How do you know when a War On Terror is won? [Archive]

Crossbow

10th May 2006, 11:05 AM

I've asked it before, but I've never gotten a really satisfying answer.

What event or sequence of events must occur in order for us to say that we are no longer at war on terror, or with terrorists?

I don't accept "when all the terrorists are dead" because that just leads to the question of how do we know when that has happened. I guess I'm looking for a measurable condition.

Anyone know?

I expect that when Bush and most of the other pro-war flunkies finally get tired of it all,
They will claim victory,
Then they will Give up, and
Go home.

By that point, just about everybody else will be ready for peace regardless of the cost.

When this convergence of events is reached, then that will be the point when the "War on Terror" is over.

Not a very satisfying answer to be sure, but then again, no American ever expected the USA to stay militarily involved for 30 years in Vietnam either.

Upchurch

10th May 2006, 11:12 AM

Have you considered reading the AUMF - the actual instrument of war in this particular instance - before posing this question. There's some information in there you may find useful.Not really.

"(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

Anti_Hypeman

10th May 2006, 11:14 AM

The war on terror has been won.

The winner is Halliburton and the rest of Bush Co.

Upchurch

10th May 2006, 11:18 AM

pipelineaudio

10th May 2006, 11:19 AM

When Dar-Al-Haarb become Dar-Al-Islam the war will be over

Tony

10th May 2006, 11:23 AM

Isn't more or less like the war on drugs. Isn't it?

Pretty much. "War on Terror" like "War on Drugs" is a propaganda tool with no real meaning. It pretty much means that politicians in power are going to funnel money to their contributors in the guise of "War on X".

Personally, I'd like to see a "War on Politicians".

10th May 2006, 11:26 AM

Cetecea

10th May 2006, 11:30 AM

When George damn well tells you!
That's when!

Why do you hate America?

bob_kark

10th May 2006, 11:31 AM

Personally, I'd like to see a "War on Politicians".

On this I completely agree with you. I'd like to see some term limits in place. I'd like there to be more than a two party system, Independents don't cut it. I'd like to get rid of all lobbyists. I'd like to see a congress that voted based upon the facts rather than voting along party lines. Of course, it will never happen. But I can dream, can't I?

Chaos

10th May 2006, 11:32 AM

Incidently, is Bush still using "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons"? Seems to me that he's too focused on Iraq to follow this directive.

It says "he determines" - so as long as he determines that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, he is following that directive.

Isn´t that nice? Permission to wage war against whoever he wants, as long as he claims he thinks it has anything to do with 9/11.

Upchurch

10th May 2006, 11:35 AM

It says "he determines" - so as long as he determines that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, he is following that directive.Has he ever said that Iraq had something to do with 9/11? I've been told that he hasn't.

rocketdodger

10th May 2006, 12:03 PM

Certain things, like some civil liberties, can and should be set aside during times of war.

I presume that by this you mean those civil liberties that are not also human rights.

Upchurch

10th May 2006, 12:14 PM

I presume that by this you mean those civil liberties that are not also human rights.
I would hope not. The reality doesn't appear to live up to expectations, but yes, that is what I meant, anyway.

Bjorn

10th May 2006, 05:34 PM

Has he ever said that Iraq had something to do with 9/11? I've been told that he hasn't.I've been told that he said the opposite:

Bush:
there was no proof tying Saddam Hussein to the Sept. 11 attacksRumsfeld:
the administration had no evidence tying Hussein to Sept. 11Rice:
We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9/11... but I could have missed something.

Tony

10th May 2006, 06:10 PM

On this I completely agree with you. I'd like to see some term limits in place. I'd like there to be more than a two party system, Independents don't cut it. I'd like to get rid of all lobbyists. I'd like to see a congress that voted based upon the facts rather than voting along party lines. Of course, it will never happen. But I can dream, can't I?

I'd also like some sort of civil surveillance of politicians. A situation where everything they do and say is public knowledge.

thaiboxerken

10th May 2006, 06:13 PM

Like the "War on Drugs".... never.

CapelDodger

10th May 2006, 06:37 PM

Hopefully, the United States will remain at war with terrorism and terrorists as long as they exist.
Well, they stayed the course against Communism. Maybe they'll stay the course against Islamic terrorism as well. What the next existential threat will be - environmentalists? the undeserving poor? - is anybody's guess.

Isolationism has a lot going for it when you're as large and diverse as the US.

CapelDodger

10th May 2006, 06:45 PM

The war on terror has been won.

The winner is Halliburton and the rest of Bush Co.
Bollocks. It's only won when there's nothing left to leech off. No sign of that yet.

CapelDodger

10th May 2006, 07:04 PM

I'd also like some sort of civil surveillance of politicians. A situation where everything they do and say is public knowledge.
Way to restrict politics to the truly weird, dude. :covereyes

The problem is with the electorate, not with the politicians.

aerosolben

10th May 2006, 07:27 PM

Pretty much. "War on Terror" like "War on Drugs" is a propaganda tool with no real meaning.
Not entirely without meaning. I don't believe Congress has licensed the President to exercise war powers in service to the "War on Drugs" (AFAIK). While the War on Drugs is silly and wasteful, at least it isn't actually a war.

Tony

10th May 2006, 07:43 PM

Tony

10th May 2006, 07:44 PM

Way to restrict politics to the truly weird, dude. :covereyes

How so?

The problem is with the electorate, not with the politicians.

I'm not sure I completely buy that.

Huntster

10th May 2006, 09:55 PM

...I don't accept "when all the terrorists are dead" because that just leads to the question of how do we know when that has happened. I guess I'm looking for a measurable condition.

Anyone know?

Sure, and the "when all the terrorists are dead" works fine: the ones we don't kill blow themselves up.

When the suicide bombs stop, it's over.

SezMe

10th May 2006, 10:11 PM

SezMe

10th May 2006, 10:13 PM

Not entirely without meaning. I don't believe Congress has licensed the President to exercise war powers in service to the "War on Drugs" (AFAIK). While the War on Drugs is silly and wasteful, at least it isn't actually a war.
I don't believe Congress declared "War" on terror, either. They did not declare war on Iraq or terror or anything else. Therefore, the nation is not at war in a formal sense and all of Shrub's justifications based on that assertion are nonsense.

aerosolben

10th May 2006, 11:14 PM

I don't believe Congress declared "War" on terror, either. They did not declare war on Iraq or terror or anything else. Therefore, the nation is not at war in a formal sense and all of Shrub's justifications based on that assertion are nonsense.
That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
Quibbling about the terminology is rather pointless, I think.

fishbob

11th May 2006, 12:24 AM

Hopefully, the United States will remain at war with terrorism and terrorists as long as they exist.

Government contracts, eh?

fishbob

11th May 2006, 12:26 AM

Have you considered reading the AUMF - the actual instrument of war in this particular instance - before posing this question. There's some information in there you may find useful.

"War on Terror" is a foreign policy objective set by the executive branch. It is not a statutory claim. We should and can, in fact, always be at war from a policy standpoint with terrorism and terrorists. Being at war from a statutory standpoint requires another procedural step.

I suggest that this is a meaningless distinction. Since our guys are getting just as blowed up either way.

SezMe

11th May 2006, 01:17 AM

Quibbling about the terminology is rather pointless, I think.
Hardly. Going to war is surely the most significant act a nation can undertake. Terminology, conditions of war, etc. are at their most importance at such a time.

Consider the last time we went to war. Here (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/WorldWar2/declare.htm) is the full declaration:

Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America:
Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

Please provide me with a citation where the US Congress (not the President - by the Constitution he does not have the power to declare war) declared that the USA is in a "state of war" with Iraq.

Simply stating that "the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force" is NOT a declaration of war. Period.

3point14

11th May 2006, 03:35 AM

Upchurch

11th May 2006, 06:38 AM

Simply stating that "the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force" is NOT a declaration of war. Period.Well, that's an interesting point. A declaration of war probably ought to include the words "declare" and "war" and define who it is we are at war with. "anyone involved" seems a tad vague....

So, is this a case where the congress just really screwed up and passed a very poorly written document?

Cylinder

11th May 2006, 06:49 AM

It is a disctinction without a difference. Authorizing the President to commit acts of war against another power is a declaration of war under international law and that power is only granted to Congress by its Article II power to declare war.

aerosolben

11th May 2006, 08:21 AM

Simply stating that "the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force" is NOT a declaration of war. Period.

Consider a recent time we didn't go to war:
The United States regards as vital to its national interest and to world peace the maintenance of international peace and security in southeast Asia. Consonant with the Constitution of the United States and the Charter of the United Nations and in accordance with its obligations under the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty, the United States is, therefore, prepared, as the President determines, to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom.
An actual declaration of war is not possible without a specific power to oppose it. The existing resolution, given the strength of the US military in peace time, and given that it has been used to overthrow Afghanistan, would appear to be much broader in scope than an actual declaration of war.

Belz...

11th May 2006, 09:48 AM

When the credits roll. Then you get to play the bonus levels:

War on Drugs
War on Poverty
War on Crime
War on Illegal Immigration
War on Indecency (AKA convert to a fundamentalist theocracy)

And the sequel, "War on Terrorism II"

Number Six

11th May 2006, 10:32 AM

The War on Terror will be won when we no longer notice it's being fought. Chronologically that will be decades IMO. Although that sounds bad, fighting a War on Terror for decades isn't anything like fighting a conventional war for decades.

Upchurch

11th May 2006, 10:36 AM

Although that sounds bad, fighting a War on Terror for decades isn't anything like fighting a conventional war for decades.
How so?

Number Six

11th May 2006, 11:11 AM

How so?
The rate of death and destruction is a lot lower in a WoT than in a conventional war.

Upchurch

11th May 2006, 11:17 AM

The rate of death and destruction is a lot lower in a WoT than in a conventional war.
even after decades?

Number Six

11th May 2006, 11:22 AM

even after decades?
Rates are time independent. If you're saying that even though the rates of death and destruction are lower in a WoT the total amount might be as much as a conventional war because the WoT will last longer, then, well, perhaps, depending on how long the hypothetical conventional war would last. It depends on a lot of things.

Look at it this way, if people keep dying at the rate they have been so far in the WoT (if we definte the WoT as beginning on 9/11/2001), then how long would the WoT have to last until the number of deaths equalled the number of deaths in WW II? I don't know the answer to that but I think it would be a very long time. Then again, the nature of the WoT is such that that could change quickly. I mean, maybe a million people will be killed by a dirty bomb in NYC tomorrow and then the rates of deaths change a lot.

Zbu

11th May 2006, 11:33 AM

I think the War on Terror when George Bush Jr. is knocked out of office. Let's face it, the idiot probably saw the 9/11 attacks and thought he could one-up it. Mission accomplished, you retarded sack of pus.

Upchurch

11th May 2006, 11:34 AM

Rates are time independent.You're right, I missed the "rate" part somehow.

Random

11th May 2006, 12:18 PM

But you don't have to hunt them all down. I don't think many people would claim we haven't won the war against the KKK. I'd say we've won it when any terrorist knows that he can't find refuge anywhere, that if he blows up a building in New York, he'll be hunted night and day in Pakistan; if he blows up a train in Singapore, he'll find no haven in Afghanistan; if he blows up a ship in Haiti, he won't be safe even in Timbuktu.
What if they blow up a Cuban airliner?

Elind

11th May 2006, 03:02 PM

a_unique_person

12th May 2006, 03:29 AM

When you no longer find the need to ask that question.

Wasn't that how it all started? People in the USA were blithely unaware that there was a growing resentment of the policies of US governments that were raising tension in other parts of the world.

Elind

12th May 2006, 05:37 AM

Codswallop! Try another sentence. Any of your apologist appeasment ones will do.

pipelineaudio

12th May 2006, 08:35 AM

Wasn't that how it all started? People in the USA were blithely unaware that there was a growing resentment of the policies of US governments that were raising tension in other parts of the world.

Awesome, SLAG'd and the victim is blamed

Lets see the last notable action "the policies of US governments" caused before the terror attacks:

drumroll please

ta da

fighting FOR al Queda is the former Yugoslavia

I could see how that should cause resentment

Upchurch

12th May 2006, 08:38 AM

When you no longer find the need to ask that question.
Which means what? When the president is no longer using "The War On Terror" as a political club to make all sorts of broadly sweepeing legal distinctions that he would not otherwise be able to do?

Yeah, that makes me feel loads better. Thanks.

Psi Baba

12th May 2006, 10:27 AM

Chaos

12th May 2006, 02:19 PM

Has he ever said that Iraq had something to do with 9/11? I've been told that he hasn't.

Well if he has attacked Iraq under authorization of this 9/11 thingy, then that means that he at least implies a link.

Cylinder

12th May 2006, 02:41 PM

Well if he has attacked Iraq under authorization of this 9/11 thingy, then that means that he at least implies a link.

There are separate resolutions.

bob_kark

12th May 2006, 02:48 PM

Don't forget the War on Christmas! :nonmerry
That's the work of a rebel faction, you'd have to buy the sequel Belz mentioned to play that.

Elind

12th May 2006, 07:10 PM

Awesome, SLAG'd and the victim is blamed

Lets see the last notable action "the policies of US governments" caused before the terror attacks:

drumroll please

ta da

fighting FOR al Queda is the former Yugoslavia

I could see how that should cause resentment

:sewhoohoo:

Elind

12th May 2006, 07:13 PM

Which means what? When the president is no longer using "The War On Terror" as a political club to make all sorts of broadly sweepeing legal distinctions that he would not otherwise be able to do?

Not necessarily. When you no longer find the need to ask the question. You are a smart guy, you will understand when the time comes. Patience.

Of course I might misunderstand. Do you perhaps mean today?:boggled:

a_unique_person

12th May 2006, 07:30 PM

pipelineaudio

12th May 2006, 08:57 PM

If you want to argue with me, you could try arguing my point. Otherwise, don't bother attacking statements I never made.

this statement you never made?

Originally Posted by a_unique_person :
Wasn't that how it all started? People in the USA were blithely unaware that there was a growing resentment of the policies of US governments that were raising tension in other parts of the world.

Not sure Im following you

fishbob

13th May 2006, 01:15 AM

Codswallop! Try another sentence. Any of your apologist appeasment ones will do.
Accusations of apologist appeasement are not nice.

a_unique_person

13th May 2006, 02:26 AM

You are a very boring person, Pipeline, I will try you on the new, improved, advanced, whiter than white Ignore list. It does wonders for Mycroft.

Elind

13th May 2006, 07:00 AM

Accusations of apologist appeasement are not nice.

Was I supposed to be nice? He tars all of us with the responsibility for "Wasn't that how it all started? People in the USA were blithely unaware that there was a growing resentment of the policies of US governments that were raising tension in other parts of the world."

Perhaps you are not part of that group and therefore immune. I think apologist appeaser excuser is about as nice as I can be without seeing stars.

a_unique_person

13th May 2006, 06:03 PM

I didn't say the attack was justified, I said people were unaware of what was brewing.

Huntster

13th May 2006, 06:47 PM

Government contracts, eh?

That's a sore spot with me.

Government contractors are no different than Mafia contractors, and I'm not specifying those carrying firearms.

Eisenhower (General of the Army, speaking as President) was right, and nobody knew what he was talking about.

Blinded by partisan politics, most still haven't figured it out.

Huntster

13th May 2006, 06:52 PM

I don't believe Congress declared "War" on terror, either.....

Sure, they did.

They declared a War on Poverty and a War on Drugs, too.

That little thing in Vietnam was declared a "conflict".

Feeling better?

Huntster

13th May 2006, 07:00 PM

Hardly. Going to war is surely the most significant act a nation can undertake. Terminology, conditions of war, etc. are at their most importance at such a time.

Consider the last time we went to war. Here (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/WorldWar2/declare.htm) is the full declaration:

Please provide me with a citation where the US Congress (not the President - by the Constitution he does not have the power to declare war) declared that the USA is in a "state of war" with Iraq....

Well, Congress has been very cowardly with regard to war. They don't seem to "declare" war anymore, however, they do "authorize" it:

The 1st Gulf War was "authorized".

I'd like to see Congress step up to the plate that was intended, but it appears that they prefer to relegate that to the President. I suppose that's how "kings" are made.

Go ahead. Blame the president. Further the problem.

The problem is that we have a bunch of cowards in Congress.

Huntster

13th May 2006, 07:09 PM

The War on Terror will be won when we no longer notice it's being fought....

Yeah, right. Like has been posted:

War on Drugs
War on Poverty
War on Crime
War on Illegal Immigration
War on Indecency

Don't hold your breath.

...Although that sounds bad, fighting a War on Terror for decades isn't anything like fighting a conventional war for decades.

Yup, you're right. It doesn't sound bad.

But it will be like the wars illustrated above. Noble, right, and lasting forever.

If you don't intend to fight, you'd better sit down, be quiet, and accept the consequences.

If you intend to fight, you'd better get it on, and fight like there's no tomorrow.

Anything else is foolish.

Huntster

13th May 2006, 07:16 PM

Rates are time independent. If you're saying that even though the rates of death and destruction are lower in a WoT the total amount might be as much as a conventional war because the WoT will last longer, then, well, perhaps, depending on how long the hypothetical conventional war would last. It depends on a lot of things.

Look at it this way, if people keep dying at the rate they have been so far in the WoT (if we definte the WoT as beginning on 9/11/2001), then how long would the WoT have to last until the number of deaths equalled the number of deaths in WW II? I don't know the answer to that but I think it would be a very long time. Then again, the nature of the WoT is such that that could change quickly. I mean, maybe a million people will be killed by a dirty bomb in NYC tomorrow and then the rates of deaths change a lot.

Are you stating that all wars should be hot?

I tend to think that, but after thousands of years of hot wars, and the advent of chemical and nuclear weapons, I may be a dinosaur.

This "nitpicking" war stuff is tiring, though. Frankly, I think every location that Osama is thought to be should be thoroughly carpet bombed by B-52 conventional bombs. If it's in a habited town, it should be considered like German or Japanese cities during WWII.

War is Hell. Deliver more Hell than your enemy.

Ausmerican

13th May 2006, 07:24 PM

Are you stating that all wars should be hot?

I tend to think that, but after thousands of years of hot wars, and the advent of chemical and nuclear weapons, I may be a dinosaur.

This "nitpicking" war stuff is tiring, though. Frankly, I think every location that Osama is thought to be should be thoroughly carpet bombed by B-52conventional bombs. If it's in a habited town, it should be considered like German or Japanese cities during WWII.

War is Hell. Deliver more Hell than your enemy.
Wow, just wow. Do not insult dinosaurs. You are a bloodthirsty hypocrite with a very sad twisted mind.

Elind

13th May 2006, 07:37 PM

I didn't say the attack was justified, I said people were unaware of what was brewing.

I didn't say you said some attack (9/11?) was justified. You didn't say people were unaware. You said people were RESPONSIBLE.

Read your own damn posts.

Huntster

13th May 2006, 08:43 PM

Wow, just wow. Do not insult dinosaurs....

Why not? Dinosaurs are dead, and they were more bloodthirsty than you claim I am.

...You are a bloodthirsty hypocrite with a very sad twisted mind....

Nope.

I'm a warrior. When somebody wants a fight, I want to give them more fight than they wanted.

That's how you win, which is what you go into a fight for (whether you picked the fight or not).

Ausmerican

13th May 2006, 09:21 PM

A warrior? That's a laugh. So your idea of a warrior is someone who carpet bombs thousands of innocents on the off chance they get their target? Also by carpet bombing the area there is a good chance you will never know if you DID get your target.
Dinosaurs were certainly not more bloodthirsty than you. They killed what they needed to survive, not what they needed plus everything else living in a few square mile radius.
I guess the whole "Thou shalt not kill" bit was wasted on you in church, huh?

Huntster

13th May 2006, 10:04 PM

A warrior? That's a laugh....

Actually, it's not so much a laugh. It's some serious stuff. Depressing, actually.

...So your idea of a warrior is someone who carpet bombs thousands of innocents on the off chance they get their target?...

No, "my idea" of a warrior is one who engages in total war. I don't expect you to understand what that means.

...Also by carpet bombing the area there is a good chance you will never know if you DID get your target....

Not really.

If he survives, he'll either go into submission, go into complete hiding, or engage in the type of war that Osama has chosen from the outset (very wise on his part, BTW).

If he doesn't survive, he goes away, along with his minions.

...Dinosaurs were certainly not more bloodthirsty than you. They killed what they needed to survive, not what they needed plus everything else living in a few square mile radius....

I'm not a dinosaur. I'm a warrior.

If you're a "peacenik", get to "peace-nikking".

If you fail, get the hell out of the way.

...I guess the whole "Thou shalt not kill" bit was wasted on you in church, huh?

Nope. Killing is wrong.

That goes for Osama as well as GW and me.

But when the killing happens, I want to be on the killing and righteous side, not the dying and stupid side.

You?

Do you deny the fact of life and death? Do you deny the facts of righteous and wrong? Do you deny the facts of democracy and dictatorship?

Where do you stand?

thaiboxerken

13th May 2006, 10:09 PM

Actually, it's not so much a laugh. It's some serious stuff. Depressing, actually.

That's right, you've wrestled bigfoots and sasquatches in your backyard.

No, "my idea" of a warrior is one who engages in total war. I don't expect you to understand what that means.

Your one-man war against the evil armies of sasquatch and bigoot doesn't really count. Your LARPing on the JREF forum isn't really going to impress everyone. You are simply a twit on a forum that pretends to be more intelligent, brave and tough than you'll ever be. You are a woo-woo fool armed with nothing but a keyboard and still unable to use it effectively.

Ausmerican

13th May 2006, 10:40 PM

SezMe

14th May 2006, 12:53 AM

Sure, they did.

They declared a War on Poverty and a War on Drugs, too.

Please give a cite to a bill passed by both houses and signed by the President that uses the words "War" and "Poverty" or "Drugs" that invokes the real meaning of the word "war".

Feeling better?
I am, thanks for asking.

Huntster

14th May 2006, 02:31 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Actually, it's not so much a laugh. It's some serious stuff. Depressing, actually. That's right, you've wrestled bigfoots and sasquatches in your backyard....

Nope. Never even seen a sasquatch.

But I've seen "thai boxers".

Wasn't impressed.

No, "my idea" of a warrior is one who engages in total war. I don't expect you to understand what that means.

Your one-man war against the evil armies of sasquatch and bigoot doesn't really count.

I'm not waging war against "evil armies of sasquatch and biggot". I'm waging war against idiots......

Like you.

...Your LARPing on the JREF forum isn't really going to impress everyone....

Damned shame. I'd hoped my LARPing would have an effect.

I never expected the learned to be effected by LARPing, but I figured idiots might learn something.

Of course, I have no idea what LARPing is, but I'm willing to learn.

...You are simply a twit on a forum that pretends to be more intelligent, brave and tough than you'll ever be. You are a woo-woo fool armed with nothing but a keyboard and still unable to use it effectively....

Pray you never know the truth.

Bye, ken. I *clicked* you earlier, but unclicked you in some sort of foolish regret.

Now, you're *clicked* forever.

Wisely so, I might add.

Huntster

14th May 2006, 02:45 AM

Where do I stand? I have no problem killing the ones who need killing. I am in no way a "peace-nik".

But killing perhaps thousands of innocents to possibly kill the one who deserves it? That isn't righteous. That's ineffective. That's bloodthirsty That's just about totally murderously insane....

Welcome to today's warmaking policy.

Notice Osama is still out and about, making videos, and under the protection and loving care of the locals.

One man. Against the whole U.S. of A. After killing thousands of innocent American (and other) civilians.

He's still out there.

Your answer?

...As for your comment that you don't expect me to understand what that means, you have no idea of me or my background. There are plenty of people both on this forum and this planet that have military experience that can draw a rational distinction between killing the enemy and your 'kill em all and let god sort em out' machismo garbage....

You're right. I have no idea of your background.

Nor do you have an idea of mine. Nor do you know of my "foreground".

...Thankfully it seems most countries have people that can draw that distinction making the tactical decisions and not bloodthirsty freaks like you. We do have a term for people who blow up an entire area to get there intended target or message across. Fundy terrorist.

That's your word for me. I disagree.

I'm not much for "fundy", and I'm damned sure not much for "terrorism".

But when war is declared (especially when somebody else did the "declaring"), it's open season.

And "domestics" that whine and cry, IMO, are part of the problem.

A BIG part of the problem.

Huntster

14th May 2006, 02:53 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Sure, they did.
They declared a War on Poverty and a War on Drugs, too.

Please give a cite to a bill passed by both houses and signed by the President that uses the words "War" and "Poverty" or "Drugs" that invokes the real meaning of the word "war"....

You don't get it, do you?

They declared war on poverty, drugs, etc.

They refused to declare war on North Vietnam. That was a "conflict".

There was plenty of "talk" of war on poverty and drugs.

Have you seen the casulties?

With regard to the "real meaning of war", do you know that "real meaning"?

Been there? Done that?

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Feeling better?

I am, thanks for asking..

I'm glad you feel good!

I feel good, too!

Ausmerican

14th May 2006, 03:30 AM

You're right. I have no idea of your background.

Nor do you have an idea of mine. Nor do you know of my "foreground".

Gee lets see, at a guess...
Roman Catholic.
Served and saw action in the military.
Married to a school teacher whom he seems terrified of.
Thinks he once saw bigfoot tracks.
Lives in Alaska and spends his spare time hunting bear, caribou, moose & occaisionaly wolf.

How did I do on your background and foreground? Quite a bit better than you would do on mine I think.

I'm not much for "fundy", and I'm damned sure not much for "terrorism".

But when war is declared (especially when somebody else did the "declaring"), it's open season.

Open season on innocent bystanders? Again I repeat carpet bombing is not an exact science, it's hit & hope. You are certain to kill a whole bunch of people but not certain to kill the ones you want dad. Your 'solution' is to maybe kill Osama and maybe create a thousand more like him out of the survivors of your carpet bombing.
And "domestics" that whine and cry, IMO, are part of the problem.

A BIG part of the problem.

Sorry I must have missed the bit where telling you you were a bloodthirsty maniac was whining or crying. I guess that first amendment you swore to uphold along with the rest of the constitution must really irritate you since voices of dissent are such a BIG part of the problem.

Huntster

14th May 2006, 05:31 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster :
You're right. I have no idea of your background.

Nor do you have an idea of mine. Nor do you know of my "foreground".

Gee lets see, at a guess...
Roman Catholic.
Served and saw action in the military.
Married to a school teacher whom he seems terrified of.
Thinks he once saw bigfoot tracks.
Lives in Alaska and spends his spare time hunting bear, caribou, moose & occaisionaly wolf.

How did I do on your background and foreground? Quite a bit better than you would do on mine I think....

Not bad at the background, although I gave it to you.

And the foreground?

[QUOTE]Originally Posted by Huntster :
I'm not much for "fundy", and I'm damned sure not much for "terrorism".

But when war is declared (especially when somebody else did the "declaring"), it's open season.

Open season on innocent bystanders? Again I repeat carpet bombing is not an exact science, it's hit & hope.

Apparently you don't have much background on "open season", do you?

Yeah, carpet bombing isn't an "exact science", but it's science nonetheless.

It's total destruction. Total destruction destroys totally. It has an effect.

You might call it "total war". Complete. No BS. A long time ago military leaders realized that warfare isn't a game. Apparently, you haven't figured that out. I can understand why.

Osama is hiding. He's getting help. He's supported. He's causing big problems here, and his ilk is causing problems there.

Those who are squeemish about warfare are causing problems here. Been there, done that.

You have your right to talk and write. I have my right to ignore your drivel.

We don't have near enough troops or effort in SW Asia to put this thing to bed. Were it me, I'd do more than "carpet bomb".

...You are certain to kill a whole bunch of people but not certain to kill the ones you want dad. Your 'solution' is to maybe kill Osama and maybe create a thousand more like him out of the survivors of your carpet bombing...

We carpet bombed North Vietnam. Big time. In my lifetime.

No problems there now, are there? In fact, diplomatic relations have been restored.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
And "domestics" that whine and cry, IMO, are part of the problem.

A BIG part of the problem.

Sorry I must have missed the bit where telling you you were a bloodthirsty maniac was whining or crying. I guess that first amendment you swore to uphold along with the rest of the constitution must really irritate you since voices of dissent are such a BIG part of the problem.

Yup. You musta missed it.

You seem to miss a lot.

I swore to uphold all the Constitution, not just the 1st Amendment. People like you make that oath challenging.

I'm glad you aren't one of us. You don't qualify.

thaiboxerken

14th May 2006, 09:27 AM

So, when not engaged in wrestling sasquatch, do you dabble in wizardy and alchemy? Oh, I see you're suspended, rendering your only weapon here (the keyboard) useless for a time being.

Tony

14th May 2006, 10:58 AM

I'm not waging war against "evil armies of sasquatch and biggot". I'm waging war against idiots......

So when is the suicide?

Ausmerican

14th May 2006, 07:09 PM

We carpet bombed North Vietnam. Big time. In my lifetime.

No problems there now, are there? In fact, diplomatic relations have been restored.
Yeah but you may have forgotton in your dotage the North Vietnamese won. Victory tends to remove the sting and make such things easier to overlook. And carpet bombing mostly jungles is different than carpet bombing any area we think Osama may

I'm glad you aren't one of us. You don't qualify. be hiding in.

Whatever you regard as "one of us" saty glad that I am not and I will stay proud that I am not.

3point14

15th May 2006, 02:02 AM

Never thought I'd say this, but I'm glad George is in charge over there, and not Hunster.

Hunster scares me. (Funny, but I bet that pleases him)

Upchurch

16th July 2008, 07:44 AM

*bump*
When you no longer find the need to ask that question.
FWIW, I still feel the need to ask the question.

Any new insights on this at least two year old question? Or to broaden the scope a little, I'll also include the question: How do you know when the war in Iraq is won?

dudalb

16th July 2008, 10:28 AM

Tailgater

16th July 2008, 10:40 AM

It will be like in those fantasy movies where the old wise man tells the protaganist, "you will know when the time comes!" Then everyone can go back to the Shire.

Upchurch

16th July 2008, 10:54 AM

I have a question: What should the US have done in response to 9/11? Nothing but a UN resolution condemning it?
I am not comfortable with the idea that someone can kill 3000 people on US soil and it should be written off as "A unfortunate incident" or "The cost of doing business".
I wasn't aware that anyone had suggested this course of action. I thought at the time, and still think, that going into Afghanistan after Bin Laden (or where ever he happened to have gone) was an appropriate response to 9/11.

My question was about the concept of a War On Terror and what the measurable goals are.

Bush has screwed up the battle against Terrorism incredibly with his stupid invasion of Iraq. but saying we should not battle terrorism by all means..including the military....is,IMHO, unrealistic.
I don't know about all means, but I'm certainly not against using the military to that end.

...but what does that have to do with anything?

BTW, I don't hear Obama talk about giving up the fight against Terrorism.
...I hadn't either. Was there a reason you would expect him to?

JEROME DA GNOME

16th July 2008, 04:06 PM

How do you know when a War On Terror is won?

Anyone know?

I know. You should have asked me first.

This war will be won in he same way the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty will be won.

NEVER!

It is a scam.

When will people ever learn?

:irule:13:

Darth Rotor

16th July 2008, 04:12 PM

How do you know when a War On Terror is won?
It will happen on the same day we win the War on Stupid. ;)

Ziggurat

16th July 2008, 04:41 PM

It will happen on the same day we win the War on Stupid. ;)

Don't threaten Jerome! :D

JEROME DA GNOME

16th July 2008, 04:43 PM

Don't threaten Jerome! :D

I think he was agreeing with me.

:gnome:

Thunder

16th July 2008, 04:55 PM

the war on terror is won when the Neo-Cons say so.

JEROME DA GNOME

16th July 2008, 04:58 PM

the war on terror is won when the Neo-Cons say so.

Is Obama a Neo-Con?

Are you posturing that Obama is also a tool of the Neo-Cons?

:confused:

Ziggurat

16th July 2008, 05:01 PM

I think he was agreeing with me.

I was making a joke. It appears you didn't get it.

JEROME DA GNOME

16th July 2008, 05:03 PM

I was making a joke. It appears you didn't get it.

You find that calling me stupid is funny.

Interesting.

:gnome:

Ziggurat

16th July 2008, 05:12 PM

You find that calling me stupid is funny.

Of course not. Calling you stupid isn't funny at all. The humor is in the delivery, which is why I only implied it. But explaining humor ruins it, so it's not really funny anymore.

President Bush

16th July 2008, 08:21 PM

the war on terror is won when the Neo-Cons say so.

The War on Terror is over when every single Republican operative's child is paid up at the Betty Ford Center.

Policenaut

16th July 2008, 09:31 PM

As soon as Koran Fried Chicken spreads its greasy bearded goodness all over the Middle East. I'll have a Mohammad 5 piece special with a side of Infidel tortured potatoes and Sharia mutilated biscuits.

Travis

17th July 2008, 01:43 AM

I wasn't aware that anyone had suggested this course of action. I thought at the time, and still think, that going into Afghanistan after Bin Laden (or where ever he happened to have gone) was an appropriate response to 9/11.

Well that's refreshing. Most people who question the validity of the WOT think the terrorists are noble freedom fighters, that capitalism is evil and believe in peace at all costs.

My question was about the concept of a War On Terror and what the measurable goals are.

While using the term "war" seems to imply that this should be some sort of tidy and easily definable activity such as declaring a war with a nation state which is usually over when one of the states surrenders or negotiates a cessation of hostilities (though even that is not always so discernible as sometimes rogue elements of a nation will continue the war long after the government actually surrendered) this is not "war" in that sense and is more a "war" in sense of it being a "conflict." Would calling it the Conflict With Terrorism be any better? We, as a stable free society, are certainly in conflict with Terrorism in the sense that we, hopefully, wish to prevent it and that, ultimately, is the measurable goal; the absence of terrorism is the hallmark of a "victory." I suppose we could put some sort of statistical goal out there, in the way they do for the War On Poverty, such that less then X number of terrorist attacks over Y period of time are the benchmark of victory. If so, what should those numbers be?

aggle-rithm

17th July 2008, 06:12 AM

I saw we outsource the War On Terror to Batman and be done with it.

Tailgater

17th July 2008, 07:43 AM

the war on terror is won when the Neo-Cons say so.

and the boogeyman...don't forget the boogeyman.

gumboot

17th July 2008, 08:11 AM

Whenever I see "war on terror" I read it as "war of terror" (thank you Borat).

Speaking seriously though, I agree with pipelineaudio's initial post, way back when. The War on Terror (which is actually a War on Radical Islam, it's just everyone is too PC to admit it) will end when we lose and they win. I give it a couple of hundreds years or so.

PogoPedant

17th July 2008, 08:22 AM

You know the War on Terror is won when the words "Player One Wins" flashes across the screen.

Upchurch

17th July 2008, 02:30 PM

Well that's refreshing. Most people who question the validity of the WOT think the terrorists are noble freedom fighters, that capitalism is evil and believe in peace at all costs.
"Most people" think that? Seriously? I am curious to know what has lead you to paint with such a very broad brush.

While you're at it, which terrorists are you referring to? The only ones I'm specifically interested in are the ones who were involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Would calling it the Conflict With Terrorism be any better?
No, not really. It isn't the "War" that is ill defined, in this context. It's the "Terrorism". The ambiguity of the former is a direct result of ambiguity of the latter.

We, as a stable free society, are certainly in conflict with Terrorism in the sense that we, hopefully, wish to prevent it and that, ultimately, is the measurable goal; the absence of terrorism is the hallmark of a "victory."
You sound as if we, a stable free society, are incapable of using fear and terror to further our own ends.

Darth Rotor

17th July 2008, 02:32 PM

I saw we outsource the War On Terror to Batman and be done with it.

Seconded.

JEROME DA GNOME

17th July 2008, 06:47 PM

Terrorism is a tool used by the weak against Empire.

:gnome:

Travis

18th July 2008, 12:38 AM

"Most people" think that? Seriously? I am curious to know what has lead you to paint with such a very broad brush.

While you're at it, which terrorists are you referring to? The only ones I'm specifically interested in are the ones who were involved in the 9/11 attacks.

I should have added the caveat "that I've encountered" which would explain that it is a small, likely not representative, sample that I'm talking about.

No, not really. It isn't the "War" that is ill defined, in this context. It's the "Terrorism". The ambiguity of the former is a direct result of ambiguity of the latter.

A criminal act directed against civilians with the implication that such acts will continue unless the perpetrators demands are satisfied. Doesn't seem so ambiguous to me.

You sound as if we, a stable free society, are incapable of using fear and terror to further our own ends.

We are certainly capable but one characteristic of a stable free society is that it generally wants to remain stable and free and persecuting acts of terrorism is a good way to bring that all to an end. That isn't to say it doesn't occasionally happen of course.

Travis

18th July 2008, 12:40 AM

Terrorism is a tool used by the weak against Empire.

:gnome:

"Terrorism" is a heinous criminal activity that can be done by anyone to anyone.

Upchurch

18th July 2008, 07:53 AM

I should have added the caveat "that I've encountered" which would explain that it is a small, likely not representative, sample that I'm talking about.
Gotcha.

A criminal act directed against civilians with the implication that such acts will continue unless the perpetrators demands are satisfied. Doesn't seem so ambiguous to me.
Traditionally, yes, that is how terrorism is usually defined: A criminal act.

That isn't how the word is being used now. A crime is something that is prosecuted and tried. The War on Terror is being used to suspend the prosecution process, not further it.

Terrorism, in this sense, now being used to mean something along the lines of a coordinated military attack against a sovereign nation, thus justifying a declaration of war. Except no military was involved, because that would mean they are protected by the Geneva Convention. So, they are non-military combatants, meaning that terrorism is a coordinated non-military attack against a sovereign nation, thus justifying a declaration of war. Except for Iran. Iran has an actual military, but it is still a terrorist state, just not the same kind of terrorist as the other kind of terrorists. Then, there is North Korea which appears to be designated a state sponsor of terror solely because they have been developing nuclear weapons. At least, we supposedly going to remove that designation if they denuclearize.

Yeah, I call that ambiguous. :)

"Terrorist" has become a catch-all term for anything someone doesn't like and they want others not to like by making them afraid of it. It's like "communist" last century or "witch" from centuries before.

[short sketch]
"The terrorist/communist/witch needs to be dealt with!"
"Why?"
"Because they are a terrorist!/communist!/witch! Weren't you paying attention?"
[/short sketch]

We are certainly capable but one characteristic of a stable free society is that it generally wants to remain stable and free and persecuting acts of terrorism is a good way to bring that all to an end. That isn't to say it doesn't occasionally happen of course.
Do you mean "persecuting" or "prosecuting"? I'll assume the latter until you say otherwise.

Until very recently, I would have disagreed with you that, by your definition, we fit that one characteristic of a stable, free society. As I said above, our government has gone out of its way to not prosecute acts of terrorism. Only the very recent Supreme Court decision has begun to push back against the swing away from that stable and free society characteristic. Still, the Bush administration is pushing against it. Only time, and hopefully some hard work by the right people, will tell what kind of society we really are and if we live up to our expectations.

Travis

18th July 2008, 09:37 AM

Traditionally, yes, that is how terrorism is usually defined: A criminal act.

That isn't how the word is being used now. A crime is something that is prosecuted and tried. The War on Terror is being used to suspend the prosecution process, not further it.

Terrorism, in this sense, now being used to mean something along the lines of a coordinated military attack against a sovereign nation, thus justifying a declaration of war. Except no military was involved, because that would mean they are protected by the Geneva Convention. So, they are non-military combatants, meaning that terrorism is a coordinated non-military attack against a sovereign nation, thus justifying a declaration of war. Except for Iran. Iran has an actual military, but it is still a terrorist state, just not the same kind of terrorist as the other kind of terrorists. Then, there is North Korea which appears to be designated a state sponsor of terror solely because they have been developing nuclear weapons. At least, we supposedly going to remove that designation if they denuclearize.

Yeah, I call that ambiguous. :)

"Terrorist" has become a catch-all term for anything someone doesn't like and they want others not to like by making them afraid of it. It's like "communist" last century or "witch" from centuries before.

I agree that the term "terrorism" has been misused a lot lately to mean basically anyone attacking someone who isn't a part of state military. I feel that this is an introduced ambiguity that I think needs to be resolved, hopefully by the next administration.

I do not, however, think that merely using military forces means that we need to treat the matter in a purely military matter, ie treating captured Al Qaeda as POW's, but can instead use the military to augment what might otherwise be a criminal matter.

To be clearer I feel those that fight with, or for, Al Qaeda are criminals while those that fought for the Taliban are soldiers and both, if captured, should be treated in the appropriate, and legal, manner.

Do you mean "persecuting" or "prosecuting"? I'll assume the latter until you say otherwise.

You were wise to assume the latter. "Persecuting" would imply a very different meaning.

Until very recently, I would have disagreed with you that, by your definition, we fit that one characteristic of a stable, free society. As I said above, our government has gone out of its way to not prosecute acts of terrorism. Only the very recent Supreme Court decision has begun to push back against the swing away from that stable and free society characteristic. Still, the Bush administration is pushing against it. Only time, and hopefully some hard work by the right people, will tell what kind of society we really are and if we live up to our expectations.

The way I look at is is that one need not act like a savage brute even if one is fighting a savage brute. I feel that the manner in which we deal with terrorism will have to evolve if we hope to stay "stable and free."

Upchurch

18th July 2008, 11:12 AM

I agree that the term "terrorism" has been misused a lot lately to mean basically anyone attacking someone who isn't a part of state military. I feel that this is an introduced ambiguity that I think needs to be resolved, hopefully by the next administration.
If so, it will be done by Obama. McCain, from what I can tell, is using the same non-definition of terrorism that the current administration is.

I do not, however, think that merely using military forces means that we need to treat the matter in a purely military matter, ie treating captured Al Qaeda as POW's, but can instead use the military to augment what might otherwise be a criminal matter.

To be clearer I feel those that fight with, or for, Al Qaeda are criminals while those that fought for the Taliban are soldiers and both, if captured, should be treated in the appropriate, and legal, manner.
Could not agree more. Were that the case, the answer to my OP question would be: "when the people involved in the 9/11 attacks are found, tried, and sentenced." The appropriate branding would not be "War on Terror" but rather "War on the 9/11 Terrorists", decoupling it from the invasion of Iraq and whatever it is we're doing* with North Korea and Iran.

The way I look at is is that one need not act like a savage brute even if one is fighting a savage brute. I feel that the manner in which we deal with terrorism will have to evolve if we hope to stay "stable and free."
The problem is that some of us are perfectly willing, maybe even enthusiastic, to act like a savage brute when fighting a savage brute.

* it might be called "diplomacy", but that is something of a dirty word these days in some circles.

Mark6

18th July 2008, 11:55 AM

I agree completely that "War on Terror" is an idiotic term, far too undefined, and should never have been coined. "War on Islamic Fundamentalism" would have been much more honest, for that's what WoT really is (or should be). Unfortunately that would offend our "friends" the Saudis. And we can't have that, right?

Having said that, I think a lot of legal terms do not apply well to the current world situation -- and by "current" I mean since 1990 or so. Laws dealing with criminals are separate from laws dealing with international relations -- and both do not take into account that a group without allegiance to ANY government can inflict damage on the scale of a sizeable war. That sort of thing simlpy could not occur during Industrial Age, so our laws do not cover it.

Shortly after 9/11 and Bush declaring "War on Terror", many of his critics said that wars occur only between nation-states, and Al-Qaeda is not a nation-state, so any action against Al-Qaeda can not be a war. Whatever I think about "War on Terror", this particular argument is ridiculous. Modern concept of a nation-state dates only to 1648; wars most assuredly happened before that.

So, what do we call a violent movement, not controlled by any government (although allied to some), and bound more by common ideology than by any definable organization? It is a lot more than a criminal gang, but less than a military force. Fighting it requires combination of police actions, military actions, and good old fashioned diplomatic arm-twisting -- convincing governments who may decide otherwise, that it is in their interests to act against Al-Qaeda rather than look the other way, let alone cooperate with it. It's not exactly a "war", but is something Queen Elizabeth I would have recognized. What did they call that sort of thing back then?

As for how do we know War on Terror (or whatever we call it) has been won? I would say when there is not a single madrassa left in the world openly calling for global jihad and killing of unbelievers (i.e. either destroyed or driven into hiding), I would say it has been won. How will we know it happened? Well, the word "openly" is key here. If they are open about it, we know it has not been won yet.

Oliver

18th July 2008, 12:02 PM

Heck, we aren't even winning.

... or fighting.

Oh wait, I heard rumors on the internets that there are indeed two ore three US Soldiers in Afghanistan based on the war on terror premise.

Upchurch

18th July 2008, 12:36 PM

I agree completely that "War on Terror" is an idiotic term, far too undefined, and should never have been coined. "War on Islamic Fundamentalism" would have been much more honest, for that's what WoT really is (or should be).
Stop right there. I have to disagree with this in the strongest terms.

Not all Islamic fundamentalists are terrorists. (I suppose it goes without saying that not all terrorists are Islamic fundamentalists.) If we were to declare war on Islamic fundamentalists, we would be declaring war on a people not for what they've done, but for who they are. It would be an ideological war fought, not for our safety, but because they hold different beliefs and values.

That absolutely must not be what this is about.

What this should be about is finding the people who coordinated the 9/11 attacks and holding them responsible.

Having said that, I think a lot of legal terms do not apply well to the current world situation -- and by "current" I mean since 1990 or so. Laws dealing with criminals are separate from laws dealing with international relations -- and both do not take into account that a group without allegiance to ANY government can inflict damage on the scale of a sizeable war. That sort of thing simlpy could not occur during Industrial Age, so our laws do not cover it.
Which of the following, exactly, do our laws not cover:

Hijacking
Murder
Reckless endangerment
Destruction of property
Terrorism
Conspiracy
Extradition from a foreign country

Am I missing anything?

So, what do we call a violent movement, not controlled by any government (although allied to some), and bound more by common ideology than by any definable organization? It is a lot more than a criminal gang, but less than a military force.
The Mob. International organized crime.

As for how do we know War on Terror (or whatever we call it) has been won? I would say when there is not a single madrassa left in the world openly calling for global jihad and killing of unbelievers (i.e. either destroyed or driven into hiding), I would say it has been won.
How far are you willing to curtail free speech like that? Will you only watch the madrassas or will you also watch the mosques? Will you watch the city halls and the market places? How about in individual homes?

Do you only count the fundamentalists or all Muslims? Do you count just the Muslims or anyone from any religion?

What if they only speak of wounding unbelievers? What if they only speak poorly about unbelievers? Do we not allow anyone to think negatively about anyone else?

What you are talking about is not a War on Terror, it's a war on thought. That is why this must not be a war on based someone else's beliefs or values, but rather on their actions.

Ziggurat

18th July 2008, 12:54 PM

Which of the following, exactly, do our laws not cover:

It isn't enough that a law covers something. We had laws that covered extraditing bin Laden from foreign countries, for example. But it didn't happen, and passing laws couldn't make it happen.

How far are you willing to curtail free speech like that?

Incitement to violence? That's already unprotected speech in the US, and pretty much always has been. And it isn't more generous speech protection which makes such speech permissible elsewhere.

Mark6

18th July 2008, 01:14 PM

One of the reasons that our nation, and indeed the world, is so divided on the so-called War on Terror, is that we have major divisions over what motivates the people who make war on us.

If you're a traditional leftist, you see everything through the lens of capitalist, colonialist oppression, and suicide bombers look like stalwart and admirable fighters against The Man. To people like Michael Moore, they are simply freedom fighters, just like the Minute Men of our own revolution.

If you're a multi-culturalist, you see them as misunderstood, their culture under daily siege from an unrelenting barrage of western music, and sexual images, and women with flesh exposed to the world. It's only understandable that they would want to strike out, and even end their lives when they hear about their holy book being defiled (whether it actually happened or not).

To others, of a transnational international-law bent (Upchurch seems to be in this group), their behavior is not so easily excused, but they're still just a criminal gang, a problem to be solved by international cooperation among police agencies. Whenever they commit one of these crimes, they are to be infiltrated, arrested, indicted, tried, and imprisoned (though never executed -- that's so uncivilized and... American). It might even be acceptable to infiltrate them before the crime is committed, if there's some chance that it might actually prevent one of these crimes from occurring, as long as we don't go too far, and violate their civil rights in any way.

Whereas I see them as the latest totalitarian ideology, like the Stalinists, the Maoists, and their spinoffs the Khmer Rouge and Shining Path, who want to make the world conform to their THOUGHT (yes, Upchurch, that's exactly what it is!), and are not only willing to murder innocents to accomplish their vile goals, but revel in doing so.

Similarly, many seemingly seek to look into the mind of a terrorist and his actions, and see what they want to see: anger at Israel, anger at the apparent impotence of the Arab world against the west, frustration at the inability to raise your children as properly Islamic in a secular West, even the desire for the reestablishment of the Caliphate.

Sadly, I agree that all of the above are motivating the bombers, and many of the people who agree with them. But if these are the grievances, they cannot be assuaged, they cannot be appeased. They are what we call in American divorce courts, "irreconcilable differences."

Yes, we could withdraw from Iraq, but they were doing this before we were in Iraq, and Egypt, last time I checked, had no troops in Iraq. Withdrawing from Iraq won't change the desire of many British Muslims to swaddle their women from head to toe, to force adolescent girls to marry old men they've never met, to call down Fatwas on homosexuals. Yielding to demands to allow Arabs to flood into Israel won't bring about peace in the Middle East. Once we've sacrificed the Iraqi people, struggling for democracy, once we've sacrificed the Jews to them, they'll only hunger for further expansion of their Caliphate. There cannot be peaceful coexistence with a people whose ultimate goal is to compel everyone to live under a single religion, one that is not just a religion but a way of life. And if that's the case, the only ultimate solution is to defeat them militarily, however long it takes, which sadly cannot be done without killing large numbers of them, because it may well prove impossible to change their minds.

Upchurch

18th July 2008, 02:18 PM

It isn't enough that a law covers something. We had laws that covered extraditing bin Laden from foreign countries, for example. But it didn't happen, and passing laws couldn't make it happen.
Therein the invasion of Afghanistan was more than justified.

Incitement to violence?
If it could reasonably be considered to incite violence, yes, but you have to make that distinction.

If I were to say, "Oh, I could just kill the neighbor if he lets his dog howl all night again!" then I would not reasonably be guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. What Mark6 was saying (in the context of a war on an specific belief system) is that any kind of public talk on a certain topic, meant literally or not, was justification for war.

Somehow, he thinks that if it is said in private that it is okay. Not sure what that is about.

Upchurch

18th July 2008, 02:41 PM

Whereas I see them as the latest totalitarian ideology, like the Stalinists, the Maoists, and their spinoffs the Khmer Rouge and Shining Path, who want to make the world conform to their THOUGHT (yes, Upchurch, that's exactly what it is!), and are not only willing to murder innocents to accomplish their vile goals, but revel in doing so.
So, as Travis put it, you would be willing to fight the savage brute by becoming a savage brute?

It is not the thought that is dangerous. It is the ability and action taken to "make the world conform to their THOUGHT" that is dangerous. I have no problem restricting harmful actions against others (of, failing that, punishing those harmful acts), but if you attempt to restrict the thoughts and values of others, how are you any different than those who would make the world conform to their thoughts and values?

Withdrawing from Iraq won't change the desire of many British Muslims to swaddle their women from head to toe, to force adolescent girls to marry old men they've never met, to call down Fatwas on homosexuals.
Nor will it prevent anyone from criticizing them for it. Or passing laws that prevent forced marriages from taking place in countries where those laws can be passed.

Yielding to demands to allow Arabs to flood into Israel won't bring about peace in the Middle East.
I did not suggest that it would, nor did I suggest that they should be allowed to do so.

Once we've sacrificed the Iraqi people, struggling for democracy, once we've sacrificed the Jews to them, they'll only hunger for further expansion of their Caliphate. There cannot be peaceful coexistence with a people whose ultimate goal is to compel everyone to live under a single religion, one that is not just a religion but a way of life. And if that's the case, the only ultimate solution is to defeat them militarily, however long it takes, which sadly cannot be done without killing large numbers of them, because it may well prove impossible to change their minds.
And what will sacrificing the Muslims to people who think the way you do accomplish? Should that "ultimate solution" (interesting choice of words, btw) be applied to you as well, as you would have also compelled people to conform to your way of life (i.e. not Muslim)?

eta: Just in case I'm being thick, are you being sarcastic? Referring to genocide as the "ultimate solution", a synonym for "final solution", and all?

Ziggurat

18th July 2008, 02:48 PM

Therein the invasion of Afghanistan was more than justified.

The issue of whether or not to go into Iraq was not the same as the issue of whether or not terrorism can be treated like a law enforcement problem.

If it could reasonably be considered to incite violence, yes, but you have to make that distinction.

Mark6's statement was about preachers "calling for global jihad and killing of unbeliever". You quoted that part in your response. And it rather explicitly and obviously refers to incitement to violence. So I'm at a loss as to why you objected on free speech grounds when you acknowlege that incitements to violence are not protected.

Somehow, he thinks that if it is said in private that it is okay. Not sure what that is about.

There are several rather obvious reasons he did not include private behavior. One of the most obvious is that as a practical matter, we cannot know what people are doing in private, and so the question (when will we know the war on terror is over) is simply not answerable if we adopt a metric we can't actually measure, and we cannot accurately measure private behavior, especially in cases where people might have reason to conceal it. There are other additional reasons for not adopting such a standard (I'll leave it as an exercise to you to figure some of them out - you need the practice), but regardless, none of that means that Mark6 in any way approves of such incitement in private, making your statement a complete logical disconnect.

Oliver

18th July 2008, 02:50 PM

... or fighting.

Oh wait, I heard rumors on the internets that there are indeed two ore three US Soldiers in Afghanistan based on the war on terror premise.

Well, Upchurch, I was addressing you with this rather sarcastic remark. There is no "War on Terror" since the main focus never was on Terrorism. So what is this thread about anyway? :confused:

Upchurch

18th July 2008, 03:03 PM

The issue of whether or not to go into Iraq was not the same as the issue of whether or not terrorism can be treated like a law enforcement problem.
I don't consider the issue of whether or not to go into Iraq as relevant to the 9/11 attack. It is highly questionable if it was relevant to the War on Terror (for any reasonable definitions of "terror"). That decision is a separate issue altogether and I was not referring to it.

Mark6's statement was about preachers "calling for global jihad and killing of unbeliever". You quoted that part in your response. And it rather explicitly and obviously refers to incitement to violence. So I'm at a loss as to why you objected on free speech grounds when you acknowlege that incitements to violence are not protected.
How many calling for global jihads, etc., are there and how many of them actually lead to violence? Simply making threatening speeches does not necessarily equate to violence taking place.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but in order to incite violence, it must be reasonable that your words will actually result in violence. Does every call for jihad and killing the unbeliever end in violence?

There are other additional reasons for not adopting such a standard (I'll leave it as an exercise to you to figure some of them out - you need the practice), but regardless, none of that means that Mark6 in any way approves of such incitement in private, making your statement a complete logical disconnect.
I suggest you re-read what he said:
As for how do we know War on Terror (or whatever we call it) has been won? I would say when there is not a single madrassa left in the world openly calling for global jihad and killing of unbelievers (i.e. either destroyed or driven into hiding), I would say it has been won. How will we know it happened? Well, the word "openly" is key here. If they are open about it, we know it has not been won yet.
At best, he is ambiguous about it.

He does not mention the practicality of doing enforcing it a private level. It is a matter of comfort. If they are comfortable talking about it openly, the war is not won. If they are not comfortable talking about it openly (leaving room for talking about it privately), the war is won.

Upchurch

18th July 2008, 03:07 PM

Well, Upchurch, I was addressing you with this rather sarcastic remark. There is no "War on Terror" since the main focus never was on Terrorism. So what is this thread about anyway? :confused:
Oh, there is a War on Terror, all right. It has a Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_terror) article and everything. It seems to encompass far more than just terrorism. Or perhaps, it has little to do with terrorism. It's hard to say.

Whatever it is, this thread is about specifying what criteria must be met in order for it to be over.

Ziggurat

18th July 2008, 03:20 PM

How many calling for global jihads, etc., are there and how many of them actually lead to violence?

Enough. There is precious little Islamic terrorism unaccompanied by such speech.

Does every call for jihad and killing the unbeliever end in violence?

Of course not, or we'd all be dead already. But it's not necessary for all of them to lead to such behavior in order to qualify as incitement.

He does not mention the practicality of doing enforcing it a private level.

Perhaps because he figured it was obvious that it's not only impractical, but impossible. It certainly should have been obvious.

Mark6

18th July 2008, 03:57 PM

.
And what will sacrificing the Muslims to people who think the way you do accomplish? Should that "ultimate solution" (interesting choice of words, btw) be applied to you as well, as you would have also compelled people to conform to your way of life (i.e. not Muslim)?

I do not want to compel anyone to conform to MY way of life. You are building a strawman. Jihadis, on the other hand, DO want the entire world to conform to THEIR way of life. That is intolerable.

eta: Just in case I'm being thick, are you being sarcastic? Referring to genocide as the "ultimate solution", a synonym for "final solution", and all?
I was not being sarcastic, but neither was it intended as a euphemism for genocide. Parallel with "final solution" did not occur to me.

Mark6

18th July 2008, 04:01 PM

Perhaps because he figured it was obvious that it's not only impractical, but impossible. It certainly should have been obvious.
Correct. There are plenty of hate groups of all stripes throughout the world, who are essentially nothing but mutual adoration societies, telling each other how many blacks/whites/Chinese/Jews/capitalists/gays/whatever they will kill "come the revolution". As long as they do not actually do anything, their mutterings are unimportant.

Mark6

18th July 2008, 04:02 PM

reasons he did not include private behavior. One of the most obvious is that as a practical matter, we cannot know what people are doing in private, and so the question (when will we know the war on terror is over) is simply not answerable if we adopt a metric we can't actually measure, and we cannot accurately measure private behavior, especially in cases where people might have reason to conceal it. There are other additional reasons for not adopting such a standard (I'll leave it as an exercise to you to figure some of them out - you need the practice), but regardless, none of that means that Mark6 in any way approves of such incitement in private, making your statement a complete logical disconnect.
Also correct.

JEROME DA GNOME

18th July 2008, 04:30 PM

Whatever it is, this thread is about specifying what criteria must be met in order for it to be over.

Well now that terrorists are death penalty protesters...

Protesters added to database of terrorist suspects (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/18/maryland-troopers-spied-on-activist-groups/)

Undercover Maryland state troopers infiltrated three groups advocating peace and protesting the death penalty — attending meetings and sending reports on their activities to U.S. intelligence and military agencies, according to documents released Thursday.

The activist was identified as Max Obuszewski. His "primary crime" was entered into the database as "terrorism - anti govern(ment)." His "secondary crime" was listed as "terrorism - anti-war protestors."

Welcome to the Brave New World!!!

:gnome:

BeAChooser

18th July 2008, 05:54 PM

I don't consider the issue of whether or not to go into Iraq as relevant to the 9/11 attack. It is highly questionable if it was relevant to the War on Terror (for any reasonable definitions of "terror").

Well al-Qaeda thought it was if we are believe what they said to one another in various communications. And if using Iraq pre-invasion as a sanctuary from which to launch terrorist attacks makes it relevant, then it was clearly relevant. Before the invasion, al-Qaeda met in Baghdad to kick off a plan to kill tens of thousands of Jordanians and everyone in the US embassy in Amman. Fortunately, those terrorists were caught before they could do it.

Upchurch

18th July 2008, 07:31 PM

Enough. There is precious little Islamic terrorism unaccompanied by such speech.
Perhaps, but how much of that speech is unaccompanied by Islamic terrorism?

I'm not saying that speech that actually incites violence or is reasonably expected to should not be prosecuted. What I am saying is that we should not be considering genocide because a certain religion bad mouths us. Hell, I'm saying we should not be consider genocide at all, let alone for those reasons.

I can't believe you're giving me grief because I'm taking the "I don't like what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it" position and not saying anything to guy taking the "I don't like what you say and we should keep killing you until you stop saying it" position.

I do not want to compel anyone to conform to MY way of life. You are building a strawman. Jihadis, on the other hand, DO want the entire world to conform to THEIR way of life. That is intolerable.
You weren't talking about "Jihadis", you were talking about Muslim fundamentalists including those who merely speak out against others.

It isn't a strawman. You listed aspects of their ways of life (dress and marriage practices of British Muslims, for example) that you found unacceptable, something that needed to be fought against with violence to prevent them from doing.

I was not being sarcastic, but neither was it intended as a euphemism for genocide. Parallel with "final solution" did not occur to me.
Do you understand the parallel now? Do you understand the significance of what you are suggesting with your "ultimate solution"? I mean, seriously, you are talking about continuing the War on Terror until there isn't a single "madrassa left in the world openly calling for global jihad and killing of unbelievers".

Heck, you don't even understand Islam well enough to know the difference between a madrassa and a mosque or that the "Jihadis" are called the Mujahideen. From the context, I'm not even really sure you understand what "jihad" means to a Muslim.

As long as they do not actually do anything, their mutterings are unimportant.
Then why keep killing them until they stop muttering about "global jihad and killing of unbelievers"?

JEROME DA GNOME

18th July 2008, 07:57 PM

President Bush

18th July 2008, 08:11 PM

I can't believe you're giving me grief because I'm taking the "I don't like what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it" position and not saying anything to guy taking the "I don't like what you say and we should keep killing you until you stop saying it" position.

Aren't you concerned that if broad-minded universal brotherhood clocks in prematurely the net result will be only Big Mac wrappers all over the floor at The Hague?

BeAChooser

18th July 2008, 09:18 PM

How do you know when a War On Terror is won?

When we can take our families and safely vacation in Syria, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, etc? :p

Gurdur

18th July 2008, 09:43 PM

When we can take our families and safely vacation in Syria, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, etc? :p

Can you do that in all parts of Miami, Florida? Oh, dearie me, no.

Los Angeles? Oh dear.

BAC, begin at home! BAC to basics for you, BAC! :p

JEROME DA GNOME

18th July 2008, 10:03 PM

I did not want to go off-topic with my above post so I created a new thread: Death Penalty Protesters=Database of Terrorist Suspects (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3873388#post3873388)

:gnome:

When we can take our families and safely vacation in Syria, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, etc? :p

According to MY government, I have terrorists in my home State!!!

:jaw-dropp

Gurdur

18th July 2008, 10:10 PM

Jerome wins the thread.

Ziggurat

18th July 2008, 10:22 PM

I'm not saying that speech that actually incites violence or is reasonably expected to should not be prosecuted.

I think it should be obvious that calling for killing infidels qualifies under that heading. But then, maybe I'm funny that way, being an infidel and all myself.

What I am saying is that we should not be considering genocide because a certain religion bad mouths us. Hell, I'm saying we should not be consider genocide at all, let alone for those reasons.

Nobody has advocated genocide, making this a strawman. In fact, Mark6 already made clear that this is not what he meant, but you seem to have chosen to ignore him.

I can't believe you're giving me grief because I'm taking the "I don't like what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it" position

You are defending what I consider to be incitement to violence. Sorry if I don't consider that as you protecting free speech.

and not saying anything to guy taking the "I don't like what you say and we should keep killing you until you stop saying it" position.

Except nobody took that position. So why do you expect me to attack your strawman alongside you?

a_unique_person

18th July 2008, 10:30 PM

In reference to the OP, when someone stands on a naval ship and says "Mission Accomplished".

Texas

18th July 2008, 11:39 PM

Oh, there is a War on Terror, all right. It has a Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_terror) article and everything. It seems to encompass far more than just terrorism. Or perhaps, it has little to do with terrorism. It's hard to say.

Whatever it is, this thread is about specifying what criteria must be met in order for it to be over.You have been given many answers to that question but appear to have rejected them so, it is only fair that you answer a couple of question yourself. Do you feel that we should even be fighting a "WOT"? If so, how do you think it should be fought?

Travis

19th July 2008, 08:52 AM

I think, when it comes to how the War On Terror, even if misnamed, is fought there are at least (as in not limited to) two schools of thought: those that feel that appearing to win it, by any means necessary, is more important than maintaining the integrity of free societies fighting in it and those that feel that regulating how you fight, even against the most heinous criminals, speaks more about your character than just the appearance of winning the fight. I would like to think I'm with the latter though I'd speculate that certain pragmatic arguments could be made for the former.

Oliver

19th July 2008, 01:19 PM

You have been given many answers to that question but appear to have rejected them so, it is only fair that you answer a couple of question yourself. Do you feel that we should even be fighting a "WOT"? If so, how do you think it should be fought?

Impeaching Bush, Cheney and Gang for a start? :confused:

Travis

20th July 2008, 01:42 AM

Impeaching Bush, Cheney and Gang for a start? :confused:

That's how you would have fought the War On Terror? Your first action after 9/11 would have been the impeachment of American Politicians?

I'd love to hear your rationale for this.

Architect

20th July 2008, 03:57 AM

According to MY government, I have terrorists in my home State!!!

:jaw-dropp

Many of us here live in countries who have domestic terrorism issues (and have had so since long before 9/11); the UK, the Spaniards, and so on. If you believe that terrorism is a remote beast, that it is restricted to 9/11, then you are either niaive or a fool. There will always be those who reach for the gun, or the bomb, before they will go to the ballot box.

What you are purportedly concerned about - and given your previous inability to adequately research the topics you seek to talk on, I have no great faith in your proposition - is that your government is worngly or vexatiously classifying action groups as bein terrorist. Well, when we see proper evidence, links, and a balanced analysis then we might think about it. Now go away and do your homework, son.

JEROME DA GNOME

20th July 2008, 05:54 AM

Many of us here live in countries who have domestic terrorism issues (and have had so since long before 9/11); the UK, the Spaniards, and so on. If you believe that terrorism is a remote beast, that it is restricted to 9/11, then you are either niaive or a fool. There will always be those who reach for the gun, or the bomb, before they will go to the ballot box.

Here you are stating that the War on Terrorism will never end.

Can you now not see the scam?

What you are purportedly concerned about - and given your previous inability to adequately research the topics you seek to talk on, I have no great faith in your proposition - is that your government is worngly or vexatiously classifying action groups as bein terrorist. Well, when we see proper evidence, links, and a balanced analysis then we might think about it. Now go away and do your homework, son.

Welcome to the Brave New World, dad.

:gnome:

Ladewig

20th July 2008, 06:12 AM

I should have added the caveat "that I've encountered" which would explain that it is a small, likely not representative, sample that I'm talking about.

Count me as someone left of center that believes 9/11 was an unforgivably horrific act committed by terrorists (not freedom fighters) who should be brought to justice. I think the invasion of Afghanistan was necessary and proper. I would have cried no tears if ObL had been killed before being captured. On the other hand, I also think the invasion of Iraq was unnecessary and was planned and executed so poorly that people at the top should have lost their jobs.

I also believe that while the vast majority of terrorists are born out of the hateful speech of Islamic fundamentalists, some are also born out of the coalition forces' arresting, abusing, and torturing innocent people.

. . . . . . .
I'd like to get rid of all lobbyists.

While they may prove somewhat irksome, their existence is protected by the First Amendment's right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Architect

20th July 2008, 08:08 AM

Here you are stating that the War on Terrorism will never end.Can you now not see the scam?

No, I'm going to have to ask you to clarify that answer. Are you suggesting that terrorism, i.e. in the sense commonly understood, is being deliberately maintained by our various governments? And if so then how, for example, do you explain the effective dismantling of the IRA over the last 10 years in the face of the various peace agreements?

Ireland is the big bit just to the west of Great Britain where they shot at each other for 30 years, btw. You might want to look it.

Architect

20th July 2008, 08:10 AM

While they may prove somewhat irksome, their existence is protected by the First Amendment's right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

No problem, just do what other countries do and put limits on the extent of paid lobbying and any special access so arising.

Really, the rest of us in other democracies seem to manage just fine.

Allen773

20th July 2008, 08:40 AM

When a McDonald's, a Wal-Mart, and a Starbucks open in Mecca. Only then shall we win.

Architect

20th July 2008, 08:58 AM

When a chippie, Tesco Metro, and British pub......

[/Brit]

Upchurch

20th July 2008, 09:25 AM

Nobody has advocated genocide, making this a strawman. In fact, Mark6 already made clear that this is not what he meant, but you seem to have chosen to ignore him.
To the contrary, I paid attention to what he said. What he said was that he did not intend "ultimate solution" as a euphemism for genocide. Specifically,
I was not being sarcastic, but neither was it intended as a euphemism for genocide. Parallel with "final solution" did not occur to me.

That does not mean that genocide is not the logical end to his line of rhetoric. Let's review:
There cannot be peaceful coexistence with a people whose ultimate goal is to compel everyone to live under a single religion, one that is not just a religion but a way of life.
"As long as they exist, we can never be safe."

And if that's the case, the only ultimate solution is to defeat them militarily, however long it takes, which sadly cannot be done without killing large numbers of them, because it may well prove impossible to change their minds.
"They cannot be changed. They must be killed again and again until they are no longer a threat."

When are they no longer a threat? From the previous sentence, there cannot be peaceful coexistence with them. That only leaves two options: non-peaceful coexistence and or peaceful mono-existence. Since the goal is for them to not be a threat (i.e. peace), that can only mean the latter.

And that, Ziggurat, means genocide of either us or them.

and not saying anything to guy taking the "I don't like what you say and we should keep killing you until you stop saying it" position.Except nobody took that position. So why do you expect me to attack your strawman alongside you?
First, because it isn't a strawman. Let's review again:
As for how do we know War on Terror (or whatever we call it) has been won? I would say when there is not a single madrassa left in the world openly calling for global jihad and killing of unbelievers (i.e. either destroyed or driven into hiding), I would say it has been won. How will we know it happened? Well, the word "openly" is key here. If they are open about it, we know it has not been won yet.
Maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm assuming that Mark6 does not like "madrassas" (:rolleyes:) "calling for global jihad and killing of unbelievers". This would be the "I don't like what you say" portion of the position. According to Mark6, the war "has not been won" as long as they keep saying it, correct? War, in this context, entails killing the enemy and it stops, in Mark6's opinion, when they stop saying the stuff he doesn't like, namely the global jihad and killing of unbelievers.

Therefore, Mark6 has taken the position that he doesn't like what they are saying and we should keep killing them until they stop saying it.

Second, it is an absurd and much more radical position than the one I am taking about people being able to say whatever they like so long as it doesn't intentionally lead to violence. If you are being honest, I would expect you to at least recognize and acknowledge that.

JEROME DA GNOME

20th July 2008, 09:30 AM

No, I'm going to have to ask you to clarify that answer.

By your statement that "There will always be those who reach for the gun, or the bomb, before they will go to the ballot box.", and such action being defined by the context of your statement as terrorism, then a War against Terrorism can never end.

:gnome:

Architect

20th July 2008, 09:37 AM

That's not an answer, it's a rephrasing. Put up, or shut up.

fuelair

20th July 2008, 09:44 AM

Actually, genocide is not required unless, by genocide you really mean the removal of all Muslims who believe that people of all other faiths must be killed or converted. Unless all Muslims believe that (which I trust is not correct), genocide is unnecessary. Also, Muslims are not the only terrorists-criminal gangs (and other types of gangs), religious xtian fundies, many political seperatist groups, certain political advocacy groups (especially environmental and animal rights) are as bad as Muslim fundies. I'm fine with all terrorists dead. And, if their non-terrorist supporters also go, won't bother me a lot either.

Upchurch

20th July 2008, 09:44 AM

You have been given many answers to that question but appear to have rejected them so,
I'd have to go back and check the older part of the thread, but I don't recall any that were both reasonable and measurable (i.e. unambiguous). As such, yes, I would have rejected them as not being sufficient answers.

Did you see something you thought fit the bill?

it is only fair that you answer a couple of question yourself. Do you feel that we should even be fighting a "WOT"? If so, how do you think it should be fought?
You will likely see this as a cop out, but as I mentioned earlier in post #127, what do you mean by "Terror"? The current "War on Terror" is ill named because the overall scope has little to do with terrorism. Or, at least, much less than the name would imply.

Do I think we should find, capture, or kill those responsible for planning and executing the 9/11 attacks? You betcha! Do I believe that has been the primary goal of the current "War on Terror" since 2003? Nope.

JEROME DA GNOME

20th July 2008, 09:49 AM

That's not an answer, it's a rephrasing. Put up, or shut up.

Put up what?

I already "put up" your words and an explanation of your reasoning.

:gnome:

Upchurch

20th July 2008, 09:55 AM

Actually, genocide is not required unless, by genocide you really mean the removal of all Muslims who believe that people of all other faiths must be killed or converted. Unless all Muslims believe that (which I trust is not correct), genocide is unnecessary.
Mark6 appears to lump all Muslim fundamentalists, terrorist, war-like, or otherwise, into a single group. If you intend to kill them as a group, which he certainly appears to be advocating based on his rhetoric, I think that does fit the definition of genocide.

And, if their non-terrorist supporters also go, won't bother me a lot either.
I don't understand. What do you mean by "non-terrorist supporters"? Those who have the same goals but use other methods or those who finance terrorists but do not actually participate in the terrorist acts?

fuelair

20th July 2008, 11:01 AM

Mark6 appears to lump all Muslim fundamentalists, terrorist, war-like, or otherwise, into a single group. If you intend to kill them as a group, which he certainly appears to be advocating based on his rhetoric, I think that does fit the definition of genocide.

I don't understand. What do you mean by "non-terrorist supporters"? Those who have the same goals but use other methods or those who finance terrorists but do not actually participate in the terrorist acts?Those who hide them, provide for them, send them recruits, suggest targets to them, launder money for them, applaud (except clearly out of fear) them.

Ziggurat

20th July 2008, 11:29 AM

When are they no longer a threat? From the previous sentence, there cannot be peaceful coexistence with them.

Who is "them"? Muslims in general? You will search in vain for any statements from Mark6 to that effect. Them, in the context of who we're fighting and killing, are the jihadis. And killing all the jihadis doesn't mean genocide, any more than killing all the Nazi soldiers would have meant genocide of Germany. And victory may not require that we do so (we didn't have to in WW2), but I have absolutely no problem with being prepared and willing to do so.

Maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm assuming that Mark6 does not like "madrassas" (:rolleyes:) "calling for global jihad and killing of unbelievers". This would be the "I don't like what you say" portion of the position.

No, this would be the "don't threaten to kill me" part of Mark's position. Why do you continue to try to frame that as a free speech issue when it is nothing of the sort?

Second, it is an absurd and much more radical position than the one I am taking about people being able to say whatever they like so long as it doesn't intentionally lead to violence.

Sorry, but if you preach that muslims should kill infidels, it's pretty damned unambiguous that the intention is to lead to violence. Why you continue to pretend otherwise is beyond me. It's really hard to take you seriously when you keep tripping over this most basic issue.

Oliver

20th July 2008, 11:42 AM

That's how you would have fought the War On Terror? Your first action after 9/11 would have been the impeachment of American Politicians?

I'd love to hear your rationale for this.

Not after 9/11 - but immediately after the Iraq invasion since there was no terror threat to us. Plus the Administration pretty much gave a [fill in the blank] about the Saudi-Arabia side of the terror-story. Pakistan got some cash, the Saudis weapons, not enough troops in Afghanistan, no initial action concerning the Israel-Palestinian conflict, denunciating a non-terror Iran yadda, yadda, yadda.

There are enough rationals to assume that the War on Terror is a hoax. But let me guess, you're still falling for it, right?

Upchurch

20th July 2008, 01:09 PM

Those who hide them, provide for them, send them recruits, suggest targets to them, launder money for them, applaud (except clearly out of fear) them.
I'm with you on all but the last one. With the first five, those people are accomplices. The last group are just jerks, to put it mildly and to stay within forum language rules.

Who is "them"? Muslims in general? You will search in vain for any statements from Mark6 to that effect.
No, "Islamic Fundamentalism" as Mark6 specified way back in post #130 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3872324#post3872324). (It wasn't that hard of a search.)

Them, in the context of who we're fighting and killing, are the jihadis. And killing all the jihadis doesn't mean genocide, any more than killing all the Nazi soldiers would have meant genocide of Germany.
Mark6 also defined "Them" as those who subscribe to a specific kind of ideology and "who want to make the world conform to their THOUGHT" (#134 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3872517#post3872517)). He also calls for continued warfare not until just the soldiers give up, but the society does, as well (#130 again).

And victory may not require that we do so (we didn't have to in WW2), but I have absolutely no problem with being prepared and willing to do so.
If that is your opinion, that is fine. I happen to agree with that. However, that is clearly not the position Mark6 is taking. Just because I am attacking his position does not mean I am attacking yours, Zig.

Don't think there are only two sides to a specific issue. Just because we disagree on some aspects does not mean that we disagree on all aspects.

No, this would be the "don't threaten to kill me" part of Mark's position. Why do you continue to try to frame that as a free speech issue when it is nothing of the sort?
I've explained why several times now. A threat is only really a threat if there is a reasonable expectation that it would be acted upon. Until then, and Mark6 even agreed with this, "their mutterings are unimportant" (#143 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3872870#post3872870)). And yet, it is on the basis of their mutterings, not the expectation that it would be acted upon that Mark6 defines his criteria for the war to be over.

There is a difference between calling for death of infidels and calling for the death of these particular infidels at this place, at this time, done in this manner, and here is all the information you need to do it. It's the difference between threatening and being a threat.

Sorry, but if you preach that muslims should kill infidels, it's pretty damned unambiguous that the intention is to lead to violence. Why you continue to pretend otherwise is beyond me. It's really hard to take you seriously when you keep tripping over this most basic issue.
Okay, I think you're hung up on this because of the subject matter de jour. Let's switch it out for a more classic example:

Consider here in the US, some members of the KKK want to have a public rally where they will advocate driving black people out of the state. They represent less than one tenth of one percent of the population of the state. Should they be allowed to speak? If violence does occur, does that mean the KKK should never be allowed to have a public rally again anywhere, ever?

I'm not saying that they should not be condemned, but what what is the phrase? "The cure for bad speech is more speech, not less."

Ziggurat

20th July 2008, 02:02 PM

If that is your opinion, that is fine. I happen to agree with that. However, that is clearly not the position Mark6 is taking.

I don't think your evaluation of his position is correct. Perhaps he can further explain what he meant, until then I doubt we'll make much headway on that front.

I've explained why several times now. A threat is only really a threat if there is a reasonable expectation that it would be acted upon.

Well, no. It's a threat if there's a reasonable expectation it could be acted upon, not necessarily that it would be acted upon. And given the history of Islamic terrorism, I conclude that preaching death to infidels qualifies.

There is a difference between calling for death of infidels and calling for the death of these particular infidels at this place, at this time, done in this manner, and here is all the information you need to do it. It's the difference between threatening and being a threat.

And yet, threatening someone is frequently illegal in and of itself. So the distinction between threatening and being a threat doesn't turn this into protected speech.

Consider here in the US, some members of the KKK want to have a public rally where they will advocate driving black people out of the state. They represent less than one tenth of one percent of the population of the state. Should they be allowed to speak?

Actually, it depends. I've been talking about incitement to violence, but the real dividing line is incitement to illegal activity (which is why saying you should shoot a home intruder may be legal, but saying you should vandalize a school may not be). In this hypothetical, the question would be HOW do they advocate driving black people out of the state. If it's by violence or other illegal acts, then they've crossed the line. If it's by being mean and nasty so that all the blacks move away, that's not illegal, so it's protected. Your scenario is insufficiently specified to determine whether or not it's protected speech. But "killing infidels" is sufficiently specified: I don't need to know the details to know it's illegal, and therefore not protected.

If violence does occur, does that mean the KKK should never be allowed to have a public rally again anywhere, ever?

They should be banned from having public rallies for as long as they incite illegal activity by their speech. This is a different standard than whether or not violence occurs, because it's possible violence could be instigated by opponents. I'm not sure what you think this has to do with the argument at hand.

mrbaracuda

20th July 2008, 02:57 PM

From the context, I'm not even really sure you understand what "jihad" means to a Muslim.

Please, enlighten us. What does jihad mean to a Muslim?
And is it even relevant what this Muslim thinks it means?
I had a similar discussion with 'Firegarden' before. I'm curious.

As for the topic, we'll be making progress once we don't have articles like this one (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566740,00.html) anymore.

Oliver

20th July 2008, 03:02 PM

gumboot

20th July 2008, 03:15 PM

mrbaracuda

20th July 2008, 03:26 PM

Oliver

20th July 2008, 03:27 PM

I believe the threat of terrorism will increase over time. Terrorism is far more effective against a liberal democracy than against any other form of government. The more liberal and the more democratic a state becomes, the more vulnerable it is to terrorism.

Wow, that's the most impressive Argument against Democracy I heard in a while.

Run, Netherlands! - Run, Poland! - Run, Luxembourg! - Run New Zealand! We democratic/liberal Nations will all gonna die teh Terrordeath. :rolleyes:

You acknowledge how ridiculous your worldview is? You should start to comprehend that 9/11 and the "War on Terror" would never have happened if the US would just stay at home when it comes to the ME.

Simple as that.

Upchurch

20th July 2008, 03:35 PM

Please, enlighten us. What does jihad mean to a Muslim?
Jihad means "struggle", in part against others but also against one's own faults and vices. For some, it is the stereotypical physical fight against non-believers. My understanding is that more commonly, it is considered a kind of self-improvement: a struggle against sin.

Pardalis

20th July 2008, 03:38 PM

You should start to comprehend that 9/11 and the "War on Terror" would never have happened if the US would just stay at home when it comes to the ME.

Simple as that.

The US went to Saudi Arabia because Saddam attacked Kuwait. They stayed and somehow the little nutjob OBL didn't like it.

Ziggurat

20th July 2008, 03:59 PM

Jihad means "struggle", in part against others but also against one's own faults and vices. For some, it is the stereotypical physical fight against non-believers. My understanding is that more commonly, it is considered a kind of self-improvement: a struggle against sin.

That is the impression some are striving to create. I am skeptical of such claims, however. The only time I ever hear jihad used that way is when people are trying to explain that it can be used that way, whereas the people who use it to mean violence don't need to explain the manner in which they mean it. That suggests rather strongly to me that whatever possible meanings the word might have, the most common meaning remains one of violence.

Upchurch

20th July 2008, 04:14 PM

That is the impression some are striving to create. I am skeptical of such claims, however.
In being skeptical, have you looked into the matter?

mrbaracuda

20th July 2008, 04:28 PM

I can offer what the commentary in 'Umdat al-Salik (verified by al-Azhar, Egypt) has to say about this:

(O: Jihad means to wage war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs), which is why the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said as he was returning from jihad,

"We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad."

My conclusion is: It means both, but one should not mistake the word lesser for less important.

Upchurch

20th July 2008, 05:12 PM

My conclusion is: It means both, but one should not mistake the word lesser for less important.
Neither should one consider all "calls for jihad" to be necessarily calls for violence against others, correct?

mrbaracuda

20th July 2008, 06:10 PM

Neither should one consider all "calls for jihad" to be necessarily calls for violence against others, correct?

Dear Upchurch, which part of 'Jihad means to wage war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.' did you not understand?

I don't recall any 'calls for jihad' in a different context; can you produce some?
'Jihad in the way of Allah' would be something that sounds like 'Jihad fi sabil Allah'.

You might want to argue it depends on the context, but I really haven't seen it being used outside of this context and the problem is that it's just too interlinked - even if 'a call for jihad' is not directly a call for violence against others, it will eventually end there.

Once the inner struggle is resolved, or at least thus far deemed to be under control, and 'a call for jihad' is spoken - what else is left than violence against non-Muslims? What other meaning?

You also have to ask yourself: What does the inner struggle mean and consist of to a Muslim? Part of it in the context of war would be to overcome one's own reluctance to fight the enemy and submission to Allah and his messenger - and both, from a Muslim view point - command to wage war against the 'unbelievers' until Islam reigns supreme over the earth.

Upchurch

20th July 2008, 06:56 PM

I don't recall any 'calls for jihad' in a different context; can you produce some?
I won't even pretend to be an Islamic scholar. The best I can do without more research is what Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad#Non-violent_jihad) has to offer:
In Modern Standard Arabic, jihad is one of the correct terms for a struggle for any cause, violent or not, religious or secular (though كفاح kifāḥ is also used). For instance, Mahatma Gandhi's struggle for Indian independence is called a "jihad" in Modern Standard Arabic (as well as many other dialects of Arabic); the terminology is applied to the fight for women's liberation.

In modern times, Pakistani scholar and professor Fazlur Rahman has used the term to describe the struggle to establish "just moral-social order", while President Habib Bourguiba of Tunisia has used it to describe the struggle for economic development in Tunisia.
Should these also be silenced before we can consider the War on Terror won?

If women are liberated and Tunisia's economy develops, the terrorists win!

mrbaracuda

20th July 2008, 07:48 PM

Well I thought we were still in the context of madrassas and masjids etc; i.e. the meaning as laid out by the commentary I cited. If I were to speak of an Endlösung for a mathematical issue it would be something else than if I were a Nazi talking about it, wouldn't it?

That politicians in Muslim majority or Islamic countries utilize terms like jihad shouldn't be surprising, besides the meaning of a 'normal' struggle in the case of Ghandi.

In the case of Mr. Rahman though you have to think about what this "just moral-social order*" would look like and what it brings with it. Also, what the usage of this term applied to a Muslim audience can actually cause and who will carry this change.

Should these also be silenced before we can consider the War on Terror won?

It wasn't my idea to silence anyone.

*To pick up on that point without derailing; Just as a sidenote: If you keep the whole Islamic mindset in mind and what a "just moral-social order" is in Islam and read the 'Islam is against terror' statements you might get sick after a while when it's almost always phrased a la 'Islam condemns the indifferent killing of innocent people'. Sounds great when you don't think much about it and have a quick read without the emphasis, doesn't it? Maybe not after a closer look (http://youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4). I can honestly not understand anyone pandering to those people and unfortuneately, there are too many doing just that.

Texas

20th July 2008, 07:52 PM

I won't even pretend to be an Islamic scholar. The best I can do without more research is what Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad#Non-violent_jihad) has to offer:

Should these also be silenced before we can consider the War on Terror won?

If women are liberated and Tunisia's economy develops, the terrorists win!
I would agree to the extent that the "war on poverty" is unrelated to what the term WAR means. Tell me, what context does OBL, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Taliban etc. use when it comes to Jihad? I couldn't care less if an Islamic country declares a "Jihad on poverty", but that is not what Islamic nations or groups mean when they declare a Jihad against other nations or populations of non-believers. If a Mullah is preaching Jihad in his Mosque against non-believers or governments it is supremely logical to assume it means to make war and to act accordingly. OBL declared Jihad on the United States years before 911 and he was pretty much laughed at. That is a mistake I hope we never repeat.

mrbaracuda

20th July 2008, 08:17 PM

If a Mullah is preaching Jihad in his Mosque against non-believers or governments it is supremely logical to assume it means to make war and to act accordingly. OBL declared Jihad on the United States years before 911 and he was pretty much laughed at. That is a mistake I hope we never repeat.

He did it cleverly as well! More or less. At least he was following tradition (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4294) it seems, when he invited America to embrace Islam:

"There are two solutions to stopping it. One is from our side, and it is to escalate the fighting and killing against you. This is our duty, and our brothers are carrying it out," bin Laden said.

"The second solution is from your side," he said. "I invite you to embrace Islam."
From wcbstv article (http://wcbstv.com/topstories/osama.bin.laden.2.247097.html).
(Muslim,) Book 019, Number 4294 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4294):

It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he ... would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, ... (w)hen you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; [...] Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhairs [...] If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muilims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims [...] If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them. [...]

SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

09.8 The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) ... while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High, "..." (Koran 9:29 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html)) [...]"

Also note o9.6 and o9.9, which say:

o9.6 It is offensive to conduct military expedition against hostile non-Muslims without the caliph's permission (A: though if there is no caliph (de: o25), no permission is required).
o9.9 The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim [...]

Texas

20th July 2008, 08:19 PM

Do I think we should find, capture, or kill those responsible for planning and executing the 9/11 attacks? You betcha! Do I believe that has been the primary goal of the current "War on Terror" since 2003? Nope.

Ok. Let's say we leave Iraq and concentrate on Afghanistan to find OBL. By some miracle we find him and kill or capture him. Then what? Is that the end of the WOT? You have focused exclusively on 911. 911 was just the most spectacular act out of thousands committed by hundreds of terrorist organisations around the world many of which are state sponsored. That is the reactive thinking we had been using all along. It is simply not enough to just react to each attack and then wait passivly for the next one.

In my view the WOT will be "won" when Nations that harbor these organisations and even provide active support are more afraid of the consequences of such support than they are of the terrorists themselves.
There will always be terrorists but they would be almost impotent without the type of support they get from nation states in the Middle East. In the case of Islamic terroism the Middle Eastern countries hold the keys to the end of the WOT if they have the will to do so.

As far as the United States the domestic WOT has been quite effective since 911 in regard to further attacks at home. That could just be dumb luck or it could be that OBL at least was not prepared for the ferocity of the military response and decided to go after softer targets. Spain and the UK haven't been quite as fortunate.

Texas

20th July 2008, 08:22 PM

He did it cleverly as well! More or less. At least he was following tradition (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4294) it seems, when he invited America to embrace Islam:
He was making us an offer we could't refuse.

mrbaracuda

20th July 2008, 08:53 PM

In my view the WOT will be "won" when Nations that harbor these organisations and even provide active support are more afraid of the consequences of such support than they are of the terrorists themselves.
There will always be terrorists but they would be almost impotent without the type of support they get from nation states in the Middle East.

I agree but I'd like to add failed states or near-failed states as well as financial support coming from outside the Middle East by those like the CAIR affiliated organisations; CAIR seems to be entangled with those who collect money which is then channeled to jihadists and many of the major Islamic organizations in 'the West' seem to have shady dealings going on, often under the disguise of 'relief help'. Although one might wonder if people just aren't interpreting things from an Islamic POV. Those crappy 'Islam is peace' campaigns don't help with that among other things.

In the case of Islamic terroism the Middle Eastern countries hold the keys to the end of the WOT if they have the will to do so.

And how would they do that? Many of the states' governments are either Muslim themselves or not exactly antipathetic to them. Not to mention the Muslim mobs we could experience over cartoons. Or all the cells and little organizations. Imagine the same thing over a government that is not deemed Islamic enough while having no means of security or weak defense forces to control them. Lebanon comes to mind.

Texas

20th July 2008, 09:21 PM

I

And how would they do that? Many of the states' governments are either Muslim themselves or not exactly antipathetic to them. Not to mention the Muslim mobs we could experience over cartoons. Or all the cells and little organizations. Imagine the same thing over a government that is not deemed Islamic enough while having no means of security or weak defense forces to control them. Lebanon comes to mind.

They could stop stoning women and stone terrorists instead. That was sarcasm which I am lousy at. I agree that it may be too late for that. I know the vast majority don't want to admit it but maybe in the end the only way to win the WOT may be total war on a global scale. Should the next attack take the form of a nuclear or biological weapon and kills tens of thousands then there will be no more talk of moderation or trying to understand the reasons it will just be hell unleashed on to that part of the world.

Texas

20th July 2008, 09:28 PM

Speaking of stoning Iran is on a roll:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7516238.stm
At least eight women and one man are reported to have been sentenced to death by stoning in Iran.

The group, convicted of adultery and sex offences, could be executed at any time, lawyers defending them say.

Upchurch

21st July 2008, 05:57 AM

It wasn't my idea to silence anyone.
I know. That was in response to Mark6's proposal.

In my view the WOT will be "won" when Nations that harbor these organisations and even provide active support are more afraid of the consequences of such support than they are of the terrorists themselves.
There are some pragmatic questions about how that might be guaged, but from a more philosophical perspective, would it be accurate to restate your position as:

The War On Terror is won when the nations that harbor terrorist organizations are more terrified of us than they are of the terrorist organizations.

Wouldn't it be ironic if the only way to win the War On Terror is to be the biggest source of terror?

Mark6

21st July 2008, 07:02 AM

Mark6 also defined "Them" as those who subscribe to a specific kind of ideology and "who want to make the world conform to their THOUGHT" (#134 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3872517#post3872517)). He also calls for continued warfare not until just the soldiers give up, but the society does, as well (#130 again).

If that is your opinion, that is fine. I happen to agree with that. However, that is clearly not the position Mark6 is taking. Just because I am attacking his position does not mean I am attacking yours, Zig.
My posts had not been very articulate, mainly because I type in snatches at work. Bu Ziggurat has been more articulate than me, and his position is essentially identical tio mine.

I've explained why several times now. A threat is only really a threat if there is a reasonable expectation that it would be acted upon. Until then, and Mark6 even agreed with this, "their mutterings are unimportant" (#143 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3872870#post3872870)). And yet, it is on the basis of their mutterings, not the expectation that it would be acted upon that Mark6 defines his criteria for the war to be over.

Another result of hasty typing. It should have been:

"There are plenty of hate groups of all stripes throughout the world, who are essentially nothing but mutual adoration societies, telling each other how many blacks/whites/Chinese/Jews/capitalists/gays/whatever they will kill "come the revolution". As long as they do not actually do anything, their mutterings are unimportant. If/when Islamic Fundamentalists are reduced to such impotent mutterings, I will be happy. As of now, that is not the case."

Texas

21st July 2008, 09:11 PM

I know. That was in response to Mark6's proposal.

There are some pragmatic questions about how that might be guaged, but from a more philosophical perspective, would it be accurate to restate your position as:

The War On Terror is won when the nations that harbor terrorist organizations are more terrified of us than they are of the terrorist organizations.

Wouldn't it be ironic if the only way to win the War On Terror is to be the biggest source of terror? Only if you consider it terror to attack countries that are supporting organisations at war with the west. I guess we terrorised Japan and Germany? I am not one that considers most Middle Eastern leaders as irrational maniacs. They are completely rational regarding their own self interests. If it is more advantageous for them to, as a matter of national policy, support terrorist organisations to maintain their personal power that is what they will do but it is also true if that support puts their very existence, as in lives, at risk from the US/West then the self-interest calculus changes.

Upchurch

22nd July 2008, 06:59 AM

Only if you consider it terror to attack countries that are supporting organisations at war with the west. I guess we terrorised Japan and Germany?
We weren't branding WWII as a war against an emotion or tactic only to use that same emotion or tactic to combat it. And if we had used Japan and Germany (and Italy) to fight Japan and Germany (and Italy), I would still call that ironic, because it would have been.

If it is more advantageous for them to, as a matter of national policy, support terrorist organisations to maintain their personal power that is what they will do but it is also true if that support puts their very existence, as in lives, at risk from the US/West then the self-interest calculus changes.
So, we threaten them with violence and death unless they capitulate to our demands on their foreign policy. Brilliant! I wonder if there is a term for that?

Seriously, though, I'm not saying you are incorrect in some cases, but it is just a tad hypocritical to put ourselves on a higher moral pedestal if we will stoop just as low.
Grammy Flash always used to say the problem with 'an eye for an eye' is that everybody ends up blind.
(source (http://www.tv.com/justice-league-unlimited/flashpoint/episode/408202/summary.html))

Ziggurat

22nd July 2008, 07:51 AM

Grammy Flash always used to say the problem with 'an eye for an eye' is that everybody ends up blind.
(source (http://www.tv.com/justice-league-unlimited/flashpoint/episode/408202/summary.html))

Both Granny Flash and Ghandi (the original source) were wrong. As Adam Smith said, ""Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent." Refusal to retaliate encourages aggression on the part of others: it is not only not moral, it is immoral. Let us not forget, either, that Ghandi thought the Jews should accept genocide at the hands of the Nazis rather than fight back.

Upchurch

23rd July 2008, 12:06 PM

Both Granny Flash and Ghandi (the original source)
Yes, I know. Quoting Grammy Flash was more fun.

As Adam Smith said, ""Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent." Refusal to retaliate encourages aggression on the part of others: it is not only not moral, it is immoral.
There is a difference between vengeance and justice, retaliation and punishment. To quote another TV show (although I can't remember where I heard it), "How do you fight fire?"
"...with a hose?"

What do you call someone who threatens violence and death against someone unless they capitulates to demands on their foreign policy?

Let us not forget, either, that Ghandi thought the Jews should accept genocide at the hands of the Nazis rather than fight back.
(spoiler tags for to prevent needless scrolling for the uninterested in off-topic discussion.)
You're talking about the pacifist who made this statement (http://www.kamat.com/mmgandhi/mideast.htm), are you?

The crime of an obviously mad but intrepid youth is being visited upon his whole race with unbelievable ferocity. If there ever could be a justifiable war in the name of and for humanity, a war against Germany, to prevent the wanton persecution of a whole race, would be completely justified. But I do not believe in any war. A discussion of the pros and cons of such a war is therefore outside my horizon or province.

You are mis-characterizing what Ghandi was saying (later in that same essay). He is not saying that they should merely accept genocide.
Can the Jews resist this organized and shameless persecution? Is there a way to preserve their self-respect, and not to feel helpless, neglected and forlorn? I submit there is. No person who has faith in a living God need feel helpless or forlorn. Jehovah of the Jews is a God more personal than the God of the Christians, the Musalmans or the Hindus, though, as a matter of fact in essence, He is common to all the one without a second and beyond description. But as the Jews attribute personality to God and believe that He rules every action of theirs, they ought not to feel helpless. If I were a Jew and were born in Germany and earned my livelihood there, I would claim Germany as my home even as the tallest gentile German may, and challenge him to shoot me or cast me in the dungeon; I would refuse to be expelled or to submit to discriminating treatment . And for doing this, I should not wait for the fellow Jews to join me in civil resistance but would have confidence that in the end the rest are bound to follow my example. If one Jew or all the Jews were to accept the prescription here offered, he or they cannot be worse off than now. And suffering voluntarily undergone will bring them an inner strength and joy which no number of resolutions of sympathy passed in the world outside Germany can. Indeed, even if Britain, France and America were to declare hostilities against Germany, they can bring no inner joy, no inner strength. The calculated violence of Hitler may even result in a general massacre of the Jews by way of his first answer to the declaration of such hostilities. But if the Jewish mind could be prepared for voluntary suffering, even the massacre I have imagined could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy that Jehovah had wrought deliverance of the race even at the hands of the tyrant. For to the god fearing, death has no terror. It is a joyful sleep to be followed by a waking that would be all the more refreshing for the long sleep.
Is Ghandi telling them to fight back? No, he is a pacifist. But he does think they can resist nonetheless. (Of course, this kind of resistance has little comfort to an atheist like me, but he wasn't talking to an atheist like me.)

Ziggurat

23rd July 2008, 12:42 PM

Is Ghandi telling them to fight back? No, he is a pacifist. But he does think they can resist nonetheless.

By what possible logic can you call a course of action that does nothing to impede the slaughter resistance? It is not. To call it that is positively Orwellian. And the sentence "But if the Jewish mind could be prepared for voluntary suffering, even the massacre I have imagined could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy" sounds an awful lot like accepting genocide to me.

Upchurch

23rd July 2008, 12:54 PM

You don't understand non-violent resistance, fine. It isn't pertinent to this thread anyway.

Ziggurat

23rd July 2008, 01:08 PM

You don't understand non-violent resistance, fine.

I understand it plenty well. I also understand that there are only limited circumstances in which it can work - namely, there must be an authority with power over your adversary which is interested in maintaining peace. It works when it persuades someone else to fight (or be ready to fight) for you. Without that (and there are no candidates for such an authority in regards to Islamic terrorism), pacifism is an exercise in futility and surrender preening as moral superiority. Thanks, but no thanks.

Mark6

23rd July 2008, 01:14 PM

I do not believe Ghandi understood it either. He faced a unique situation in history -- an imperial power too squeamish to do what was necessary to maintain its grip on the empire. In this particular situation, non-violent resistance was effective. Had Ghandi tried his methods against Hitler, or Stalin, or even British Empire of 1840 instead of 1940, none of us would have known his name because he'd be nothing but another anonymous victim -- shot by some minor local imperial functionary without even bothering his higher-ups. Because that's how empires dealt with "peons getting above their station" since the days of Cyrus the Great.

But British Empire circa 1940 was too civilized to act like an empire. Ghandi's non-violent resistance sent British public into a fit of guilt and self-recrimination, which led to abandoning India and ultimately the rest of the Empire. As a result, Ghandi -- and many who quote him today, -- became conviced that non-violence is an appropriate way to deal with evil. What he (and those who quote him) do not understand is that Britain circa 1940 was not evil at all. You can only use non-violence against a fundamentally decent opponent.

mrbaracuda

23rd July 2008, 02:17 PM

Whoa, Upchurch, I knew you were making odd replies at times, but the one about the Ghandi stuff. My goodness!

Upchurch

23rd July 2008, 02:51 PM

Okay, first and most importantly,this is off-topic and irrelevant. If you want to discuss it, take it to R&P.

Second, I didn't say I agreed with Ghandi and I didn't say his position on the Jews in Germany was in any way applicable to the War on Terror. All I said was that Zig is mis-characterizing Ghandi's position which wasn't to "accept genocide". Ghandi's position was a more spiritual one than that. Zig is looking at it from a materialist's perspective which is not how it was intended.

Ziggurat

23rd July 2008, 02:59 PM

All I said was that Zig is mis-characterizing Ghandi's position which wasn't to "accept genocide". Ghandi's position was a more spiritual one than that.

Ghandi's position was exactly that. The fact that it was motivated and justified by spiritualism does not change the fact that he advocated accepting your own death and the hands of your killer - if you believe what Ghandi did, that may change the significance of the act for you, but it will not change the act itself.

Oliver

23rd July 2008, 03:18 PM

Both Granny Flash and Ghandi (the original source) were wrong. As Adam Smith said, ""Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent." Refusal to retaliate encourages aggression on the part of others: it is not only not moral, it is immoral. Let us not forget, either, that Ghandi thought the Jews should accept genocide at the hands of the Nazis rather than fight back.

Did you just affirm that the "War on Terror" is partly based on Israeli interests? :confused:

Upchurch

23rd July 2008, 04:08 PM

Texas

23rd July 2008, 07:39 PM

Texas

23rd July 2008, 07:47 PM

So, what's your point, Zig?

You don't agree with Ghandi's position of passivism, so his position on "an eye for an eye" must also be wrong? Therefore, the only appropriate reponse to terrorism is more terrorism?

What are you trying to say? Aren't most criminal laws in civilized countries "eye for an eye"?

Therefore, the only appropriate response to terrorism is more terrorism?

No the appropriate response to terrorism is justice and self-defense. Pacifism allows for neither.

Ziggurat

24th July 2008, 05:52 AM

Did you just affirm that the "War on Terror" is partly based on Israeli interests? :confused:

Did you just confirm that you're a simpering halfwit antisemite?

Ziggurat

24th July 2008, 05:56 AM

What are you trying to say?

That countries must retaliation against aggression. Ever hear of the "tit-for-tat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat)" strategy of the prisoner's dilemma?

Darth Rotor

24th July 2008, 06:01 AM

As for the topic, we'll be making progress once we don't have articles like this one (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566740,00.html) anymore.

Abu Mustafa has a degree from the University of Saarbrücken in Germany's far west. For seven years, until 2000, he studied chemical engineering and led a largely normal student existence. He had periodic jobs with a moving company or in construction, and he occasionally cooked up Palestinian specialties for other students living in the dormitory. "I miss Germany," he says. He's even looked on Google Earth for the street where he used to live and the cafeteria where he used to eat.

He explains that he was largely accepted in Germany and found people there to be quite friendly. The only problems came about when he encountered scantily clad women or fellow students who spent much of their time in clubs and bars. He says such experiences rooted him even deeper in his beliefs. "It would be better for such people were they to follow the pure Islam," he says. "We are going to try and bring the faith to them."

Even if he has to kill them to save them, he'll bring Islam to them. Gee, what a swell fella.

DR

Upchurch

24th July 2008, 06:28 AM

Aren't most criminal laws in civilized countries "eye for an eye"?
Define "civilized countries". The US mostly holds a corrective form of criminal punishment system. The exception is capital punishment.

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment#Global_distribution), these are the countries that known to have carried out capital punishment in 2007:
Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Botswana, China, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Kuwait, Libya, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, USA, Vietnam, Yemen.
Were these the civilized countries you were thinking of?

No the appropriate response to terrorism is justice and self-defense.
...which would not be "an eye for an eye".

Ever hear of the "tit-for-tat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat)" strategy of the prisoner's dilemma?
Not being big into game theory, I hadn't. Here are some things your source says about the subject:
Still, this "group" victory illustrates an important limitation of the Prisoner's Dilemma in representing social reality, namely, that it does not include any natural equivalent for friendship or alliances. The advantage of "tit for tat" thus pertains only to a Hobbesian world of rational solutions, not to a world in which humans are inherently social.

...

While Axelrod has empirically shown that the strategy is optimal in some cases, two agents playing tit for tat remain vulnerable. A one-time, single-bit error in either player's interpretation of events can lead to an unending "death spiral". In this symmetric situation, each side perceives itself as preferring to cooperate, if only the other side would. But each is forced by the strategy into repeatedly punishing an opponent who continues to attack despite being punished in every game cycle. Both sides come to think of themselves as innocent and acting in self-defense, and their opponent as either evil or too stupid to learn to cooperate.

That countries must retaliation against aggression.
According to the summary, part of the tit-for-tat strategy is to be quick to forgive. When/Where/How you envision that part of the strategy coming into effect in the War On Terror?

Ziggurat

24th July 2008, 06:48 AM

According to the summary, part of the tit-for-tat strategy is to be quick to forgive.

Yes: after you've retaliated.

When/Where/How you envision that part of the strategy coming into effect in the War On Terror?

I think our rebuilding efforts in both Afghanistan and Iraq fall under that category pretty well.

Upchurch

24th July 2008, 07:24 AM

I think our rebuilding efforts in both Afghanistan and Iraq fall under that category pretty well.
Wait, are we at war with the people of Iraq and Afghanistan or the ambiguously defined terrorists?

And going back to the OP, when do you think the "game" is over?

Ziggurat

24th July 2008, 10:21 AM

Wait, are we at war with the people of Iraq and Afghanistan or the ambiguously defined terrorists?

Not as a whole. But those whom we are fighting would indeed benefit from our reconstruction efforts if they ever stop fighting and try to live normal lives. Really, Upchurch, this was a weak counterargument. Especially since forgiveness under tit-for-tat doesn't happen until agression stops. And it has for certain groups (such as some Sunni tribes in Al Anbar).

And going back to the OP, when do you think the "game" is over?

The game is never over. But the war is only part of the game, and it can end.

Upchurch

24th July 2008, 10:45 AM

The game is never over. But the war is only part of the game, and it can end.
Okay, when does that happen?

Oliver

24th July 2008, 02:23 PM

Did you just confirm that you're a simpering halfwit antisemite?

No. And I take your dodging reply as a "yes". :)

Ziggurat

24th July 2008, 03:11 PM

Okay, when does that happen?

Post #2. I know that was a while ago, but I already answered the original question.

mrbaracuda

24th July 2008, 03:35 PM

Hey Upchurch, I got a reverse question for you!
When is the war on terror lost? Maybe that helps us with finding out what makes us win it. ;)

Ziggurat

24th July 2008, 04:15 PM

No. And I take your dodging reply as a "yes". :)

Why did you bring up Israel when I didn't mention Israel?

Here are some posts of Oliver's dealing with jews and Israel, for anyone who's interested. I think the pattern is fairly consistent.
So of course Obama is more popular with his diplomatic tone on Iran and his wisdom about the Iraq war before it started. But it also comes down to the fact that the rest of the world simply doesn't play Israels the world's police.
What's the fuss about? "Jews" rule middle-eastern
US-policies. So what?
Since Jews have an own State, yes - I think they have a nationality
You just discovered a pretty basic Caucasian Way of thinking about others "evildoers by default". Quite shocking that there are so many people who actually support this selfish "And who the **** are you ******* Arab/Jew/Native/N-Word...?" World View.

Basically the whole Jewish-Republican Wing in here more or less thinks this way - sometimes without even recognizing it. Lovely folks, eh? :boggled:
Everyone with a little bit if
knowledge knows that Israel gives a **** about human
rights of third parties.

Regarding whether or not I'm Jewish:
It wouldn't matter to me if he's a Jew or not. I would like to know it to understand his position - because making a secret out of it makes him look non-credible.

mrbaracuda

24th July 2008, 04:37 PM

You, you.. you secret Jou!
I wonder: Am I part of 'the whole Jewish-Republican Wing in here'? I can only hope.

And if not: We can change. YES WE CAN!

President Bush

24th July 2008, 07:10 PM

When is the war on terror lost?

When the courts win judicial review as to the height of nude pyramids.

Upchurch

24th July 2008, 07:41 PM

When a muslim comic can mock Mohammed in Saudi Arabia, we'll know we've won.
That can happen now. Have we won?

Ziggurat

24th July 2008, 09:27 PM

That can happen now. Have we won?

Implicit in my answer was doing it without threat of violence or legal punishment. And no, I don't think that can happen now.

drkitten

25th July 2008, 07:53 AM

When a muslim comic can mock Mohammed in Saudi Arabia, we'll know we've won.

So Saudi Arabia is our benchmark and bellweather --- and that's why we've got troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, and are eyeing up Iran?

Doesn't that strike you as counterproductive? Or at least misguided? I mean, if my goal is to get milk in my refrigerator, I go to the dairy, not to the shoe store. If I need a screwdriver, I don't go to the video rental store.

But when Bush wants to improve civil liberties in Saudi Arabia, he goes into Iraq?

Ziggurat

25th July 2008, 08:03 AM

So Saudi Arabia is our benchmark and bellweather --- and that's why we've got troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, and are eyeing up Iran?

It's funny: this is a common argument in certain circles, and yet no one who makes it seriously advocate military intervention in Saudi Arabia, because they know it would sink the global economy. You're using a fundamentally dishonest argument in the hopes that no one will notice. We didn't fight the cold war by attacking Moscow, but it was events in Moscow which made clear our final victory.

But when Bush wants to improve civil liberties in Saudi Arabia, he goes into Iraq?

Frankly, I don't know how interested Bush is in civil liberties in Saudi Arabia. But there's not much he can do about them directly, and it was obvious to those actually paying attention to the issues that the fight against Islamic terrorism is going to take a long time, certainly longer than Bush will be in office. The only pressure we can afford to exert against Saudi Arabia is indirect, and yes, the Iraq invasion may be our best shot at that. Democracies are inherently threatening to authoritarian regimes by virtue of their existence, and a democratic Iraq would put enormous pressure on both Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Upchurch

25th July 2008, 09:28 AM

Implicit in my answer was doing it without threat of violence or legal punishment. And no, I don't think that can happen now.
Oooh. You want something out of Saudi Arabia that we haven't been quite able to manage here in the US, huh? (for (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma_(film)#Controversy) example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_debates_over_Harry_Potter#Christianity))

I'll guess that you meant "without threat of violence" to a certain degree? But that goes back to "what is a creditable threat" and how seriously do you take it, doesn't it? Does it matter if it is Christan leaders or Islamic leaders who call certain groups "the enemy" and use threatening language toward them?

Ziggurat

25th July 2008, 10:02 AM

Does it matter if it is Christan leaders or Islamic leaders who call certain groups "the enemy" and use threatening language toward them?

Were any Christian leaders calling for the death of people who make jokes about Jesus? Because in the absence of such threats (which quite definitely do exist from Muslim leaders regarding jokes about Mohammed), the parallel simply doesn't exist. Really, Upchurch, it's hard to take you seriously when your interest in the topic now centers around trying to gain a rhetorical advantage over me rather than to examine the subject with any clarity.

Upchurch

25th July 2008, 04:20 PM

Were any Christian leaders calling for the death of people who make jokes about Jesus? Because in the absence of such threats (which quite definitely do exist from Muslim leaders regarding jokes about Mohammed), the parallel simply doesn't exist. Really, Upchurch, it's hard to take you seriously when your interest in the topic now centers around trying to gain a rhetorical advantage over me rather than to examine the subject with any clarity.
Let's just cut straight to the meat of it, then.

"When a muslim comic can mock Mohammed in Saudi Arabia, we'll know we've won. ....Implicit in my answer was doing it without threat of violence or legal punishment."

Inherent in your response is the belief that our principles are the very best principles there are (which may very well be true) and that this, therefore, gives us the right to force others to accept our principles over their own. Ironically, this last part is a betrayal of those very principles, which values freedom of choice and freedom from oppression. What if we give them that choice and they choose to keep mockery of Mohamed illegal and deathly insulting?

What you are suggesting is that this war is about changing Islamic social norms and values as well as governmental principles to match our own norms, values, and principles. After all, you are arguing that they shouldn't be deeply outraged at the mockery of their spiritual leader nor should an Islamic monarchy be able to create and enforce religious based laws, right? Would that be a fair characterization?

Is this a war against Terrorism or a war against another society, the vast majority of whom have done nothing to us? You've lost focus on what actually happened on 9/11. We were attacked by a bunch of criminals that used Islam as an excuse. It has nothing to do with whether or not they embrace our ideas of freedom of speech, a criteria you see as sufficient for ending the war.

So, let's say a Muslim newspaper prints a comic in Saudi Arabia that mocks Mohamed and, while maybe there is some grumbling, the editors are not brought up on charges and the building is not bombed. Is the war, then, over? Never mind that we still have not caught Osama Bin Laden?

And you find it hard to take me seriously?

Ziggurat

25th July 2008, 10:28 PM

Let's just cut straight to the meat of it, then.

I thought you were smart enough to figure out what I meant without me having to write an essay. Apparently you either are not that smart, or you're just not interested in what I meant but only whether or not you can gain an upper hand in an argument. I do not know or care which it is.

Inherent in your response is the belief that our principles are the very best principles there are (which may very well be true) and that this, therefore, gives us the right to force others to accept our principles over their own. Ironically, this last part is a betrayal of those very principles, which values freedom of choice and freedom from oppression.

I do happen to believe western values such as freedom of speech are superior to the alternatives. As for forcing others to accept that principle, well, no. I actually said nothing of the sort. But our enemies (and since you're likely to deliberately misinterpret this if I don't point out that this category doesn't include all muslims) have values which are inherently antagonistic to ours. It is not by our choice, but by theirs, that conflict arises. They will continue to attack us for as long as they hold on to their values and cannot accept ours. The war will be over when they stop attacking us, and that will happen when they can at least tolerate our values. But they are the aggressors, not us. If you haven't noticed, we're not trying to force Saudi Arabia to do anything.

What if we give them that choice and they choose to keep mockery of Mohamed illegal and deathly insulting?

Then they will continue to spawn radicals who will attack us, and the war will go on. You asked how we would know the war was over. You did not ask what we should do to win it. Your inability to distinguish those two things is at the heart of your repeated misinterpretation of my position.

What you are suggesting is that this war is about changing Islamic social norms and values as well as governmental principles to match our own norms, values, and principles. After all, you are arguing that they shouldn't be deeply outraged at the mockery of their spiritual leader

I said nothing of the sort. They should not use violence to express that outrage, but I have no problem with outrage in and of itself.

Is this a war against Terrorism or a war against another society,

It's a war against an ideology. That ideology is tied to certain societies, but it is not synonymous with those societies.

You've lost focus on what actually happened on 9/11. We were attacked by a bunch of criminals that used Islam as an excuse. It has nothing to do with whether or not they embrace our ideas of freedom of speech,

Oh, but it does. You can object that it isn't mainstream Islam, but it is still a form of Islam, and it was not used as an excuse, it was the entire justification. That very much has something to do with freedom of speech, because radical Islam and free speech are not compatible. You cannot hold on to both. If they accept free speech, we will know that they have abandoned radical Islam. Just as if a country can only embrace free speech if it drops communism, or fascism, or any other form of totalitarian despotism.

So, let's say a Muslim newspaper prints a comic in Saudi Arabia that mocks Mohamed and, while maybe there is some grumbling, the editors are not brought up on charges and the building is not bombed. Is the war, then, over? Never mind that we still have not caught Osama Bin Laden?

Well, yes. At that point, it's no longer a war. Bin Laden would remain a criminal at large who should be hunted down (as Nazi war criminals were decades after WWII), but one man does not make a war.

And you find it hard to take me seriously?

Yes. Because your misunderstanding and misrepresentation of my position continues like clockwork.

Upchurch

28th July 2008, 06:54 AM

I thought you were smart enough to figure out what I meant without me having to write an essay. Apparently you either are not that smart, or you're just not interested in what I meant but only whether or not you can gain an upper hand in an argument. I do not know or care which it is.
I was trying to baby-step you through the ramifications of your position. Either you still don't understand or you just don't care.

Herein lies a neat little summary of your oversimplification of a grossly complicated situation. I won't even pretend to understand the complete history and nuance of the middle-east conflict, but it does not boil down to:
But our enemies ... have values which are inherently antagonistic to ours. It is not by our choice, but by theirs, that conflict arises. They will continue to attack us for as long as they hold on to their values and cannot accept ours. The war will be over when they stop attacking us, and that will happen when they can at least tolerate our values. But they are the aggressors, not us.
If you think it amounts to: "Golly, they're just a bunch of meanies!" Then you are less informed about it than even I am.

Then they will continue to spawn radicals who will attack us, and the war will go on.
How do you justify the position that holding certain non-western principles will necessarily lead to "spawning radicals who will attack us"? There are other societies (and even ideologies) that hold principles other than our own who are not spawning radicals, are there not?

It's a war against an ideology. That ideology is tied to certain societies, but it is not synonymous with those societies.
You're close. It is a war against a political ideology. The conflict has far more to do with the results of 19th century colonialism and a few subsequent world and cold wars than it has to do with any inherent discrepancies between specific social or religious ideologies outside of those politics.

Need evidence? In a different political situation, these very same radical Islamic fighters who are fundamentally and ideologically opposed to us in every way were our allies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_Bin_Laden#Mujahideen_in_Afghanistan) against the Soviets little more than 20 years ago.

You can object that it isn't mainstream Islam, but it is still a form of Islam, and it was not used as an excuse, it was the entire justification.
You make it sound as if an excuse and a justification are two different things.

Religion is the methodology used to control and use the lower-end foot soldiers, but religion is not the reason for the conflict. As I said, the reason for the conflict is politics and, like most politics, it is about territory in one form or another.

I'll not only object that it isn't mainstream Islam, I'll object that it isn't even the vast majority of Islam.

That very much has something to do with freedom of speech, because radical Islam and free speech are not compatible. You cannot hold on to both. If they accept free speech, we will know that they have abandoned radical Islam. Just as if a country can only embrace free speech if it drops communism, or fascism, or any other form of totalitarian despotism.
You cannot hold radical anything and free speech, but the converse is not also true. Having free speech in a society does not mean that there are not radical elements within it. Take our own society and folks like Fred Phelps. Not only does free speech permit radical ideologies, it protects them.

Bin Laden and Co. did not attack us on 9/11 because we allow free speech. They attacked us because of their disagreement with our foreign policy positions, past and present, concerning the middle-east. Otherwise, why would they have bothered?

Go through his released statements
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videos_of_Osama_bin_Laden). How many of them have to do with condemning freedom of speech or the religious ideological differences the middle-east and the west?

Yes. Because your misunderstanding and misrepresentation of my position continues like clockwork.
Back to the baby-steps then.

Ziggurat

28th July 2008, 10:33 AM

If you think it amounts to: "Golly, they're just a bunch of meanies!" Then you are less informed about it than even I am.

But I do not think that, so what's your point?

How do you justify the position that holding certain non-western principles will necessarily lead to "spawning radicals who will attack us"? There are other societies (and even ideologies) that hold principles other than our own who are not spawning radicals, are there not?

Precisely because it is certain other beliefs which they hold, and not simply any other beliefs.

You're close. It is a war against a political ideology.

It is not simply a political ideology. It is also a religious ideology as well. And it is precisely that combination which makes it both dangerous and inherently antagonistic to us.

The conflict has far more to do with the results of 19th century colonialism and a few subsequent world and cold wars than it has to do with any inherent discrepancies between specific social or religious ideologies outside of those politics.

Keep telling yourself that. But it does not explain why bin Laden calls for the reconquest of Al Andalus. It does not explain why Islam has bloody borders on all sides, even where it meets other colonized groups. It does not explain why Saudi Arabia, which has long had everything it needs for complete independence from "colonial" influences, is an exporter of this violence. Which colonial grievance, pray tell, are the Wahabists struggling to fix?

Need evidence? In a different political situation, these very same radical Islamic fighters who are fundamentally and ideologically opposed to us in every way were our allies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_Bin_Laden#Mujahideen_in_Afghanistan) against the Soviets little more than 20 years ago.

You have a funny definition of what constitutes evidence for your position. They were fighting against 20th century communist imperialism, not 19th century colonialism. And many of those (including bin Laden) were fighting against it because they believed in Islamic imperialism, not because they were opposed to imperialism or colonialism on principle.

Religion is the methodology used to control and use the lower-end foot soldiers, but religion is not the reason for the conflict. As I said, the reason for the conflict is politics and, like most politics, it is about territory in one form or another.

You say that as if the political dimension to the conflict means that the religion is merely pretext. But it is not. For the Islamists, religion and politics are not separate. For them, everything political is religious, and everything religious is political. And you will fail to understand them if you cannot wrap your head around that, and you clearly do not yet.

I'll not only object that it isn't mainstream Islam, I'll object that it isn't even the vast majority of Islam.

That's nice. But it's who we're fighting.

You cannot hold radical anything and free speech, but the converse is not also true. Having free speech in a society does not mean that there are not radical elements within it. Take our own society and folks like Fred Phelps. Not only does free speech permit radical ideologies, it protects them.

And it also isolates them and minimizes their influence. How serious a threat do you think Fred Phelps is to anyone? How many people has he or is followers killed?

Upchurch

28th July 2008, 11:34 AM

You have a funny definition of what constitutes evidence for your position. They were fighting against 20th century communist imperialism, not 19th century colonialism.
You missed the point entirely.

That was not meant as evidence that they were fighting colonialism. That was meant as evidence that they are politically motivated. That they are willing to work with us when politically convenient suggests that their antagonism towards us now is based on political reasons rather than religious ones. After all, neither groups have changed their religious beliefs between then and now. It is only the political situation that has changed.

The bit about the colonialism and subsequent world wars, etc. was describing the roots of the middle-east conflict which was also inherently political and not religious in nature.

You say that as if the political dimension to the conflict means that the religion is merely pretext. But it is not. For the Islamists, religion and politics are not separate.
Again, you are blurring the lines and painting with a very broad brush.

Not all Islamists (i.e. those who view Islam as both a religion and a political system, by definition (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Islamists)) hold identical ideological goals or approve of the same methodologies. No more than two Democrats or two Republicans might.

For them, everything political is religious, and everything religious is political. And you will fail to understand them if you cannot wrap your head around that, and you clearly do not yet.
And yet, what is the difference between these violent, radical Islamists and their more moderate brethren? Do they hold different religions or different politics?

How serious a threat do you think Fred Phelps is to anyone? How many people has he or is followers killed?
And if he or his followers did start killing people, what would you suggest? Do we declare war on Fred Phelps and his followers or on Christianity in general?

Ziggurat

28th July 2008, 11:58 AM

That was not meant as evidence that they were fighting colonialism. That was meant as evidence that they are politically motivated.

Did I deny that? No. But politics and religion are not separate for them. That's why the Islamists want their religious leaders and their political leaders to be the same people. So why do you continue to say that they're politically motivated when I explicitly acknowleged that?

That they are willing to work with us when politically convenient suggests that their antagonism towards us now is based on political reasons rather than religious ones.

No, actually, it doesn't. Bin Laden and many other Islamists considered the Soviets to be the greater threat, and with good reason. The Soviets were hostile to religion and, unlike us, explicitly expansionist. They had to be defeated first. Why would Bin Laden have any problem with accepting help from one kufir to help defeat another? That's just common sense, divide-and-conquor. It says nothing about the absence of any fundamental religious tension between him and us. They have plenty of support from religious doctrine for making expedient compromises to further long-term religious goals (look up the phrase "hudna" for an example).

The bit about the colonialism and subsequent world wars, etc. was describing the roots of the middle-east conflict which was also inherently political and not religious in nature.

Except those roots stretch back much farther than Europe's colonial period, and they very much DO include religion throughout them, even if the religious dimensions were often ignored by those Europeans.

Not all Islamists (i.e. those who view Islam as both a religion and a political system, by definition (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Islamists)) hold identical ideological goals or approve of the same methodologies. No more than two Democrats or two Republicans might.

And yet, in the big picture, democrats and republicans have more in common than not. Yes, the Islamists are not all identical, but what, exactly, is your point? I did not claim that they were all identical, but they are similar enough.

And yet, what is the difference between these violent, radical Islamists and their more moderate brethren? Do they hold different religions or different politics?

In effect, both. You keep harping on the fact that it's political. Yes, it is. But it is also religious. And nothing you have said demonstrates it is not. Instead, you choose to bury your head in the sand and pretend that religion is irrelevant. Well, it isn't. They tell us so, time and time again.

And if he or his followers did start killing people, what would you suggest? Do we declare war on Fred Phelps and his followers or on Christianity in general?

I would suggest starting by treating it like a law enforcement problem. But if that approach proved fundamentally inadequate (as it already has with Islamic terrorism), then it might indeed be worthwhile to declare war on his brand of Christianity. But that hasn't happened, and it's bloody unlikely to happen. So what, exactly, is your point?

Upchurch

28th July 2008, 12:00 PM

I would suggest starting by treating it like a law enforcement problem. But if that approach proved fundamentally inadequate (as it already has with Islamic terrorism),
um... how's that now?

Ziggurat

28th July 2008, 12:14 PM

um... how's that now?

This is exactly the sort of response that shows why I do not take you seriously on this issue. It's not simply that you don't agree with my position, you evidently don't even have a passing familiarity with one of the main motivating arguments for why we have a war on terror in the first place. No wonder you can't figure out when it might end, you're clueless about why it even started.

Upchurch

28th July 2008, 12:21 PM

Yeah, why is treating it like a law enforcement problem fundamentally inadequate?

I mean, it worked the last time the World Trade Center was attacked (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing). Those responsible were found, tried and convicted within three years. That's more than what has been accomplished in the last seven this time around.

Ziggurat

28th July 2008, 12:57 PM

Upchurch

28th July 2008, 01:08 PM

Yeah. That was a fantastic success. Thanks for proving my point yet again for why I don't take you seriously.

Let me see if I understand your argument correctly. If law enforcement does not stop a type of crime from happening again, law enforcement is an inadequate method of handling the crime. So, because theft still happens even after law enforcement has been used against it multiple times, law enforcement is a failure?

Is this what you are trying to say?

...or are you trying to appeal to emotion rather than dealing with a rational argument?

Ziggurat

28th July 2008, 01:26 PM

Let me see if I understand your argument correctly. If law enforcement does not stop a type of crime from happening again, law enforcement is an inadequate method of handling the crime. So, because theft still happens even after law enforcement has been used against it multiple times, law enforcement is a failure?

Is this what you are trying to say?

No, you do not correctly understand my argument. You never have. Your counterarguments have always consisted primarily of misunderstanding or misrepresentations of my argument.

I do not expect law enforcement to stop all crime. I do expect it to reduce crime rates. I do not expect counter-terrorism efforts will be able to completely stop terrorism. But counterterrorism efforts in the 1990's not only didn't eliminate terrorism, they didn't even manage it successfully. To point to the 1993 WTC bombing convictions as evidence that such approaches work is simply laughable. Conviction rates are NOT the metric I care about, and the relevant metrics (the number and severity of attacks) do not show that it was any kind of success. Which is why your reference to it was simply laughable.

Upchurch

28th July 2008, 02:50 PM

No, you do not correctly understand my argument. You never have. Your counterarguments have always consisted primarily of misunderstanding or misrepresentations of my argument.
Well, at least I understand the difference between a counterargument and asking for clarification. A picture, picked for its emotional value, is not a clear argument. Even after having clarified somewhat, that picture didn't even come close to adequately describing your argument.

All I have to go on is what you actually say. Please don't assume I can read your mind.

Conviction rates are NOT the metric I care about, and the relevant metrics (the number and severity of attacks) do not show that it was any kind of success.
What are you counting as "attacks" in your metric? How are you measuring "severity"?