Limiting technology to a certain degree for different situations.

Each team can have all the equipment they can carry.

Lay on.

Winner is decided by most people left after a certain time frame, and they get whatever was contended over in the first place.

Think about it. A wonderful way to get those aggressions out. You have new jobs, new entertainment, and issues get settled.

Anyone who refuses to participate in the event in order to settle a dispute, gets shunned by the rest of the world. No economic trade at all. Or they get invaded by every country and the current government is replaced altogether.

Okay, it was a novel I read, but it seems a lot better to send in 200 people who are willing to go, than thousands who aren't.

No collateral damage, no infrastructure smashed...

A workable solution.

[3rdPersonPlural]

A dinner party last week got rowdy and turned into a SNL skit. The scene is set in the White House war room Cheney and Rumsfeld are there with the CEO's of all the connected oil services and engineering firms looking at live feeds from Stealth Bomber ground cams.

"What's that? A power plant?" asks one CEO "Oooh, hit that! I'll give you $500k for the contract to fix it."

The bomb falls, and the CEO inspects the damage. "I'll need at least fifty mil. to fix that hole"

Cheney hands him a contract as another CEO shouts with delight as another piece of infrastructure looms on the camera.

"Hot damn! A bridge!"

[Slipnish]

ROFL

"Art imitates life!"

[sjjs]

"Fanatic" is a larger category of "terrorist". Not all fanatics are terrorists, but all terrorists are fanatics.

So your point is....?

My point is that much of what was said could be applied to almost anyone and in the context of the debate is therefore worthless.

The first paragraph (and much more besides), for example, could be a quote from a Muslim terrorist, an Iraqi insurgent, a fired-up US soldier or a hellfire Mid-West preacher.

IMO the whole thing was essentially an emotionally charged diatribe which added nothing whatsoever to the debate on this war.

[F1Fan]

My point was implying that there are multitudes of people on this Earth who promote peace, and there are multitudes of people on this Earth who promote power. (End of implication.) The people in power hide power under the facade of peace. Bush says he's just trying to make peace. How can you make peace when you are killing people??? I just don't get it! He's not trying to make peace. He's trying to gain power.
I agree. The BBC news said yesterday that the United States is seen as one of the largest threats to world peace. Anger towards the US over the whole foreign policy in the ME has basically made the whole matter worse. What is suspected to be the solution will be to pour more and more money into fighting terrorism, which oddly enough will cause budget problems for programs that need funding (or increase the ceiling on the deficit infinitely). What could be interpreted in all this is the US government's complicitity with terrorists to helping serious tensions and fear in the social ranks of all Americans, and other world economic societies tied to the US economy.

[Apokalupsis]

Duh...I knew that. ;)

My point was implying that there are multitudes of people on this Earth who promote peace, and there are multitudes of people on this Earth who promote power.
Who promotes power?


The people in power hide power under the facade of peace. Bush says he's just trying to make peace. How can you make peace when you are killing people???
Ahhh...I see. So you do not believe that peace can be achieved through force? All peace then, is achieved through pasificism, negotiaion or appeasement? If not, then your argument above, doesn't stand too solidly now does it? :)


I just don't get it! He's not trying to make peace. He's trying to gain power.
He achieved the most power possible, prior to engaging in any military conflict. Is Bush now seeking divinity? If so, how does war bring this? /end sarcasm



Until our world makes a shift where we shed the the emphasis on power, to truly making peace our central focus, we won't have peace...just power and all the horrific things that come of it.
Define "power".

[Apokalupsis]

My point is that much of what was said could be applied to almost anyone and in the context of the debate is therefore worthless.
That a certain philosophy could be held by different groups is not grounds for the argument to be "worthless".



The first paragraph (and much more besides), for example, could be a quote from a Muslim terrorist, an Iraqi insurgent, a fired-up US soldier or a hellfire Mid-West preacher.
While the philosophy could be held by more than one group (I purposefully worded it so it would not be specific to any particular belief system, but representative of a few), it is closest to that of Islamic fundamentalists. An Iraqi insurgent, US Soldier, even a MW Preacher, could never hold such a philosophy. I challenge you to show otherwise.



IMO the whole thing was essentially an emotionally charged diatribe which added nothing whatsoever to the debate on this war.
Hmmmm...where is the emotion? Where is in the innacuracy of the philosophy? Do you honestly believe such philosophy does not exist?

[Apokalupsis]

Also, something that many seem to not be catching on to...is that it is irrelevant if such a philosophy even exists. That it may be actual and/or applicable to any group, is irrelevant. What is asked, is how does one confront such a philosophy.

[HappyLady]

Who promotes power?

Society places more value on power than it does peace. Or, should I say, the people with control/power, have the power to override the peaceful. Power is a strong force. While peace is a strong inner force, so far, in this world, I haven't seen it hold up as a strong outer force.


Ahhh...I see. So you do not believe that peace can be achieved through force?

Um...no. It's like talking to thick people. You can't make them understand. They have to come to the understanding with gentle persuasion. ;)


All peace then, is achieved through pasificism, negotiaion or appeasement?

All peace is achieved through effective communication and compromise. The old addage, you can't please everybody needs to be recognized and accepted. Everyone can't have everything they want.


He achieved the most power possible, prior to engaging in any military conflict. Is Bush now seeking divinity? If so, how does war bring this?

Power sucks. Literally.

Power is having the ability to control something through force or unethical manipulation. I'll have to think more on that one. The kids just came home, so I have to go. More later.

[Apokalupsis]

Hmmm...then authority, who obviously controls and weilds power...is wrong. As a mom, your power that you wield over your child, is wrong. You forcing your child to do something because it is better for them to do so, or you forcing your child to NOT do something, is wrong. Doesn't matter that what you do may prevent harm, encourage "peace", what matters is not using any power to get to that point.

Let me ask...how was slavery, fascism, nazism, communism defeated? Was it through negotiation? Or through forceful removal of those philosophies?

Also, since you would not use force, how would you respond personally, to an individual who held the philosophy stated in the opening post?

[sjjs]

That a certain philosophy could be held by different groups is not grounds for the argument to be "worthless".

Worthless in the sense that it does not aid in the debate of good guys versus bad guys in the context of which we speak.

This divide is about differences rather than similarities so we should ignore the similarities here; this conflict was caused by differences and it is those we need to understand to understand the conflict.



While the philosophy could be held by more than one group (I purposefully worded it so it would not be specific to any particular belief system, but representative of a few), it is closest to that of Islamic fundamentalists. An Iraqi insurgent, US Soldier, even a MW Preacher, could never hold such a philosophy. I challenge you to show otherwise.

Take the first paragraph.

"That is my purpose. To cease the existence of your life. You are evil, you are a great threat to what is right and just. You are heathen for not following my belief system. You are filled with lust, greed, dishonor, and hate. You must be destroyed."

Is this so far removed from some of the rhetoric we are hearing from certain factions in the West? Whether it is someone talking about non-believers, Muslims, gays, Jews or whatever, this is merely stylized hate.



Hmmmm...where is the emotion?

See previous paragraph. No facts or argument, just emotion.



Where is in the innacuracy of the philosophy? Do you honestly believe such philosophy does not exist?

Nobody disputed the accuracy or the existance of this philosophy.

[Apokalupsis]

Worthless in the sense that it does not aid in the debate of good guys versus bad guys in the context of which we speak.
So it is not appropriate, to state that one with such a philosophy, is a "bad guy"? I'm not following you here...



This divide is about differences rather than similarities so we should ignore the similarities here;
...well...yes...that's the point. People have different belief systems. Some people believe in a higher power, some don't. Some people want to break into your home, kill you and your family...some don't. Simply because we have some similiarities, does not dismiss the differeces we have. And those differences, can often be very dangerous, as is the case in this particular philosophy.


this conflict was caused by differences and it is those we need to understand to understand the conflict.
What exactly is it, that we need to understand? You are given very, very vague responses here.


Take the first paragraph.

"That is my purpose. To cease the existence of your life. You are evil, you are a great threat to what is right and just. You are heathen for not following my belief system. You are filled with lust, greed, dishonor, and hate. You must be destroyed."

Is this so far removed from some of the rhetoric we are hearing from certain factions in the West? Whether it is someone talking about non-believers, Muslims, gays, Jews or whatever, this is merely stylized hate.
Hmmm...is the philosophy accurately depicted in a couple chosen sentences, or is it more accurate when it is fully described and stated?



See previous paragraph. No facts or argument, just emotion.
That is what Op-Ed essays are. Also, much of philosophy is stated in this manner. Not every debate involves data, numbers, statistics, etc... Furthermore, you confuse the lack of such things, with that of "emotional plea".



Nobody disputed the accuracy or the existance of this philosophy.
Good, then you must concede that it exists, is accurate, and therefore applicable and relevant to the discussion (in contrast to your previous post).

[Symantix]

Power is a strong force
You really need to define power better, HL. In most contexts, power = force. So you've essentially said "force is a strong force."



peace is a strong inner force

Power sucks. Literally.
So peace sucks?


Power is having the ability to control something through force Power is having the ability to control something through power? What again is power?

I'm not trying to frustrate you, just to get you to better define power.

[sjjs]

So it is not appropriate, to state that one with such a philosophy, is a "bad guy"? I'm not following you here...

I'm not saying that at all. I am saying that this philosophy is shared more or less amongst all sides in this conflict.



...well...yes...that's the point. People have different belief systems. Some people believe in a higher power, some don't. Some people want to break into your home, kill you and your family...some don't. Simply because we have some similiarities, does not dismiss the differeces we have. And those differences, can often be very dangerous, as is the case in this particular philosophy.

Er... I said we should look at differences.

This particular philosophy is shared, in one way or another to a certain or lesser extent, by all sides.



What exactly is it, that we need to understand? You are given very, very vague responses here.

As vague as the opening statement to this thread? Was that something someone made up? A statement from someone? Where did it come from? Who was it directed towards? The fact that it was signed "terrorist" means that a political stance had been made upon it. Who made that stance and why? Was it to stir up hatred?



Hmmm...is the philosophy accurately depicted in a couple chosen sentences, or is it more accurate when it is fully described and stated?

As I stated initially, with a little tweaking of detail rather than form it could be made to be the philosophy of almost any radical.



That is what Op-Ed essays are. Also, much of philosophy is stated in this manner. Not every debate involves data, numbers, statistics, etc... Furthermore, you confuse the lack of such things, with that of "emotional plea".

Where does that come from? The emotional language of the piece is what gives it emotion, not the lack of facts. Who said otherwise?



Good, then you must concede that it exists, is accurate, and therefore applicable and relevant to the discussion (in contrast to your previous post).

I concede nothing because I have denied nothing. Of course it exists, who said it did not?

My point is that this piece could - with tweaks - apply to certain individuals from all sides of the debate.

But your original post asked how to respond to such posts. The answer is that we need to look through the veneer and tabloid language and try to find the substance in the piece. In this instance it is sadly lacking; it essentially says: I am going to kill you because I am strong and you are weak and we don't agree on core values.

[Apokalupsis]

I'm not saying that at all. I am saying that this philosophy is shared more or less amongst all sides in this conflict.
Are you able to support that claim?



Er... I said we should look at differences.
Ah, so you did. I stand corrected.


This particular philosophy is shared, in one way or another to a certain or lesser extent, by all sides.
Again, support please.



As vague as the opening statement to this thread? [quote]
It is a category mistake to define a philosophical statement as "vague".

[quote]Was that something someone made up? A statement from someone? Where did it come from?
I created it.


Who was it directed towards?
The enemy of the belief system that the terrorist adheres to.


The fact that it was signed "terrorist" means that a political stance had been made upon it.
No, it means that the one who holds that philosophy, is a terrorist.


Who made that stance and why? Was it to stir up hatred?
It's called philosophical discourse.


As I stated initially, with a little tweaking of detail rather than form it could be made to be the philosophy of almost any radical.
Good, then you should be able to "tweak" it to support this claim.



The emotional language of the piece is what gives it emotion, not the lack of facts. Who said otherwise?
Then please be specific here and cease being vague. Where do you believe emotional language exists, to fairly label the piece as an emotionally charged diatribe?


I concede nothing because I have denied nothing. Of course it exists, who said it did not?
Ok, please explain yourself then. You have just said that it exists, is actual and is accurate. Yet, it is irrelevant to the debate to know and understand this philosophy. You also promote understanding of said philosophy and those who adhere to it...yet the philosophy is irrelevant and does not add anything to the debate. So we are to understand it, but we are not to know about it or repeat it? What? How do you suggest we do this then?



My point is that this piece could - with tweaks - apply to certain individuals from all sides of the debate.
Yes, you've stated this point several times now. Are you able to support it?



But your original post asked how to respond to such posts. The answer is that we need to look through the veneer and tabloid language and try to find the substance in the piece.
It isn't a "piece"...it is a philosophy. Also, its existence or actuality (which you have not denied) is irrelevant. It's a hypothetical philosophy.


In this instance it is sadly lacking; it essentially says: I am going to kill you because I am strong and you are weak and we don't agree on core values.
So what? 1) Whether it actually applies to anyone is irrelevant. 2) You have agreed that it can apply to people and that it is an actual philosophy.

So yet again, I ask...how do you respond to someone with such a philosophy (actual or hypothetical)?

[Meng Bomin]

Is fighting the answer? I believe so, but others may not. I'm interesting in their alternate views.Yes, a fight is indeed warranted, but not one that plays into their hands. A covert as well as an overt fight is needed. One needs to infiltrate the ranks of Al-Qaida and destroy the organization from within, while taxing them of their current fanatic base. However, a solely overt war leaves them with many new recruits available that can replace those lost in guerrilla fighting. We cannot let this become a war of attrition, wince they have a pool of fanatic Muslims to recruit, and fanatics don't back down even if we kill 10 or more of them for every one of our soldiers lost. If we don't take action that can decimate their ranks, while giving them very little propaganda substance, we can reduce their numbers and their power.

Of course, implimenting such a plan is an entirely different matter. All I can say is that it would require discipline and a well thought-out plan. Overuse of overt action could create a swelling of their ranks from propaganda. A delicate balance must be maintained, and we cannot let any of the terrorist leaders know of our plans before it is too late.

Scandals should be avoided at all costs. They display a lack of integrity and are prone to increase the amount of anti-US sentiment. So, a tight regulation of troop activities is warranted.

[Spartacus]

What is asked, is how does one confront such a philosophy.

1.) Identify the enemy -- are we after just the guys with AKs, RPGs and plastique or are we also after the mullahs and the business people who fund the terrorists? In my book it makes no difference if you are pulling the trigger or buying the bullets....these people we need to destroy by killing and capturing them wherever they are. International borders and diplomacy be damned. We can not fight terrorism by sticking to a rule book written for WWII. We need to make the terrorists fear us -- and we are doing that -- we need to do it more.

2.) We also need to let our good works be a shining example that the Arab media can not long deny. That means building schools, roads, bridges, sewage systems, etc in Iraq and to some extent in Afghanistan.

I think more people need to notice the refugees from our invasion of Iraq...or rather the lack of them. If Iraq is so bad why aren't Iraqis trying to beat feet? I would encourage people to check out some Blogs run by Iraqis in Iraq.

"Healing Iraq" is a good one run by a young Iraqi Dentist. In reading these blogs we find their major concerms are the same as everyone else -- crime, economic opportunity, justice, etc. In one of these blogs the writer admitted that much of the antimosity Arabs have towards Americans is in fact rooted in shame. They are ashamed that America had to come in and topple Saddam. They are ashamed they did not do it themsleves and ashamed their Arab brothers did not think it worthwhile. We need to turn that shame into self-respect and then respect for other cultures and ideas -- first they must first learn respect for themslevs -- and that does not mean false-pride and boisterism. The respect must be real -- based on real accomplishements.

I think Americans are more upset about the prisoner treatment than the average Iraqi is. Iraqis have more important things to concern themselves with than "butt-crack pyramids".

[HappyLady]

Hmmm...then authority, who obviously controls and weilds power...is wrong.

Nope. There is a difference between being authorative, and authoritarian. To be authorative, you are in a position of leadership, but for the sake of those you're leading. Authoritarian, you are in a position of leadership for the sake of yourself and feeding your egotistical need for power.


As a mom, your power that you wield over your child, is wrong. You forcing your child to do something because it is better for them to do so, or you forcing your child to NOT do something, is wrong. Doesn't matter that what you do may prevent harm, encourage "peace", what matters is not using any power to get to that point.

Power is not something you "use". Power, in a positive sense, is something given to you. Power, in a negative sense, is something your force upon others. The power I have over my children is an authorative power. I don't "use" it for my sake. I use it for theirs.


Let me ask...how was slavery, fascism, nazism, communism defeated? Was it through negotiation? Or through forceful removal of those philosophies?

And do we have peace now that those philosophies were forcefully removed? I understand what you are saying, but the power I'm talking about is a self-serving power, not a power for the greater good of all humanity. Bush certainly doesn't have all of humanity in mind. I don't know any politicians that do.


Also, since you would not use force, how would you respond personally, to an individual who held the philosophy stated in the opening post?

That is a good question. I would not impose myself on them. If they imposed themselves on me, I would PROTECT myself and my loved ones, but I would not hunt them down with a vengeance, killing a lot of innocent people. That is not peaceful. And it certainly isn't going to restore any peace. I would ultimately go with my first suggestion. Intense group therapy with mediation.

[HappyLady]

You really need to define power better, HL.

Yeah, my kids were getting off the bus and I ran out of time...I think I even mentioned it. ;)

There are two kinds of power. To simplify I'll say GOOD power is power that is bestowed upon you because others respect you and willingly give it to you, and it is a power that one uses only for the greater good of humanity. BAD power is power that is bestowed upon you because you intimidate or force people to give it to you against their will, and it is a power that is only self-serving. The kind of power that makes WAR happen is BAD power.

[Spartacus]

The kind of power that makes WAR happen is BAD power.


Really??????

Obviously terrorist acts are the result of "bad" power....

But is it wrong to go to war against terrorists and despots who rule with torture and murder? Is this "good" power compelling people to defend the innocents while killing the guilty....or is this a "bad" power?

[CC]

I believe the only way "terrorism" will fade away is if the very people who share the same communities with them must unite and turn the bad ones in. of course I'll be moonwalking again before that happens.

It's just like in so many slums. The gangs run around a cause a lot of trouble in a neighborhood even though the law-abiding citizens out number them probably 10,000 to one. People become complacent, even in ghettos.

Somehow, someway a way must be found to educate honest citiizens both that there are better ways to live, and secondly that if they band together, with outside support they could rid their communities of the few bad ones and then live the better life their eyes had been opened to.

I've tried to change the mindset of honest citizens in the slums a couple of times, and failed misersably.

So, anyone have any idea how you educate and even enlightened a people that have forever been taught to think that what they see is all there is?.........:O)

[HappyLady]

But is it wrong to go to war against terrorists and despots who rule with torture and murder? Is this "good" power compelling people to defend the innocents while killing the guilty....or is this a "bad" power?

It is right to defend. It is not right to invade. Two wrongs don't make a right. How is going into a country not our own and destroying it's infrastructure and taking innocent lives justified as being "good power?" Can you explain that to me in a way I can understand?

Yes, the terrorists did the same thing. An eye for an eye and all that. Junior high school to me.

[Zenstone]

The BBC news said yesterday that the United States is seen as one of the largest threats to world peace. Anger towards the US over the whole foreign policy in the ME has basically made the whole matter worse.

I think this is it. The future effects of the US's handling of Iraq is more important to our allies and trade partners than it is to the ME.

For this very reason, we need to take the "high road" and not mistreat POWs, not destroy mosques: not react in anger or ignorance. How we handle the rest of this war is critical to the non-ME world, and the US role in it. They are Apok's "one" that can respond to this insanity.

[Spartacus]

It is right to defend. It is not right to invade. Two wrongs don't make a right. How is going into a country not our own and destroying it's infrastructure and taking innocent lives justified as being "good power?" Can you explain that to me in a way I can understand?

Sixty years ago next month were we wrong to invade Normandy?

Is invasion the sole criteria for determining if it is right to go to war?

More recently...were we wrong to invade Iraq and Kuwait in the First Gulf War?

[Spartacus]

For this very reason, we need to take the "high road" and not mistreat POWs, not destroy mosques: not react in anger or ignorance.



Who could disagree with this...

Except topopint out that under the Geneva Convention and accepted international law....If a house of wroship is being used either as a fighting position or for storing weapons and ammunition -- then it is no longer a house of worship.

[KevinBrowning]

I think this is it. The future effects of the US's handling of Iraq is more important to our allies and trade partners than it is to the ME.

For this very reason, we need to take the "high road" and not mistreat POWs, not destroy mosques: not react in anger or ignorance. How we handle the rest of this war is critical to the non-ME world, and the US role in it. They are Apok's "one" that can respond to this insanity.
When Muslims use mosques as battlegrounds and sniper posts, we will respond in kind. To my knowledge, once a believer of a religion uses a house of worship to fight from in a war, they have now invalidated its status under international law as a house of worship, and it is now considered just another part of the battlefield. If they disrespect their mosques enough to fight in them, then why should non-Muslims show more respect towards the building? This is just another example of how these fanatics are just being manipulative and using the angle of their religion to incriminate the U.S., when they are the ones in the wrong.

[sjjs]

Who could disagree with this...

Except topopint out that under the Geneva Convention and accepted international law....If a house of wroship is being used either as a fighting position or for storing weapons and ammunition -- then it is no longer a house of worship.

I don't think that it would be wise to start quoting the Geneva Convention since the US has blatently disregarded it on many occasions during this war. Or perhaps it only applies when the US wants it to?

A few contraventions:

- treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay
- mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq
- failure to effectively bring law and order in Kirkuk int al

[sjjs]

Originally Posted by sjjs: I'm not saying that at all. I am saying that this philosophy is shared more or less amongst all sides in this conflict.

Are you able to support that claim?

Yes. There are individuals on all sides of this conflict who preach unadulterated platitudes of hate. (As well as individuals on all sides who don't.)

You've made up some quotes which a terrorist might say. Here are some words of wisdom from various sources on the internet from other sides of the conflict:

"Iraq - gone. Afghanistan - ****ing gone ... there's nothing worth keeping there anyway. Any of these other countries that don't like us - let's just nuke them."

"Christ I really hate the mid-east right now. What have they contributed to the world in the last century? Absolutely nothing."

"It would seem that much of the terrorism that spreads from the Middle East is rooted in the idea of backward, savage, goat ****ing desert Arabs that they are somehow a chosen people."

"they are so warped by violance and death that they only understand violance and death."

"They're ungrateful bastards that simply want to kill more than send their children to school."

So, if I so desired, I can easily make up a diatribe against the Iraqis along the lines of your made up diatribe against the West and it would reflect the views of certain groups on the coalition side of the divide.

But, more importantly, I have to question the motives behind making up a statement. Why would anyone do that? Propoganda perhaps? Inciting public opinion?



So yet again, I ask...how do you respond to someone with such a philosophy (actual or hypothetical)?

I respond by saying the statement is entirely fictitious. It you would like to provide a genuine quote then I'll be happy to debate it.

[Spartacus]

I don't think that it would be wise to start quoting the Geneva Convention since the US has blatently disregarded it on many occasions during this war. Or perhaps it only applies when the US wants it to?

A few contraventions:

- treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay
- mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq
- failure to effectively bring law and order in Kirkuk int al


The US never signed the Geneva Conventions...

And if we're talking violations...Need I remind you of British treatment of terror suspects in Northern Ireland...Some of those blokes happened to be Americans, remember? The Geneva Convention provides different standards for combatants who are not part of a regular army....for what we today call terrorists.

As a matter of policy the US follows the letter of the law for prisoner treatment. Holding an entire nation responsible for the excesses of a few low-level crunchies is ludicrous. That would be like us blaming all of the UK for giving us Boy George.

[HappyLady]

Is invasion the sole criteria for determining if it is right to go to war?

It seems that you are attempting to see if I'm on this side of "America is BAD", and that is not my posture at all. I think ALL war is wrong. I don't care who shoots first. But the US stands as one of the richest countries in the world, and you don't get that way by keeping your nose out of other people's business.

I understand that when a powerhouse is invaded (whether it's promoting peace or it isn't) it needs to defend itself. The fact that an invasion even happens in the first place is wrong, IMO.

And if the political powers that be (and I'm not just talking the US here) were *truly* for promoting peace, they'd be concentrating less on our financial gains and more on solving world problems such as famine, poverty, and disease.

I'm looking at this from a macro level, not a micro one. To break each point in history down to whether an invasion was justified or not, mostly, it might have been justified to defend our country, but not necessarily to the extent that it was done. And the problem doesn't lie so much with the one who is defending, but with the one who started it in the first place. However, that doesn't mean NO responsibility lies with the one who is defending.

When your kid is on the playground and some kid punches him in the stomach, what do you tell your child to do? Some parents advocate "walk away." Some say "hit him back." Some say, "walk away, but if he doesn't stop coming at you, hit him back." And some say, "walk away, but if he doesn't stop coming out you, beat him up." It seems if the world would "walk away" from physical altercations, there'd be no war, now would there? That is the ideal, in my opinion. However, that responsibility lies with the entire world.

So, when one country gets hit, the solution is open to interpretation. When terrorists "invaded" our country, they did it quickly and cowardly. They didn't bring all their troops over here and start destroying all of our cities. If we "walk away" from one atrocity done to our country, like 9/11, what's the big deal? Does it leave us vulnerable for it to happen again? Yes. Butwith increased protection on the homefront, we wouldn't be AS vulnerable. And aren't we vulnerable whether we go invade Iraq or we don't? Aren't we most likely going to lose thousands of lives either way?

Rather, the US has taken a very aggressive position and took it upon itself to "save the world from terrorism" because it destroyed something near and dear to us. Funny, we didn't care that much about it until they hit us at home. Well, the US could save a whole lot more lives if it took all the crap and junk food off the shelves in it's grocery stores, and hand delivered it to the masses who are starving in Africa, or in this very country.

Perhaps my biggest issue, and the one that leads me to my opinions, is that it bothers me that it is money that makes the world go round. The Gulf War was all about money. And how sad it is that money is power and that we sacrifice innocent lives for it.

[Spartacus]

It seems that you are attempting to see if I'm on this side of "America is BAD", and that is not my posture at all. I think ALL war is wrong. I don't care who shoots first.

I can certainly respect this ideal....but it is an ideal.

Ideals are important but we must temper ideals with reality. To prevent further 9/11s from happening we have two choices: 1.) Attack 2.) Defend.

I submit to you that if we chose to go on the defensive, in order for us to affect enough change to make us relatively safe, we would live in what is a virtual police state, much more than we have today. If terrorists think they can attack the biggest kid on the block and are just ignored, their attrocities will grow in scope and size until we were finally compelled to act....that is what they wanted. Al Quaeda declared war on us years ago. They have been trying to get our attention for a decade prior to 9/11.

In tribal cultures a tribe's reputation is determined by the power of its enemies. Al Quaeda, and Saddam in their own sick ways get off in having the US as an enemy. It fuels their collective ego. They would never just walk away. They will never be reasoned with. For them it is all about ego, power, and love of violence.

If a mad dog comes to your neighborhood do you wait for it to just walk away ...or do you shoot it?

[WatsonGlenn]

It seems if the world would "walk away" from physical altercations, there'd be no war, now would there?


Lets look and see if this is true. I am thinking out loud here and I have no idea where this line of reasoning is going.

Which war should we start with? How about say the 100 Years War. If France had walked away from England's attempt to take over then what would have been the result? Well today England and France would be one country. I guess that is not such a bad thing although the French might disagree.

Lets look at the American Civil War. If The South has simply walked away then the North would have had their way easily which of course they did anyway. slavery would not have been ended as quickly as did but it probalby would have ended within in decade or two.

Lets go back even further to 480 B.C and the Persian War when Persia invaded Greece. If the Greeks had simply walked away from the Hot Gates then the Persians would have conquered Greece and ended the first experiments in Democracy. Xerxes would have controlled an even larger part of the world and the history of Europe would be drastically differant.

I don't know about your theory. Its seems to me that if the invading country is civilized and reasonable then walking away is not such a bad thing. If worked out ok for India when th eBriths came in, but if your Russia and the Germans are invading in WWII I don't see walking away as a viable solution unless your tired of living.

I don't think a culture that makes a habit of walking away from invasion has much of a future. The Aztecs and the Inca essentially walked away from the conquistadors and look where that got them.

In the final analysis if you let people walk all over you then they will. That is true at both the micro and maco level. Darwin was right. The strong do survive.

[HappyLady]

To prevent further 9/11s from happening we have two choices: 1.) Attack 2.) Defend.

What about communication? What about trading something besides lives?


I submit to you that if we chose to go on the defensive, in order for us to affect enough change to make us relatively safe, we would live in what is a virtual police state, much more than we have today.

How so? We haven't been terribly inconvenienced by buffing up our protection here on the homefront. Why, if we wouldn't have attacked them, would we need to live in a police state? Aren't we just as much at risk now, or even moreso if we keep pissing them off, than if we hadn't attacked them? Even right now, sitting at my comfy little computer in my nice big comfy house, I am not all that inconvenienced either way. Are you? But Iraq's entire country of innocent people who used to enjoy some of the same safe luxuries we are enjoying at this very moment have no safe place to go.


If terrorists think they can attack the biggest kid on the block and are just ignored, their attrocities will grow in scope and size until we were finally compelled to act....that is what they wanted.

You don't get to be the biggest kid on the block unless you've been a bully. If the bully would opt to walk away, he'd be setting a fine example for all the his followers and enemies. But what initiated terrorism in the first place? I'm not a big history buff. Why did the terrorists and Iraq get pissed at the US in the FIRST place? Do you know? (You seem to have a historical grasp, can you share those facts?)


Al Quaeda declared war on us years ago. They have been trying to get our attention for a decade prior to 9/11.

Why did they declare war? I think many think it's some kind of religious vendetta, but I think that is just part of it. It's because, too often, the US is the bully. We butt our noses in where it doesn't belong to serve our interests.


In tribal cultures a tribe's reputation is determined by the power of its enemies. Al Quaeda, and Saddam in their own sick ways get off in having the US as an enemy. It fuels their collective ego. They would never just walk away. They will never be reasoned with.

Humanity largely used to be nothing but barbarians. Somewhere along the way we developed reason. You know, they probably say the same thing about us, that you just said about them. And honestly, I don't see much difference between us and them.


If a mad dog comes to your neighborhood do you wait for it to just walk away ...or do you shoot it?

Nope, I get my kids in the house, shoot it with a tranqulizer gun, take it to the vet, put it in a cage, and then let someone with more information about mad dogs decide if it can be healed. If it can't, it shouldn't lose it's right to live. Maybe it needs to be contained temporarily, but who knows, with behavioral therapy and some training, it is possible it could be a great family pet. But we'd never know that if we just shot it right away, now would we?

I don't see the point in sentencing a mad dog to death, anymore than I see the sense in sentencing mad people to death.

[HappyLady]

Lets look and see if this is true. I am thinking out loud here and I have no idea where this line of reasoning is going.

You did't address the ideal. If the first tribe ever in existence would not have forced some other tribe to believe what they believe or kill them, war might not exist. You are using example of actual invasions.

You're kind of twisting the cause and effect. England never should have invaded France in the first place.

The North never should have imposed themselves on the South. And slavery, never would have happened because no human ever would have felt they had a right to control others in that way.

As for Persia, who knows what they would have brought tot he table, but they never should have invaded Greece either.

The Germans never should have invaded either.


I don't think a culture that makes a habit of walking away from invasion has much of a future.

Remember, we're talking about an ideal where no one would be invading anyone else because we would find a more peaceful way to solve our differences. It's an ideal, though. We can't really apply it to the current state of our world.


In the final analysis if you let people walk all over you then they will. That is true at both the micro and maco level. Darwin was right. The strong do survive.

Yes, the US would have "survived" if we wouldn't have reacted so aggressively to 9/11. There are other ways to be strong rather than through aggression.

[Spartacus]

Happy Lady....


I had to stop reading when you compared the Lives of Iraqis pre-invasion to the lives of Americans...

Please go to

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Read from Zayed himself -- a Young Iraqi about how things are now compared to how things used to be...browse his archives....It will I think give you a fuller picture. This site also links to many other Iraqi Blogs. Zayed has no love of Americans -- Yes there are problems post-Saddam -- but in almost every post he points to how things are improving for the average Iraqi. I highly recommend you check it out....Good can come from violenec and the benefits are not always immediately apparent.

[WatsonGlenn]

You did'nt address the ideal. If the first tribe ever in existence would not have forced some other tribe to believe what they believe or kill them, war might not exist. You are using example of actual invasions.

Wait that is not what you said. You said, and I hope I have this right, "It seems if the world would walk away from physical altercations, there'd be no war." That is the point you raised in which I was interested.


You're kind of twisting the cause and effect. England never should have invaded France in the first place.

Right but if Engand does invade should France resist? That is the question. You seem to be saying no since if France "walked away" then according to you there would be no war. That is sort of like saying to the sick man "if you don't go to the hospital then you won't die in the hospital."


Yes, the US would have "survived" if we wouldn't have reacted so aggressively to 9/11. There are other ways to be strong rather than through aggression.

So you would have reacted by talking, giving more charity and beefing up our defenses. It might work but IMO that would have made the Arbs think of us as weak which would then make them more aggressive. Do you think Isreal would last very long in the Middle East with that sort of passive attitude?

China tried to build a Great Wall to defend themselves from the Monguls. It did not work. The Best defense is a good offense IMO.

[Spartacus]

WG...I think you need to understand that Happy Lady is coming from the pure pacifist point of view.

I have no problem with this. If everyone had a view like Happy Lady's we would no longer need Armies and the world would be a much better place. I have no patienec for apologists for terrorists...but as for pure pacificists...for them I have the deepest respect.

I wish I could become one. I have tried....

[WatsonGlenn]

[QUOTE=Spartacus]WG...I think you need to understand that Happy Lady is coming from the pure pacifist point of view.


I think you need to understand that I do understand her point of view. I think you need to understand that what I am asking is when one's enemy is not a pacifist and invades your country is it wise to be remain a pacifist? Understand?

Pacifism only works in this world when dealing with an opponent that is capable of being embarred by their own deeds. Gandhi's ideal worked against England. Do you think it would have worked against Stalin or against Saddam.

Its fine to be a pacifist but understand that the right to be one is owed to those who are willing to fight just as much as it is endangered by those eager to fight.

By the way don't worry about what I "understand" next time. Don't confuse lack of understanding with disagreement.

[Spartacus]

By the way don't worry about what I "understand" next time. Don't confuse lack of understanding with disagreement.

Well please forgive me then ;? ...perhaps what I should have elaborated on is that in my experience no pure pacifist will ever be convinced to change their position based on logic...You are right. Pacificism is, given our world, an illogical position. Now when pure pacificists are physically exposed to situations where they must fight, flee or die....when they must kill to protect their children...then you will find some people changing their positions.

[HappyLady]

but in almost every post he points to how things are improving for the average Iraqi. I highly recommend you check it out

No doubt that imposing our culture on the Middle East will in some ways imporve it. I just feel there should be a better way. I can't help it that I'm a hopeful optimist. It's the invasiveness and imposing that I have a problem with. Did you address yet why the terrorists and Iraq are so mad at us in the first place? Honestly, I don't really remember how the conflicts originated. I'm just curious if you know.


....Good can come from violence and the benefits are not always immediately apparent.

Yes, I'm not arguing that nothing good can come out of violence. I'm arguing that it can't be the only way to make good, but as long as the powerhouse that is running the world now continues, too, we won't even be able to explore other options.

[HappyLady]

Wait that is not what you said. You said, and I hope I have this right, "It seems if the world would walk away from physical altercations, there'd be no war." That is the point you raised in which I was interested.

OK.



Right but if Engand does invade should France resist? That is the question.

Nope, that's not what I said. If you are invaded, you protect and defend yourself. But when terrorists take a cowardly pot shot at the US and then flee the country, going over there and cleaning house isn't the best solution IMO.


So you would have reacted by talking, giving more charity and beefing up our defenses. It might work but IMO that would have made the Arbs think of us as weak which would then make them more aggressive.

So, we resorted to some kind of "preventative violence?" Get them before they get us again? That doesn't sound justifiable to me. Perhaps they would have seen us as "weak" and then forgotten all about us. Or perhaps they would have invaded the US with a full force Army and our cities would be destroyed, too. We can only speculate. If a kid on the playground punches you in the face when you're not looking, you're saying your reaction would be to kick his butt so he can't get up again. That is what the US is doing. To me, you walk away. If the kid persists, you defend yourself.


The Best defense is a good offense IMO.

Mmhmm...and some times the best offense is silence.

[Spartacus]

Did you address yet why the terrorists and Iraq are so mad at us in the first place? Honestly, I don't really remember how the conflicts originated. I'm just curious if you know.



Iraq...invaded Kuwait in 1990 claiming Kuwait had alwysbelonged to it. The First Gulf War was a response to this invasion when the US lead a coalition of forces to push Sadam out of Kuwait. In adition to pushing his forces out of Kuwait our forces also moved to within less than 100 miles of Baghdad and indeed we even had some Special Forces types who were right outside Baghdad...We could have toppled Saddam then But after only 100 hours of ground combat, President Bush #39 ordered a stop to all ground offenses. It was not the stated purpose of the coalition to topple Sadam and some of the Arab members of the coalition did not like the idea of one of their Arab brothers being ousted by Westerners...This I think was mistake to give in to this sentiment...We should have had an understanding with the Saudis right from the start that once the invasion began it would not end until Saddam was out of power. Saddam was about to invade Saudi Arabia anyhw and in fact the first ground fighting happened when poorly trained and led Iraqi forces actually advanced into some Saudi Border towns.

Saddam was in material breach of the agreement that ended hostilities when he kicked out international weapons inspectors in 1998 -- At the Time President Clinton just lobbed a few Cruise Missiles into Baghdad with little or no effect other than perhaps killing some janitors working in the targeted buildings on a Saturday night.

Terrorists...The US will always be the target of international terrorists simply because we are the domionant power in the world. During the 90s though under Clinton the attacks against US targets steadily increased in frequency and lethality, culminating in the 9/11 attacks. Al Quaeda the group that perpetrated the attacks justified this by saying it was because we had US troops in Saudi Arabia....The Saudis, wanting to maintain power and not become more of a target themselves asked the US to leave and we did. Attacks against US targets are pretty much non-existent since we began the war on terror...Saudi Arabia though still gets hit pretty regulalrly these days.

It does not matter what the terrorists say they want. By targetting innocent civilians they have chosen a path that is outside accepted military and civilized norms. They are acting outside the boundaries of their own religious laws and international law.

Terrorsim just like the rule of a despot will only end when the perpetraitors are dead and it is made very clear to even the simplest of minds that such actions are not allowed and will only lead to death and misery for the perpetraitors. Unfortuantely violence is all these terrorists and despots understand let alone respect.

[Razor-Tongue]

The only logical way to respond to someone so bent on destroying us, our beliefs, our system, is to become just as bent on destroying them. I've often heard the term bloodlust used as a temporary way to lose your conscience in the moment of action. We must become that animal willing to take life in order to defend life. The lesser of two evils, as it were. If civilians are caught in the crossfire, such as in their homes where the terrorists are hiding, they are assisting them and deserve to be executed anyways. The children will, of course, be spared and sent to America for reeducation to show them that their parents were wrong to hide terrorists. Making sure they are thoroughly "reprogrammed" then send them back in as spies to ferret out more terrorists.
Merciless, pitiless, and conscienceless. The only way to destroy an enemy with these qualities is to take on these qualities your self and become a wind of fire burning your enemy out at the roots.

[3rdPersonPlural]

Terrorsim just like the rule of a despot will only end when the perpetraitors are dead and it is made very clear to even the simplest of minds that such actions are not allowed and will only lead to death and misery for the perpetraitors. Unfortuantely violence is all these terrorists and despots understand let alone respect.

Now all we have to do is to get all the terrorists to don a distinctive uniform and gather together to face our military.

Yeah......I doubt that will happen, too.

A terrorist is indistinguishable from any other disgruntled youth until he commits a terrorist act. The only way to execute your plan is to either kill all disgruntled youth or to find some way of examining disgruntled youth to determine if they might just strap on a bomb or something. Neither scenario is viable.

The only solution is to prevent youth from becoming at once disgruntled and besotted with religious fervor sufficient for him to become convinced that there is a cause greater than life itself. Perhaps the worst route to this end is to institute a policy of pre-emptively murdering young men who meet the disgruntled and religious criteria.

[Zenstone]

The US never signed the Geneva Conventions...

The four Geneva Conventions of 1949 were revisited by the UN in 1977. At that point, two extensions of the Conventions (the "Protocols") were ratified.

If the US did not sign the conventions in 1949, we can still consider them officially accepted by the US, as of 1977.

[Zenstone]

When Muslims use mosques as battlegrounds and sniper posts, we will respond in kind.

Good point. In that case, the mosque (or a hospital or orphanage or any similar structure) is also a military target.

I'll amend my position - let's not embark on a mosque-destroying rampage in our haste to demoralize the enemy. We should require ourselves to gather enough intelligence about a mosque, so that we know it is being used for military purposes, or being prepared for such use.

The jump to the conclusion "all mosques are used for military purposes" is too easy to make in our current frustrated/enraged state.

[HappyLady]

Thank you Spartypants for the historty lesson. That at least gives me more perspective of causes.

Can I ask questions? So, who did Kuwait "belong to" in 1990 if it didn't belong to Iraq? I'm assuming since we went to rescue Kuwait that it belonged to the US? Or did Kuwait just belong to itself? Who owned it? If it belonged to the US, did we buy it, or take it, from someone else?

So, it seems that securing Kuwait wasn't quite enough, and we had to push our threat, force, and power into Saddam's homeland. If we were only trying to "protect" Kuwait, what were we doing meddling around near Baghdad? I'd get mad, too, if the government came into my house and went through my "stuff."


We should have had an understanding with the Saudis right from the start that once the invasion began it would not end until Saddam was out of power.

So, you feel we just didn't finish the job back then? But I guess I'm confused as to why the US was over there in the first place? What claim did we have to Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia, or any of the ME? That's the info I need, and I realize you're not here to be my history teacher, so if you want me to go Googling...I...*sigh* will. ;)


At the Time President Clinton just lobbed a few Cruise Missiles into Baghdad with little or no effect other than perhaps killing some janitors working in the targeted buildings on a Saturday night.

Had those missiles come into US and killed some innocent janitors with families, it would be considered reason for vengeance against the people who did it.


The US will always be the target of international terrorists simply because we are the domionant power in the world.

Why, do you feel, we are the dominant power in the world?


It does not matter what the terrorists say they want. By targetting innocent civilians they have chosen a path that is outside accepted military and civilized norms. They are acting outside the boundaries of their own religious laws and international law.

They targeted innocent civilians, but we have imposed ourselves on the innocent people of the ME by bringing our troops, our bombs, and our guns, into their living space. I do think the terrorist ideals are really distorted and screwed up. And I do agree that they don't deserve to perpetuate their violence. But I just don't know if I agree that the US should be responsible for carrying out the vendetta to this degree.

[Razor-Tongue]

To us, not "all mosques are used for military purposes." But to them all Americans homes and families must be destroyed. It makes no sense for them to get to be so ruthless while our country is still bound by its conscience.

[Slipnish]

To us, not "all mosques are used for military purposes." But to them all Americans homes and families must be destroyed. It makes no sense for them to get to be so ruthless while our country is still bound by its conscience.

It doesn't really, but someone has to be the good guys. The sick part is, its us. I wouldn't trade one mosque for one American life. If so much as a smoke cloud came out of it in a fire fight, I advocate for rolling a few Abrams through it, and then setting it afire.

No skin off my nose.

However, even though I feel this way, I know that somewhere down the road, some jackass is going to point out how we did X to a mosque, and a whole new wave of jerks is going to want to blow us up, so he can get his express ticket to meet Allah.

SIGH

And so it goes. I say do it if we have to, but ONLY if we have too. But when we have to, do not leave two stones stacked one atop the other. Level it, salt the ground, and move on.

[mog]

Thank you Spartypants for the historty lesson. That at least gives me more perspective of causes.

Can I ask questions? So, who did Kuwait "belong to" in 1990 if it didn't belong to Iraq? I'm assuming since we went to rescue Kuwait that it belonged to the US? Or did Kuwait just belong to itself? Who owned it? If it belonged to the US, did we buy it, or take it, from someone else?

I might add that prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein was a trusted ally. He was a very useful tool for keeping the Middle East in check. The most prominent example is the Iran - Iraq war, when the US supplied Iraq with WMDs despite knowing he was using them against Iranian troops and his own people. The rest of the West supported him as well but with more conventional arms. Before he invaded Kuwait, Saddam Hussein sought audience with the US ambassador. He was assured that the US had "no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait". Saddam smiled, then 8 days later his massed army invaded Kuwait.

As to the motivation of terrorists like Al Qaeda, they have repeatedly cited several grievances. The main one is the Palestine-Israel conflict and the US's continued unconditional support of Israel both in the form of a massive annual monetary sum, and blocking international attempts to restrain Israel in the UN.

It is disgusting that terrorism targets civilians, but then again when the US bombs Baghdad, or when the Israelis mount their regular 'incursions' civilians are dying too, except that fact is sugar coated under terms like 'collateral damage'.

[sjjs]

The US never signed the Geneva Conventions...

So you give or take no quarter then and can't complain if the other side treat you badly.



And if we're talking violations...Need I remind you of British treatment of terror suspects in Northern Ireland...Some of those blokes happened to be Americans, remember? The Geneva Convention provides different standards for combatants who are not part of a regular army....for what we today call terrorists.

Ad hom. argument. So what?

As an aside, if you want to call the IRA terrorists don't forget they were substantially funded by Irish Americans. Should the UK have invaded the US on a pre-emptive strike?



As a matter of policy the US follows the letter of the law for prisoner treatment.

Which law are you referring to?

[Zenstone]

It makes no sense for them to get to be so ruthless while our country is still bound by its conscience.

It makes sense, if one recalls the principles the USA is fighting for. By "conscience" I assume you mean those concepts that form our Consitution and Bill of Rights.

Are you advocating suspending our founding principles in order to facilitate liberating Iraq? Presumably, we were "liberating" them because their dictatorship did not recognize these self-same principles.

[Zenstone]

So you give or take no quarter then and can't complain if the other side treat you badly....Which law are you referring to?

I belive that before the war, the US administration made the case that terrorist cells were not soveriegn nations, and therefore the Geneva conventions did not apply to them. My understanding is that the UN either agreed to this interpretation directly, or by their acceptance of the US attacks on Afghanistan.

[I am open to a history lesson here.]

[Apokalupsis]

The US never signed the Geneva Conventions...


There were actually four Geneva Conventions. The First Geneva Convention was agreed to in 1864. The agreement provided for the protection of all medical facilities, their personnel and any civilians aiding the wounded. It also gives the Red Cross international recognition as a neutral medical group.

The First convention was originally signed by 12 nations (The United States was not one of these). The United States signed the Second Convention, which occurred in 1882. The second convention extended the protection of the first convention to wounded combatants at sea and shipwrecked sailors.

The Third Geneva Convention was convened in 1929 and resulted in specific protections for prisoners of war. The Fourth Geneva Convention was signed in 1949. This convention reaffirmed the requirements of the first three conventions and provided protections for civilians during wartime.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.