Hello, world!

at least now all that bureaucracy stuff is (hopefully) done with... yay!!

will keep my fingers crossed for you for the next month or so though ;)

Is it one of the bureaucracies that know about your website and would be unhappy if you talked about them?

Ok, can I usurp Michael's comments to ask everyone a question?

I've been trying to hang back on forming an opinion about the Haditha inquiry.

But the way the media is handling it makes me squirm. So...

If you know anything about war, soldiers, or even the facts, please give your opinion.

Thanks, Sean

Sean:
I've blogged on Haditha and related issues. Might help:
https://rbonini.wordpress.com/2006/06/08/bush-sr-bush-jr-and-iraq/
https://rbonini.wordpress.com/2006/06/04/the-commander-in-chief/
https://rbonini.wordpress.com/2006/06/03/more-on-the-middle-east/

Hope this helps
Roberto

Sean:

Knowledge about war, soldiers or facts seems to be irrelevant with regard to this issue.

In a nutshell: The US media bends over backwards to give accused people the benefit of the doubt unless they happen to be in the military or are of a non-liberal persuasion.

The Haditha situation fits their presupposition that the war is illegal and US military is only in Iraq to terrorize the population.

Juxtapose that with the treatment given to common criminals or terrorists in the US. Such people are usually characterized as being victims or as having an "understandable" condition or grievance in some way.

Sblafren,

I think that the best thing that one can do with the question of Haditha, is wait and withold judgement. Remember, those soliders are innocent until proven guilty. I find the statements of Murtha et all completely out of line. Even if they have some inside information which they believe confirms that Haditha was a massacre, it is entirely inappropriate to make public statements for political gain.

Of course, the supporters of the soliders fall into the opposite trap. The "Hard Questions About Haditha" that have been bandied about provide no useful information, but only speculation and utterly stupid theories.

In the heat of war, sometimes bad things can happen. If this was one of those times, I feel sorry for the soliders and the victims. War is one of the most powerful tools that exist for reprogramming the basic imprints of a human being. If seems that maintaining sanity in such a unnatural situation may be impossible. I have a friend, a wonderful young woman who joined the millitary well before 9/11... She came home from Iraq several months ago and she is not the same person. She's not even close. From what little she has said, it appears that she had to kill in circumstances that caused her serious mental problems.

I think that the biggest issue we might have in the US, is a complete lack of understanding when it comes to the horror of War. My grandfather fought in WWII and was on the 'cleanup' crew for awhile. His group entered german towns after they hand been bombed into oblivion and taken by infantry. Grandpa said that they basically would load a couple arms/legs/torso/head and dogtags into a box and then move on to the next "dead solider". He also said that the guys could do the job for one day, then spend two days barely able to hold down water. Such actions aren't natural, they aren't soemthing that anyone can truly be trained to deal with. War is a sanity losing event.

Michael, good luck with those bureaucracies.

Not related to anything in particular, but here's an interview with Iranian-Canadian activist Ghazal Omid which I conducted by phone last night. She is a charming, delightful woman, and has a lot of important things to say about current policy in North America.

Roberto - I lean in your direction on Bush and his role as CIC. On the other hand the Devil's Advocate in me reminds me that the role of CIC is a bit of a fiction. I mean, it has been quite rare that our President has also been a capable and ranking military man... Washington, Jefferson, TR, and Eisenhower maybe? But not Lincoln or FDR. I am not sure that it is fair to LITERALLY put the responsibility for either ultimate victory or the explosive actions of one platoon on their heads. It kinda follows the economic picture... I dont really credit the President with either a recession or an expansion of the economy. Ya know?

SirGlub - I agree that our media is responding to this story from their anti-war perspective and it is impairing their jobs.

Ratatosk - I know war is hell, and a person can be ordered or expected to perform some fairly gruesome tasks... but what I really question is the versimulatude of the script here. The story of a unit reacting violently to the death of their commander and executing villagers with double taps to the head and stomach... what I wonder is how other soldiers have responded to the death or wounding of an officer, how often our soldiers kill with execution style hits, and how often they take out infants? Meanwhile, I have read that the insurgents do just this. So, I wonder if this is just too well-framed to be real? I would believe a more choatic "machine gunned the houses ala Platoon the movie" report, but this? And I wonder if the command structure isnt just a little to eager to hang these guys to prove that they are tough on such behavior. I mean even if they didnt do this, and even if it is rediculous even to believe it, the Chiefs might rush them through to jail just to put a better face on all this negative publicity. Now, is all that just too conspiracy theory on my part? I cant tell.

(I should add a caveat that I was up with Michael all night for two nights dealing with "red tape", but I as I have a boy to get to day care I still have to be awake at this time of the morning, so please forgive any stridency or misspellings).

Love your posts--even the fillers! Keep up the good work!
About Haditha: I was delighted to read what the Iraq foreign minister said on the subject. I found this at http://counterterrorismblog.org/june 10
He basically said that whatever happened at Haditha was minor compared to what the terrorists do to civilians regularly.
Wish the media and people like Murtha would think about THAT!

Michael, how about some more of those unpublished photos of places where most of us never get to go? (And I don't mean Portland, Oregon-- I've actually been there, and I loved it).

Hey, screw the politics. Post some photos of that excellent garden of yours.

sblafren,

I don't think that there are nearly enough facts to determine anything about what happened. I've seen lots of people making "best guesses" but these guesses seem to mirror their preexisting position on the war/president/soliders/etc. People who rabidly support the war, have all sorts of reasons and inferences and evidence that the soliders were innocent... people that are anti-war have all sorts of proof that the soliders did do it. The same thing happened with the first reports about Mai-Lai and Abu-Ghraib and the (now falsified) Koran down the toilet.

Perhaps, it was only my niaeve view of the world that caused me to think that most people were reasonable and rational. Perhaps Americans have always simply followed some leader, bleating all the way to the slaughterhouse. Perhaps times have changed and people have become too partisan... perhaps they always have been, I don't know.

At any rate, I'm planning on neither accusing, nor excusing those soliders until they've had a chance for a fair trial.

Anyone else think that the ridiculous they hung themselves as an act of war line will be the death of Guantanimo?

It made it clear how merciless their jailers are. Held without charge indefinitely and they can't imagine that there's any reason that any of the men would give up hope.

Somehow that merciless line was enough to flip my opinion... I occurred to me that however dangerous a few of those men are, we shouldn't hold men indefinitely without trial, "illegal combatants" or no.

I suppose I would feel different if those men had been picked up actually attacking the US on the mainland, but these men were in Afganistan. Somehow the crime of fighting without a uniform half way around the world doesn't make them into the worst sort of war criminals, no matter how brutal the regime they were fighting for.

I’ve been thinking for a long time that the administration will close Guantanimo, (and shuffle the men around, hoping that we all lose track of them) as a ploy to improve the publicity. But now I’m thinking that they’ll actually let all of the men go. After all, they haven’t charged these men with anything.

sblafren:

Thomas Jefferson as a "capable and ranking military man"? Not by a long shot. In fact, Jeff's military judgment and capabilities fell under intense (and justifiable, IIRC) criticism during the time he was governor of Virginia. It's an interesting history.

You should have included U.S. Grant on that list.

Josh Scholar,

Well, what do you expect from a concentration camp? I disagreed with some of the libreal ranting about Git-Mo, but the people who are supporting it scare me as much, if not moreso, than the idiots that would do nothing to defend this nation.

I'd rather have to defend my home from terrorists, than from an overzealous government... and this is my main problem with everything since 9/11. Terrorism isn't designed to kill people. It's purpose is not to destroy enemies physically... it's to invoke terror, to make the enemy feel vulnerable, to make the enemy afraid enough that they will run headlong into their own destruction. I recall the parable of the Lion, who when he is hungry puts it maw close to the ground and roars. Because of the effect of sound waves, some small game animals cannot tell where the danger is and will bolt, without thought from their position, thus becoming dinner.

That's exactly how I see what has happened over the past few years. A roar scared our entire nation into running headlong into a loss of privacy, civil liberties and most importantly, a loss of the American Philosophy that seperated us from other societies of the past.

Win or lose in Iraq, Afganistan wherever... we have still lost something far more important than any battle. We have lost our sense of who we are and what we believe in.

It makes me sad.

ratatosk: "...a loss of the American Philosophy that seperated us from other societies of the past."

What philosophy? (And what societies?)

The little society, one and all, entered into this laudable design and set themselves to exert their different talents. The little piece of ground yielded them a plentiful crop. Cunegund indeed was very ugly, but she became an excellent hand at pastrywork: Pacquette embroidered; the old woman had the care of the linen. There was none, down to Brother Giroflee, but did some service; he was a very good carpenter, and became an honest man. Pangloss used now and then to say to Candide:

"There is a concatenation of all events in the best of possible worlds; for, in short, had you not been kicked out of a fine castle for the love of Miss Cunegund; had you not been put into the Inquisition; had you not traveled over America on foot; had you not run the Baron through the body; and had you not lost all your sheep, which you brought from the good country of El Dorado, you would not have been here to eat preserved citrons and pistachio nuts."

"Excellently observed," answered Candide; "but let us cultivate our garden."

- Voltair, Candide

Filler's better than nothing.

I agree that Guantamano is a disaster.

But differ from previous posters in that I think the United States should have interrogated the militants and then handed them over to the Afghanis.

I'm sure the Afghanis would have treated them much more humanely than the Americans.

Jesus Ratatosk, having allies as dumb as you makes me want to run screaming back to the Republican party, even though I've only voted for a Republican once (GW).

Well, what do you expect from a concentration camp?

Since I probably lost a huge part of my family tree in the actual concentration camps, I'd really like to tell you to f**k *** in letters that take up the entire screen, you a** h***. Guantanimo may well be more than is ethically defensible at this point, but genocide it isn't.

"Terrorism isn't designed to kill people."

Once again, you've completely missed the nature of Islamist terrorism. Look at its attacks in detail and look at Islamist attitudes toward those attacks. Islamist on attacks on civilian targets are designed to kill as many civilians as possible That's precisely what makes it more dangerous than crime, and even potentially more dangerous than conventional war.

The only reason that Islamist terrorists haven't slaughtered millions is that they lack the ability.

Sigh...

Look, enemy soldiers are much more dangerous to society than mere criminals. That's why POWs don't have the rights that criminals defendants do. Not because the military hates justice, but because enemy soldiers pose such a great threat to society that we can't afford to give them all criminal trials and the assumption of innocence.

My point was not that GW doesn't have principle on his side that enemy combatants are much more dangerous than criminals, nor that GW isn't right in principle, that terrorists - enemies that ignore all of the rules of war, are even more dangerous than lawful combatants..

My point was that in this particular case, these particular illegal combatants aren't a threat worse than legal combatants. By now that should be clear, and a higher standard of Justice should be applied in this case.

If we picked up these people as a terrorist cell in New York city - out of uniform and ready to, say, release serin gas in the underground, then I would say that the Guantanimo treatment was perfectly correct. Illegal enemy combatants, and too much of a threat to treat as criminals or legal POWs.

But in that case, the Bush administration should have worked to update our system to be ready for a war against illegal combatants, instead of looking for loopholes by keeping people in Cuba as if Cuba was a battlefield, just avoid courts that are no longer geared to handle war-time justice.

One more point Ratatosk, I hadn't read all the way through your missive before responding because I found your first couple of paragraphs so infurating!

But to make a point about "loss" of rights. You are completely wrong - we haven't lost any more rights in this war than we've lost in any other war.

The moment someone attacks the mainland, you can kiss peace-time freedom goodbye. That's the nature of war - when we face massive or even existencial threats, we have to compromize on freedom. To assert that this isn't the case is to argue that we've been wrong about this for the entire history of the United States (and that every country on the planet has been wrong about this).

If you're going to argue that everyone who has ever faced a war has been wrong, and that only you and your naive friends who've never faced real danger and have never thought deeply about the practical reality of war are right then you better do your homework, better think very deeply and better make an extremely strong arguement...

But you're shallow as tracing paper. I'm thoroughly unimpressed. I may agree with you that Guantanimo is bad for the two reasons I stated above (unwarrented in this case, and a loop-hole, not fixing the system), but your reasoning is a mess.

It's like Lewis Carrol's joke:
Rocks are good food,
Bread is made of rocks
Therefore bread is good food.

Right answer, bullshit reasoning.

Josh, Dude. Mellow. Oommm. Ommmm.

Hey, c'mon. The proprietor said no blog world screaming.

Know what I like? Puppies.

Know what I like? Puppies.

And sleeping kitties.

Personally, I like baby raccoons.

And I also like filler. The material on this site is worth waiting for and it is reassuring to hear occasionally that more is in the works.

I also like baby kittens, which is why you should not look at this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHgZRBrWZ8c&search=alizee

Personally, I like baby raccoons.

Sleeping baby racoons!

Although baby monkeys playing with kittens is right up there too.

Josh, Dude. Mellow. Oommm. Ommmm.--DPU

You the man, DPU.

LOL.

ps--Love the animal pics too. Good save on keeping this thread from drifting away on the sea of unlove.

The monkey and kitty combination wins!

I also like baby kittens, which is why you should not look at this.

Never mind what I wrote, Alizee wins!

You made me think that was going to be kittens being run over or something. What's wrong with you?

Somehow that merciless line was enough to flip my opinion... I occurred to me that however dangerous a few of those men are, we shouldn't hold men indefinitely without trial, "illegal combatants" or no.

Why not? That's exactly what has been done with combatants (legal and illegal) in pretty much every war since we became civilized enough to take prisoners (as opposed to just slaughtering the defeated on the spot).

Prisoners captured in war are not criminals, they are not charged with violating any criminal or civil law- they are merely detained to prevent them from taking up arms again (which some of those released from Guantanamo have done).

In some ways, it is unfortunate that it has been so long since we have fought a real war- too many have forgotten what the laws and customs of war are, and why they are important.

I suppose I would feel different if those men had been picked up actually attacking the US on the mainland, but these men were in Afganistan.

In such a case, the people could be charged with criminal acts, as they would have violated US law in a US jurisdiction. But there is no basis for charging non-US citizens captured in Afghanistan with violating US criminal law.

Somehow the crime of fighting without a uniform half way around the world doesn't make them into the worst sort of war criminals, no matter how brutal the regime they were fighting for.

The 'worst sort of war criminals' are put before a tribunal, convicted, and then either hung or shot.

'Combatants' are merely detained until hostilities cease.

Most of those in Guantanamo are merely combatants, and will be detained until Mullah Omar (for Taliban) or Osama Bin Laden (for al Qaeda) order their followers to lay down their arms and surrender. This is fully compatible with the laws and customs of war.

Of course, the Taliban and al Qaeda's respect for the laws and customs of war is nonexistent, and Omar and Bin Laden know that if they surrender, they will face a trial for war crimes (and very likely execution), so the people in Guantanamo are probably going to stay there until they die of old age.

Howdy, pardner. Jew know yer a Chairborne Ranger?

Josh,

Err, allow me to reply to your comments:

1. A concentration camp is not specifically referring to the Nazi concentration camps. In fact, the term was in use long before WWII. A concentration camp is simply a penal camp outside of the normal legal/penal system for political and millitary prisoners. This is a far cry from a Death Camp, like Auschwitz, Belsen, Dachau etc.

GitMo is a concentration camp, GitMo is not a death camp.

2. In pervious wars, some Presidents have done things which were outside the bounds of the constitution. This includes the suspension of Habeus Corpus and the interrment of the Japanese Americans. In both cases, however, the presidents were wrong. It was determined (after the fact) that neither President had the right to do what they did. The current situation will likely be no different.

3. Terrorism, even the Islamic sort is not about the body count, but about the terror and fear that is caused by their destructive acts. If you refuse to accept this, then quit calling it terrorism and call it warfare.

4. If GitMo prisoners are POW's, then we should treat them as POW's according to the standards we agreed on. If they are not POW's then they should be treated as criminals. This nebulous status, which has been applied to foreigners and citizens alike seems wrong to me.

"If GitMo prisoners are POW's, then we should treat them as POW's according to the standards we agreed on. If they are not POW's then they should be treated as criminals. This nebulous status, which has been applied to foreigners and citizens alike seems wrong to me."--Tosk

How about applying the same solution to the problem that Alexander applied to the Gordion Knot?

No prisoners -- no problems. That is indeed what will eventually happen if there is not some method of keeping these 'criminals' from rejoining the conflict. If you are making the point that they really HAVE TO BE 'criminals' and not just some unfortunate who got swept up in error, then who could not agree. If however you are saying that some piece of terrorist trash must be released because there is not a precise charge that can be 'legally' proven against him, then I must beg to differ.

It's all very well to sit back in the comfort of 'historical perspective' and say that, for example, Lincoln was 'wrong' to suspend habeas corpus during the civil war. Perhaps in 2006 he was. Perhaps. In 1862, I have some very serious doubts. Circumstances really do matter.

After Vallandigham was banished to the South, his friends went to the U.S. Supreme Court in an attempt to convince the justices to hear the case. On February 15, 1864, the Supreme Court announced it would refuse to hear the case, saying that it had no authority to review the proceedings of a martial law court. While the bloody Civil War raged on, the Supreme Court decided it was not the time to challenge the power of General Burnside or his commander-in-chief, Abraham Lincoln.

In a world where it is considered not only 'reasonable' but 'moral' to place a bomb on a bus to blow the innocent( of all shapes, sizes, and ages) into bloody fragments, situations do indeed alter cases.

Since I probably lost a huge part of my family tree in the actual concentration camps, I'd really like to tell you to f**k *** in letters that take up the entire screen, you a** h***.

Josh Scholar,

silly man. Tosk's unwillingness to differentiate between Guantanamo vs gulags and Nazi death camps is a sign of his INTELLECTUAL SUPERIORITY over the rest of us simpletons. "Nuance", shades of gray, etc. They be smarter than us unedumacated murrricans.

dougf,

however you are saying that some piece of terrorist trash must be released because there is not a precise charge that can be 'legally' proven against him, then I must beg to differ.

Nope, I'm not saying that at all. In fact, I wouldn't even mind 'cutting the knot'. If we have Abu-Somebody or other... and he says "I WILL KILL the Infidels" or there's some sort strong evidence that he's a terrorist or Islamic extremist who wishes to kill US citizens... then I say fuck 'em and kill 'em. Holding people indefinately without charges seems very wrong to me. Holding US citizens without charges seems even more worng. I'm not against convicting them, or killing them, or handing them off to other countries that will imprison them. I'm simply against the idea that we can leave people in a concentration camp indefinately.

Carlos,

Yeah, damn me for using words the way in which they're intended. I had no idea that intellectual superiority could be achieved simply by using words in the way in which they were intended. I suppose it's as intellectually dishonest as not accepting the latest buzzwords like "Islamo-fascists".

Tosk's unwillingness to differentiate between Guantanamo vs gulags and Nazi death camps...

Uh, he did, several posts up. Did you miss it?

"I'm simply against the idea that we can leave people in a concentration camp indefinately." --Tosk

Actually me too. Glad to see that you have come around to my position on this. :-)

Take care, and as DPU might say --- Ommmmm.

dougf,

I have always held that my opinions are closer to the conservative than the liberal... I just don;t like the current path of the current conservatives in power.

;-)

Cheers!

}}Somehow that merciless line was enough to flip my opinion... I occurred to me that however dangerous a few of those men are, we shouldn't hold men indefinitely without trial, "illegal combatants" or no.

}Why not? That's exactly what has been done with combatants (legal and illegal) in pretty much every war since we became civilized enough to take prisoners (as opposed to just slaughtering the defeated on the spot).

Rosignol, I guess I'm swayed by the fact that these particular men were picked up in Afghanistan and didn't actually attack the US unprovoked. It seems to me that just having been members of Al Qa’eda in Afghanistan (or even just suspected members) isn't quite reason enough to believe that they're terrorists or even a danger to us.

Remember that Al Qa’eda was funding the Afghani army. Al Qa’eda had status in Afghani society.

}}I suppose I would feel different if those men had been picked up actually attacking the US on the mainland, but these men were in Afghanistan.

}In such a case, the people could be charged with criminal acts, as they would have violated US law in a US jurisdiction. But there is no basis for charging non-US citizens captured in Afghanistan with violating US criminal law.

No, in that case they'd have been guilty of making war on the United States.

They'd also have been guilty of breaking the conventions of war, but that's a different matter. I suppose they might be tried as war criminals, but they're POWs in any case.

The fact that they would be combatants means that you can't afford to give them all of the rights that accused criminals enjoy, and you can't afford to use the same high standard for evidence etc. The reasons should be obvious.

The Bush administration has claimed we're not bound by the Geneva convention in the case of combatants that are guilty breaking the conventions of war themselves, and that's legally true, though they're still POWs.

However, not every violation of the conventions of war should be considered equally serious. Some prisoners have done things which would prove them to be extremely dangerous while others may be little or no danger at all.

RatatoskTerrorism, even the Islamic sort is not about the body count, but about the terror and fear that is caused by their destructive acts.

No, you've never understood Islamic terrorism at all. It's not often related to more rational forms of terrorism. It's a mystical act done to fit into a framework of belief, not to have rationally understandable effects on society, except to the extent that it's practitioners have a faulty model of society based on doctrinal nonsense.

For the most part Islamists kill in order to please God, to prove their worthiness, to win God's blessing, and they imagine, his power. They kill in order to affect the feelings among the coreligionists who they consider like them - much much less so to affect their victims.

To the extent that they have a "rational" plan, it's closer to Charles Manson's theory. Not that the infidel will surrender, but that the Uhmma will rise up and destroy us.

Mostly they don't expect us to surrender - rather they expect us to die when killed and that's enough.

One day, they believe that the end time will come, and if they're killing us at that time, then they hope that they've proved themselves worthy.

War may be politics by other means. But that doesn't apply to most Islamist terrorism.

Islamist terrorism is religion by other mean.

>>>>I suppose it's as intellectually dishonest as not accepting the latest buzzwords like "Islamo-fascists".

What would you have us call them. Regular ol muslims? Dissafected yutes? freedom fighters? minutemen? This should be good.

They certainly aren't "regular ol' Muslims." If regular Muslims were anything like that crowd, I would not be alive.

In some places Islamist terror seems to have a goal of ethnic cleansing though. In Kashmir, for instance attacks seem aimed at driving away Hindu populations. I do think think that ethnic cleansing is actually the only result that will satisfy the Palestinian terrorists.

But in these cases, ethnic hatred has melded with religion. These terrorists really believe that God demands ethnic cleansing.

What would you have us call them. Regular ol muslims? Dissafected yutes? freedom fighters? minutemen? This should be good.
Posted by Carlos at June 15, 2006 12:24 PM

They certainly aren't "regular ol' Muslims." If regular Muslims were anything like that crowd, I would not be alive.
Posted by Michael J. Totten at June 15, 2006 12:35 PM

Hrmmm, how about Islamic Terrorists, Islamic Nihilists, Islamic Jihadists, Islamic Extremists, or "Al-Queada and Friends" which might make for an interesting Children's Show (though I'd hate to see what they'd do to Mr. McFeely)

The problem with the term "fascist" appears to me as the same problem that appears when moonbats call GW a Nazi... the word doesn't fit. Fascism is identified by strong nationalism, a powerful cnetralized government (with fingers in business) run by a dictator and heavy controls on social and economic policies/enforcement. This does not describe the mad arabs who are blowing up cars, buildings, planes etc.

Bush isn't a Nazi, Islamic Terrorists are not fascist. These labels are used to make the enemy evil. With these fuckers we don't need false labels, the real ones should be bad enough.

Tosk,

Sure, I guess. So it must really bother you when people call the U.S. a "democracy", instead of a Republic. Does that get on your nerves too.

My point being, who cares.

My point being, who cares.

Then you're okay with those that call Bush a fascist?

Actually fascist works pretty well considering that all of these Islamic extremists want to see humanity oppressed by a completely totalitarian theocratic government.

It's probably true that to the extent that they ever bother to have economic views, they're not capitalist and much more left than Musolini.
But powerful centralized government - check
run by a dictator - check
heavy controls on social and economic policies - check
heavy handed enforcement - check

I think you're stretching to claim that the word is inappropriate, given the context of the word "Islamist".

Then you're okay with those that call Bush a fascist?

Not at all, and I'll tell you why. Because it has no basis in reality. It would be like calling a bird a dog, or a car a turnip.

That's not true when calling the U.S. a "democracy", nor when referring to islamic terrorists as "islamofascist." Though not technically accurate, they are not so far from the truth.

But who cares? I still don't see why Tosk thinks not using this "buzzword" makes him any smarter than the rest of us peasants.

I still don't see why Tosk thinks not using this "buzzword" makes him any smarter than the rest of us peasants.

And I don't see where Tosk says that he is smarter. Did you add that bit?

Well, if he claims to not "accept" the "latest buzzwords" like the rest of us peasants do, he certainly implied it. lol!

Well, if he claims to not "accept" the "latest buzzwords" like the rest of us peasants do, he certainly implied it.

Oh, you just thought that he was saying that he was smarter than you.

Possibly. Plus, it's just fun to hassle him. lol!

}Why not? That's exactly what has been done with combatants (legal and illegal) in pretty much every war since we became civilized enough to take prisoners (as opposed to just slaughtering the defeated on the spot).

Rosignol, I guess I'm swayed by the fact that these particular men were picked up in Afghanistan and didn't actually attack the US unprovoked.

In case you've forgotten, it was the Taliban (aka the de facto government of Afghanistan) that provoked the US, by hosting the guy who headed the organization that hijacked several jetliners in the US and then crashed them into buildings, and then refusing to hand him over.

That makes anyone bearing arms on behalf of the Taliban fair game, it does not matter in the slightest if those specific individuals provoked us. They stand with the Taliban or al Qaeda, that makes them legitimate targets.

It seems to me that just having been members of Al Qa’eda in Afghanistan (or even just suspected members) isn't quite reason enough to believe that they're terrorists or even a danger to us.

In that case, you're a f---ing idiot.

Thank you for making that clear before I wasted any more of my time talking to you.

Good day.

Carlos,

Hassle away, its par for the course when one is a Squirrel of Discord. ;-)

My problem with using the wrong word, is that its simply wrong. A democratic republic is similar to a democracy, though if we used the right word consistantly (and taught people what it meant), then people may have been less surprised when various presidents have lost the popular vote and still won the job.

This demonstrates the problem I have with using incorrect terms/labels/words when trying to discuss something. Islamo-Fascist is a term for "the enemy", it doesn't provide us with useful information about these people and their goals. (Jihadist, Extremist etc all provide better ideas of the apparent goals of the groups). As Mark Twian once recommended ... a good writer should "Use the right word, not its second cousin" and " Say what he is proposing to say, not merely come near it."

In that case, you're a f---ing idiot.

Thank you for making that clear before I wasted any more of my time talking to you.

That's not arguing, that's sputtering because you can't think of an arguement to back your opinion.

Remember, these people joined Al Qa'eda back when Qa'eda was paying the salary of the Afghani army and back before they became famous for attacking the United States.

There's a case to be made for saying that these men should be treated prisoners of war for the Afganistan conflict, but not for the wider war with Al Qa'eda. In that case they should be turned over to the government of Afganistan.

And maybe it will mollify Rosignol to say that I'm sure that there are a few of those prisoners who we know are dangerous who we shouldn't release.

Islamic Nihilists

In fact "islamo-fascists" is closer to the truth than that, because these jihadis are the exact polar opposite of nihilists. If nihilism is the repudiationg of moral or religious value, then jihadis are anti-nihilists in the extreme.

The terms "fascism" and "democracy" have connotations beyond just the strict dictionary definition. In the minds of peasants all over the world democracy connotes freedom and individualism, even a free market system. While fascism connotes repression and tyrrany, and the obliteration of the individual. The values of fascism are well represented by the islamo-terrorists. So calling them "islamo-fascists" isn't so far off the mark. It's more of a fraternal twin than a second cousin.

Josh - In February 1998 there was a joint declaration, signed by Bin Laden and the leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad among others, which declared war on the American population, military and civilian.

If a person was a member of al Qaeda from that time on, they would be an enemy combatant.

Mary, yes but certainly you have enough empathy to be able to see that an Afghani (or even Pakistani) who joined Al Qa'eda in 1999 would be much more likely to be passionate about Al Qaeda's actions in Afghanistan (and possibly thinking about his own status in Afghani society) than about a war with America that probably felt like an abtract thing to most foot soldiers.

Besides, many of those people probably joined Al Qaeda before 1998.

Islamo-Fascist is a term for "the enemy", it doesn't provide us with useful information about these people and their goals.

No, it's not just a term for "the enemy"

And yes it does provide useful information.'

I think you're just trying to avoid words that admit that some groups are our enemies. That's not honesty, it's just manipulative in the opposite direction.

Like Hitchens, I prefer the term "Islamic Fascism" or "Islamist Fascism"

Carlos, I think the use of the word "nhilistic" comes about because the people we're talking about don't place any value on life, and that's usually at the core of our moral beliefs.

In fact it's hard to find even a thread of consistant moral beliefs in militant Islam... Like Christianity, Islam takes its moral beliefs from the authority of God and his supposed messengers, but unlike Christianity and entirely unlike Judaism, it does not make much of an attempt (and certainly no successful attempt) to deduce consistant moral principles from its sources.

Mary, yes but certainly you have enough empathy to be able to see that an Afghani (or even Pakistani) who joined Al Qa'eda in 1999 would be much more likely to be passionate about Al Qaeda's actions in Afghanistan..

I have no 'empathy' for them. Can you empathize with the average Taliban? Visualize a worldwide caliphate, bomb a buddah, beat a broad, feel Allah's pleasure. Ommm..

I do have empathy for the people who are likely to die at the hands of al Qaeda. Don't you?

Mary don't assume that I can't distinguish between understanding and mbunderstanding as Norman Geras calls it.

But I get a feeling that you didn't pay attention to any of my arguments to date - you just struck a pose against your enemy, and thought that was sufficient.

Let me pose the dilemma this way. Do you believe that every person who ever joined Al Qa'eda, no matter what year (even from before Bin Ladin was stupid enough to attack the US), no matter what context, no matter what country, should be held as a prisoner indefinitely?

If so do you also think such people should be held indefinitely, even if there isn't sufficient evidence to hold a trial?

Let me pose the dilemma this way. Do you believe that every person who ever joined Al Qa'eda, no matter what year (even from before Bin Ladin was stupid enough to attack the US), no matter what context, no matter what country, should be held as a prisoner indefinitely?

I think they should be shot or hung. That's how we fought this war years ago, and it's how we won.

Ahh, the "treat them like pirates" arguement.

Still, you still haven't addressed my point, that since Al Qaeda was an official part of the Afghani government, most Al Qa'eda members in Afghanistan weren't playing the role of terrorist nor of "pirate".

The injustice in treating these early member of Al Qa'eda this way is this; they've never really been given the choice of taking part in the new democratic Afghanistan. They were swept up at the beginning of a war that some of them might have prefered not to participate in.

I understand, and don't even disagree with all of the poses and stances you're striking Mary... But all of your strutting is besides the point. You can't answer my ethical questions by hoping to shock me into a stupid arguement.

Yes, I agree that killing current members of Al Qa'eda is a good idea. But that doesn't answer the question of what we should do with some 750 prisoners captured in Afghanistan, many swept up by Northern Alliance forces with little information on them, and even some doubt that they were all members of Al Qa'eda.

Since Gitmo is a topic:

Was there any reason to take these people prisoner to begin with? Wouldn't it make more sense just to kill them on the spot?

Well Mike, I'm horrified that you think the Afghanis shouldn't have taken prisoners. That's no way to run a war.

In any case I'm sure we wanted those in the hope that we'd get a little intelligence from them.

I understand, and don't even disagree with all of the poses and stances you're striking Mary... But all of your strutting is besides the point. You can't answer my ethical questions by hoping to shock me into a stupid arguement.

You're giving me too much credit - I'm not trying to shock anyone, I just didn't have enough time for a long argument, so I just gave a link. No Machiavellian plotting was involved.

The 'strutting' is a presentation of facts. We're at war with al Qaeda. They're the enemy, and according to the rules of the Geneva convention, if they're not wearing uniforms, we are not required to take them prisoner. We are supposed to shoot them on sight. If we treat them as POW's, we're allowed to hold them as prisoners indefinitely. Those are the rules.

The injustice in treating these early member of Al Qa'eda this way is this; they've never really been given the choice of taking part in the new democratic Afghanistan. They were swept up at the beginning of a war that some of them might have prefered not to participate in.

Again, there is no injustice involved. We are following the rules of war, and we are therefore just.

Yes, we are hurting our enemy. Good for us. That's the point of this whole endeavor.

The Taliban and al Qaeda are still slaughtering Afghans and Americans in 'the new democratic Afghanistan.' Sending more al Qaeda back so they can rejoin the war would be an example of unfathomable strategic idiocy.

Again, we're at war with al Qa'eda. They're the enemy in a time of war, and we're supposed to, you know, kill them. And they're supposed to try to kill us, which is exactly what they plan to do, whether they were 'swept up' or not.

Yes, Guantanamo is a PR disaster, but if we close the prison, what do we do with the prisoners? We can empathize with the enemy and let them run wild and free or we can empathize with our family, neighbors and friends - the people al Qa'eda wants to kill, we can follow the rules of war and continue to imprison them. I choose to empathize with family neighbors and friends.

Thousands of Germans were 'swept up' into fighting during WWII, and the entire Japanese population was 'swept up' too. Still, they tried to kill us and we tried to kill them. Our war against piracy was the same thing. They tried to kill and enslave us. We tried to kill them. We did a better job and we won.

War is a zero-sum thing. You don't win a war against an intractable enemy by 'winning their hearts and minds'. The whole idea that we should win Islamist hearts and minds was formed by Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Their goal wasn't to defeat the Islamists, it was to work with them and to encourage their strength.

The 'win hearts and minds' strategy was never meant to win a war against terrorism, it was created to encourage it to grow.

How about if we take the prisoners caught in the fighting in Afghanistan and released them to the custody of the Afghanis? It's their culture and they should be slightly better able to determine who is a threat to them and who isn't. Besides we both agree that more of these people are a danger to Afghanistan that to us.

It's their culture and they should be slightly better able to determine who is a threat to them and who isn't. Besides we both agree that more of these people are a danger to Afghanistan that to us.

No, history indicates that al Qaeda in Afghanistan is a danger to everyone, and we are talking about releasing members of al Qaeda. Can you think of one good military/strategic reason why this would be a good idea?

I've been outlining ethical/moral reasons why holding prisoners from the Afghani war forever is a bad idea.

As for "one good military/strategic reason", being ethical does have some strategic payoffs, like not losing public support, not losing allies and not being hated by those who would otherwise be neutral.

Mr. Totten just linked to an interview where Paul Berman argued that we can't win this war without winning a war of ideas. That implies that it really matters what we're seen as standing for.

And after all my main point is that I'm talking about prisoners who are prisoners from the Afghani war and not, as far as we know, terrorists.

Let me ask you this, how long do you think it's politically feasible to hold on to these people?

Next time a Democrat is elected to the presidency, even a relative hawk like Hillary Clinton, I expect to see the Gitmo prison shut down and more than half of the prisoners released.

I wonder if McCain wouldn't do the same. He probably would, I think.

Do these people have no arguement?

As for "one good military/strategic reason", being ethical does have some strategic payoffs, like not losing public support, not losing allies and not being hated by those who would otherwise be neutral

Yes, and it is ethical to hold these prisoners. Unless you're arguing that our laws are unethical?

I agree that taking these men as prisoners was a public relations disaster. Now we're stuck with them. However, this should teach us something about how to wage this war in the future.

But are you saying that we should release potential mass murderers into the general population because we want people to like us? That kind of thinking is a strategic, military and marketing disaster.

Khomeini called Carter's 'hearts and minds' strategy 'behaving like a headless chicken'. That may be a hint that this strategy doesn't make the Muslim world love us. The hearts and minds strategy loses all of my respect, I can only imagine the contempt it generates in an honor culture. As I pointed out before, this strategy was meant to increase the influence of Islamism, and that's exactly what it's doing now.

Mr. Totten just linked to an interview where Paul Berman argued that we can't win this war without winning a war of ideas. That implies that it really matters what we're seen as standing for.

Berman also said "The possibility of crushing these movements by force does not exist". He's wrong. The anti-piracy actions we took were very effective at crushing a similar movement by force. Would we have won that war if we had many 'forceful debates' with potential pirates? Would we have won WWII through forceful debates?

Berman also says "Totalitarian movements are fundamentally ideological movements – they are driven by ideas" but MJT has often pointed out that totalitarian states rule by force and an extensive spy network. You can't reform a society until you get rid of the bad guys, and the sad fact is, the bad guys have to be removed by force, either military or economic.

We haven't gotten rid of all of them yet, but we are making progress. Including Zarqawi, we've gotten rid of more than 40% of the terrorists in Iraq. You may not appreciate that, but the Iraqis do. Like the Afghans, they hate the insurgents more than they hate us. Like the Afghans, they let dead insurgents rot in the street (or get eaten by dogs) Do you think they would be happy if we started releasing prisoners?

Well I feel like Tevye from "Fiddler on the Roof". You're right that pirates can be crushed, and that totalitarian states use force to maintain power, and Berman is right that our enemies gain too much of much of their power (and too many recruits and too much public support in some countries) from people believing in their ideas and world-view, and that we simply can't end this movement without winning minds.

Tevye: "He's right."
Avram: "He's right, and HE'S right? They can't both be right..."
Tevye: "You know, you are also right."

But I think your position on these prisoners is extreme, for the reasons I said above. Maybe you're right about them... but I'm not convinced 100% one way or the other on that one.

Unless you're arguing that our laws are unethical?

Heaven forbid that anyone ever imply that a law is being applied in an inethical way. Is that even possible?

Dumb arguement you made there. You probably wish you could take it back.

Dumb arguement you made there. You probably wish you could take it back

Speaking of wishing you could take things back - in my first draft response, I called one of your arguments dumb, but I deleted that bit because it was undeservedly unkind.

Speaking of 'winning minds', here's one reason why one Muslim decided to join the jihad against Britain. He wants to destroy Britain because of a Burger King graphic that resembles the Arabic word for Allah.

We showed this to Muslim customers in Burger King and they were disgusted. We went to the manager. “Is this true?” we asked. He said, “Yes, my brother. It is true.” I spoke to two other Pakistani Muslim guys there and they said, “We are sickened.” They were cussing Burger King.

I feel humiliated. I want to humiliate the person who did this to an extent that he never works again. I’m going to make him see that it was the biggest mistake in his life. I want to meet the guy. I want to ask the guy, “What does this mean to you?” then never see his face again.

In a way, I’m glad he did this to me. It has opened my eyes. The fear of God, the love of God, the love of not letting anyone disrespect God. Even though it means nothing to some people and may mean nothing to some Muslims in this country, this is my jihad. I’m not going to rest until I find the person who is responsible. I’m going to bring this country down.

Exactly how would you change this person's mind? How would you reform him? What makes him do the things he does?

Personally, I find his reasoning to be unfathomable. I think Paul Berman would too. If we say that we can't win the war without winning minds that are 'humiliated' by a Burger King graphic, we can't win the war.

Have you ever read any interviews with the prisoners we're talking about? Have you ever listened to the things they say? I think if you did, you'd be better able to make up your mind about them.

I agree with you that there's something revealing and and fascinating about that particular quote. I came across that quote many months after first reading about this case and it changed my opinion of the ice cream Jihad...

A joke and post I had written about it no longer seemed funny because this man wasn't just offended and puffed up - he was seething with hatred.

I think I can go further than you and understand what makes the ice cream Jihadi... Unfortunately you have to start with extreme child abuse.

The humiliation that man feels now is the humiliation that was forced upon him as a child, and used to shape his religious experiences... It wasn't merely that he wasn't allowed to question or joke about religion - it's that he faced beatings as small child for asking questions or even just as a matter of course in his education. And he understood, as he grew, that the threat only increased. As an adult or near adult he'd be killed for saying the wrong thing.

The humiliation is real. Muslims who were raised or educated in a certain way come pre-humiliated. They only need to see someone who isn't being forced and crushed into acting as they have been forced and crushed to trigger a connection to their humiliation.

I have some experience with that sort of thing. I had a stepfather who'd been beaten and abused as a young child (his mother described his father beating him into unconsciousness). I had only to act in ways or hold attitudes that he could not have to trigger his own rage. If he had acted as I did, he wouldn't have survived his childhood. Luckily, he managed to avoid taking that rage out on me directly (though he punched a hole through the counter top).

Perhaps you could end 90% of Jihad if you could stop Muslims and Muslim teachers from beating or otherwise abusing or threatening children.

By the way, if you read Irshad Manji, you may, as I did, come away with the impression that she learned her more open attitude toward religion through very early contact with Baptists (she went to a Baptist kindergarden, until her parents realized their mistake). I'm not used to thinking of Baptists as open and modern, but compared with Muslims they certainly are. They may not welcome arguements and having their faith questioned by adults, but they certainly don't respond to the innocent questions of a young child with rage - rather they encourage the sort of questions that a young child can have. Muslim education is very harsh from the start.

Actually in this case I may have projected the wrong explanation. In the case of the ice cream Jihadi, perhaps the most obvious thing about what he said was his assumption that the swirl symbol was a deliberate conspiracy. Certainly even normal people are likely to get angry when they believe that there's a conspiracy against them... So the belief in the world wide conspiracy of the infidels against God and his people is the primary cause here.

Perhaps you could end 90% of Jihad if you could stop Muslims and Muslim teachers from beating or otherwise abusing or threatening children.

An Indian/Malaysian we spoke to while visiting Panang said basically the same thing. He had a long discussion with us about how Muslims treat their children, and he blamed the 'troubles' on that mistreatment.

When I wrote a post about Hirsi Ali, a Muslim woman wrote to say that a lot of Muslims agree with Hirsi, but they're afraid to speak up because of the credible threat of death for 'apostasy'. Irshad has also gotten death threats. When people like that speak up, and when we see the reaction, we have to wonder if some Muslim sects are as carefully patrolled as Libya's police state. Even in the West, Muslims face very real threats for speaking out.

澳大利亚
澳大利亚移民
澳洲移民

压力开关
压力变送器
压力传感器
流量开关
流量计
液位计
液位开关
温湿度记录仪
风速仪
差压开关
可燃气体检测仪

过滤器
强磁水处理器
自清洗过滤器
自动反冲洗过滤器

澳大利亚
澳大利亚移民
澳洲移民

网站优化
Printer parts

wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
runescape power leveling
runescape powerleveling
runescape power level
runescape money
runescape gold
buy runescape gold
buy runescape money
runescape items
runescape accounts
buy runescape accounts
buy runescape items
cheap runescape money
cheap runescape gold
runescape gp
dofus kamas
dofus kamas
Achat DOFUS Kamas
Guild Wars Gold
buy Guild Wars Gold
GW Gold
陈楚生

runescape money runescape gold runescape money runescape gold wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft Power Leveling Warcraft PowerLeveling buy runescape gold buy runescape money runescape items runescape gold runescape money runescape accounts runescape gp dofus kamas buy dofus kamas Guild Wars Gold buy Guild Wars Gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold runescape money runescape power leveling runescape money runescape gold dofus kamas cheap runescape money cheap runescape gold Hellgate Palladium Hellgate London Palladium Hellgate money Tabula Rasa gold tabula rasa money lotro gold buy lotro gold Tabula Rasa Credit Tabula Rasa Credits Hellgate gold Hellgate London gold dofus kamas buy dofus kamas 血管瘤 肝血管瘤 音乐剧 北京富码电视 富码电视 富码电视台 7天酒店 7天连锁酒店 7天连锁 自清洗过滤器 过滤器 压力开关 压力传感器 流量开关 流量计 液位计 液位开关 温湿度记录仪 风速仪 可燃气体检测仪 wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft PowerLeveling Warcraft Power Leveling World of Warcraft PowerLeveling World of Warcraft Power Leveling runescape power leveling runescape powerleveling
runescape money runescape gold wow power leveling 棕榈树
eve isk
eve online isk
eve isk
eve online isk

上海网站优化
上海网站建设
复印机租赁
硼氢化钠
消防泵
真空泵
同步轮
化工试剂
化学试剂
大众搬场
铁艺
制服
攻丝机
流量计
保洁
上海公兴搬场
上海保洁

http://www.ce-r.cn
http://www.jx-net.net
http://www.shjxwl.cn
http://www.oameibang.com
http://www.kuanhao.cn
http://www.chinasongjin.com
http://www.shlutong.com.cn
http://www.pujiangvacuum.com
http://www.longzhaobelt.com
http://www.ce-r.cn
http://www.cesupp.com
http://www.dzbc114.com
http://www.china-glare.com
http://www.shgeya.cn
http://www.kangking.com
http://www.changen.net
http://www.shanghaizhenan.com
http://www.56771242.com.cn
http://www.shgx88.cn
http://www.66513369.com.cn

wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
World of Warcraft Gold
World of Warcraft Gold
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling

wow power leveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
power leveling
power leveling
power leveling
power leveling
rolex replica
rolex
replica rolex
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
power leveling
power leveling
power leveling
power leveling

中高年　転職
アルバイト　求人情報
ブライダル
転職
競馬
FX
ダイエット
お見合い
競馬　予想
新築マンション
新築マンション
合宿免許
人材派遣
東京都　墓地
派遣会社
人材派遣
パチンコ　攻略
おなら

翻译公司
翻译公司
机票
性病
性病
尖锐湿疣
尖锐湿疣
蜗轮减速机
减速机
齿轮减速机
丝杆升降机
租房
租房
北京租房
北京租房
搬家公司
北京搬家
北京搬家公司
上海机票
上海机票
上海打折机票
上海打折机票
上海特价机票

上海特价机票
搬家公司
搬家公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
窃听器
窃听器
手机窃听器
手机窃听器
代孕
试管婴儿
捐卵
代孕
试管婴儿
试管婴儿
捐卵
捐卵
代孕
试管婴儿