and to say that you're not a soldier until you do is silly. And yes, I myself wore the uniform of the US Navy.
And, sure, many of them aren't fighting for a particular government, rather for political parties (Lebanon), or for a religious cause.
I'm currently reading Michael Baigent's newest book "Racing Towards Armageddon" and he talks about the way that Islamic Fundamentalists (as well as the Christian and Jewish ones) are anxiously awaiting and expecting The End real soon now, expecting their particular Messiah (Mahdi in the case of the Muslims), and that the fight they are in is against the Forces of Darkness.
Like you said, "diagnosing not defending" here.
If you fully believed that the Cause you were fighting for was not just Just, by Holy as well and that you were literally fighting the soldiers of Satan (or whatever "Dark One" you are no less a soldier than those who were an official uniform. Your Cause--your Faith--is your Uniform.
And BTW, you really should see Clerks. GREAT EFFIN MOVIE!!
Frankly, even calling them, "terrorists" is generous:
Terrorists, as you rightly note, do what they do because they think it's the only way to resist outside domination and force their foe to the bargaining table. Not defending, just diagnosing. Yet the Mid-Eastern religious radical terrorist isn't interested in forcing negotiations he can't encourage through traditional military means; when given the choice between more bloodshed on both sides or negotiation he routinely chooses the former. Yes, there's a political element here, but that's not a rationale, it's a rationalization, like the pot dealer who claims he's "fighting The Man" because admitting he likes to get high with his friends is somewhat less noble.
We're not treating them differently than Axis soldiers because they're different soldiers, but because they aren't soldiers at all, and calling them such, impugns the name of everyone in any nation who ever put on a uniform, picked up a gun and walked out into the open to risk his life for his country, his people and his ideals. That's the problem with Ronald Reagans "freedom fighter" being George W. Bushs "terrorist" and maybe what the latter meant when he said all of his predecessors were to blame for the current situation because their softness on terrorism encouraged it (yes, he actually said that, when he was more popular than now. )
Also: Never seen Clerks; I wouldn't really even know wtf it was about if I hadn't read the Wikipedia article last night.
And, sure, many of them aren't fighting for a particular government, rather for political parties (Lebanon), or for a religious cause.
I'm currently reading Michael Baigent's newest book "Racing Towards Armageddon" and he talks about the way that Islamic Fundamentalists (as well as the Christian and Jewish ones) are anxiously awaiting and expecting The End real soon now, expecting their particular Messiah (Mahdi in the case of the Muslims), and that the fight they are in is against the Forces of Darkness.
Like you said, "diagnosing not defending" here.
If you fully believed that the Cause you were fighting for was not just Just, by Holy as well and that you were literally fighting the soldiers of Satan (or whatever "Dark One" you are no less a soldier than those who were an official uniform. Your Cause--your Faith--is your Uniform.
And BTW, you really should see Clerks. GREAT EFFIN MOVIE!!
I have issue with the whole concept of trying "enemy combatants."
This just doesn't make sense to me.
What I am referring to is the fact that we are trying combatants that are captured on the battlefield fighting against our troops. Go ahead, capture them. But try them in court?
Seriously? Did why try all the soldiers we caught during WWII? Did we put the rankers on trial for fighting against us? No we didn't. As a matter of fact, many of those (surviving) German and Italian and Japanese soldiers are free. Free to travel to and in the US even.
But the fighters we capture in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't treated the same way. Why? Probably because they are Third Worlders, muslims and brown. The whole concept of trying an enemy combatant is just ridiculous.
And don't even try throwing out the word "terrorist." That word is a quagmire if you ask me. There are so many definitions of that word it is beyond reason.
One group will say a terrorist is somebody who uses terror as a political tool (hmmm...sounds like the Bush/Cheney administration always talking about "the smoking gun coming in the form of a mushroom cloud" ). Another will claim it is a person who takes violent actions against "soft targets" (non-military). I can buy that. That makes the people who bomb buses and cafes terrorists. As well as the people who hijack airplanes. But that definition also catches our own military: we sure as hell blew up plenty of soft targets when we bombed the shit out of Baghdad. And that definition would also catch the Israeli Defense Force (who have bombed residential neighbourhoods all over Lebanon, not to mention all the refugee camps the IDF has bombed). But that definition doesn't make the people who bombed the Marine barracks in Beirut back in 1983 terrorists: that is a military target. As is the Pentagon; thats another legitimate military target during a war (and we are definitely at war). That definition wouldn't make that whack-job Army officer down at Fort Hood a terrorist. Some try to define a terrorist as a militant who does not belong to a national army. Well then, the Reagan Administration supported terrorists (ie: the Contras) back in the 80s, and one of the lead guys in that treason is a celebrated hero to the right wing nuts in American (talking about the terrorist supporter known as Col. Oliver North).
So terrorist is a bad word to try to use. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. And the same can be said of "insurgents." Hell, America's heroes in the Revolutionary War were frakking insurgents! And the British army sure as hell could have defined out troops (many of whom were NOT uniformed soldiers for a long time) as terrorists when they would hide behind trees sniping red-coat officers. That was a major violation at the time of the "rules of war."
I do not agree with the motives nor the methods of al-Qaeda or the Taliban, but I understand them. They are fighting an overwhelming force the only way they have. That was part of the point that the producers of Battlestar Galactica was making during the whole storyline revolving around New Caprica. And they have a very real fear that American and the rest of the West is EVIL. I don't think we are, but from their standpoint, that view is understandable. Just as I don't think bin-Laden is EVIL, I do think he is COMPLETELY WRONG. He is doing what he sees as necesarry to protect his faith and serve his god they (wrong-headed) way he believes.
This is part of why the whole idea of a "Global War on Terror" is both stupid and un-winnable. Not to mention the fact that for every single person we kill in this "war" we only recruit MORE "terrorists" from their surviving friends and families. Our "War on Terror" makes more "terrorists."
Now, for another way to show you the fallacy of the term terrorist, I direct you to an amazing op/ed piece I read a few years ago. (Sure, it is about a piece of fictional work, but I think it might make you think a bit). Follow the link below to a thread I just started on this board.
This just doesn't make sense to me.
What I am referring to is the fact that we are trying combatants that are captured on the battlefield fighting against our troops. Go ahead, capture them. But try them in court?
Seriously? Did why try all the soldiers we caught during WWII? Did we put the rankers on trial for fighting against us? No we didn't. As a matter of fact, many of those (surviving) German and Italian and Japanese soldiers are free. Free to travel to and in the US even.
But the fighters we capture in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't treated the same way. Why? Probably because they are Third Worlders, muslims and brown. The whole concept of trying an enemy combatant is just ridiculous.
And don't even try throwing out the word "terrorist." That word is a quagmire if you ask me. There are so many definitions of that word it is beyond reason.
One group will say a terrorist is somebody who uses terror as a political tool (hmmm...sounds like the Bush/Cheney administration always talking about "the smoking gun coming in the form of a mushroom cloud" ). Another will claim it is a person who takes violent actions against "soft targets" (non-military). I can buy that. That makes the people who bomb buses and cafes terrorists. As well as the people who hijack airplanes. But that definition also catches our own military: we sure as hell blew up plenty of soft targets when we bombed the shit out of Baghdad. And that definition would also catch the Israeli Defense Force (who have bombed residential neighbourhoods all over Lebanon, not to mention all the refugee camps the IDF has bombed). But that definition doesn't make the people who bombed the Marine barracks in Beirut back in 1983 terrorists: that is a military target. As is the Pentagon; thats another legitimate military target during a war (and we are definitely at war). That definition wouldn't make that whack-job Army officer down at Fort Hood a terrorist. Some try to define a terrorist as a militant who does not belong to a national army. Well then, the Reagan Administration supported terrorists (ie: the Contras) back in the 80s, and one of the lead guys in that treason is a celebrated hero to the right wing nuts in American (talking about the terrorist supporter known as Col. Oliver North).
So terrorist is a bad word to try to use. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. And the same can be said of "insurgents." Hell, America's heroes in the Revolutionary War were frakking insurgents! And the British army sure as hell could have defined out troops (many of whom were NOT uniformed soldiers for a long time) as terrorists when they would hide behind trees sniping red-coat officers. That was a major violation at the time of the "rules of war."
I do not agree with the motives nor the methods of al-Qaeda or the Taliban, but I understand them. They are fighting an overwhelming force the only way they have. That was part of the point that the producers of Battlestar Galactica was making during the whole storyline revolving around New Caprica. And they have a very real fear that American and the rest of the West is EVIL. I don't think we are, but from their standpoint, that view is understandable. Just as I don't think bin-Laden is EVIL, I do think he is COMPLETELY WRONG. He is doing what he sees as necesarry to protect his faith and serve his god they (wrong-headed) way he believes.
This is part of why the whole idea of a "Global War on Terror" is both stupid and un-winnable. Not to mention the fact that for every single person we kill in this "war" we only recruit MORE "terrorists" from their surviving friends and families. Our "War on Terror" makes more "terrorists."
Now, for another way to show you the fallacy of the term terrorist, I direct you to an amazing op/ed piece I read a few years ago. (Sure, it is about a piece of fictional work, but I think it might make you think a bit). Follow the link below to a thread I just started on this board.
Frankly, even calling them, "terrorists" is generous:
Terrorists, as you rightly note, do what they do because they think it's the only way to resist outside domination and force their foe to the bargaining table. Not defending, just diagnosing. Yet the Mid-Eastern religious radical terrorist isn't interested in forcing negotiations he can't encourage through traditional military means; when given the choice between more bloodshed on both sides or negotiation he routinely chooses the former. Yes, there's a political element here, but that's not a rationale, it's a rationalization, like the pot dealer who claims he's "fighting The Man" because admitting he likes to get high with his friends is somewhat less noble.
We're not treating them differently than Axis soldiers because they're different soldiers, but because they aren't soldiers at all, and calling them such, impugns the name of everyone in any nation who ever put on a uniform, picked up a gun and walked out into the open to risk his life for his country, his people and his ideals. That's the problem with Ronald Reagans "freedom fighter" being George W. Bushs "terrorist" and maybe what the latter meant when he said all of his predecessors were to blame for the current situation because their softness on terrorism encouraged it (yes, he actually said that, when he was more popular than now. )
Also: Never seen Clerks; I wouldn't really even know wtf it was about if I hadn't read the Wikipedia article last night.
Death to the Regressives of the GOP and the TeaParty. No mercy for Conservatives. Burn them all at the stake for the hateful satanists they are.
No need to interrogate Osama bin Laden?
20/11/2009 12:48:27 AM
- 1064 Views
oO uhm, what?
20/11/2009 12:54:13 AM
- 546 Views
If they're tried INSIDE the US, then yes, they are entitled to due process.
20/11/2009 01:44:08 AM
- 460 Views
Yeah, a lot of people were fuzzy on that till this started.
20/11/2009 09:30:39 AM
- 571 Views
on the other hand, we're more than willing to take them out back with a confession.
20/11/2009 06:34:12 PM
- 568 Views
New York is now asking for $75 MILLION for the KSM trial
20/11/2009 01:43:26 AM
- 496 Views
If this trial were being held in any other country
20/11/2009 01:56:07 AM
- 519 Views
It's a terrible precedent no matter how you look at it.
20/11/2009 02:13:46 AM
- 544 Views
It IS a terrible precdent, hence you and others are citing it 65 years after WWII ended.
20/11/2009 09:23:45 AM
- 434 Views
Spare me the bullshit.
20/11/2009 01:57:16 PM
- 440 Views
I will if you will.
20/11/2009 02:55:30 PM
- 536 Views
No, you won't. You never will.
20/11/2009 06:14:30 PM
- 426 Views
You're putting your cart before your horse is the problem.
23/11/2009 05:40:46 AM
- 517 Views
You don't think this is a military struggle? Wow.
20/11/2009 02:52:26 PM
- 476 Views
Allow me to point out...
20/11/2009 03:02:33 PM
- 456 Views
That's the thing, they aren't a terrorist group
20/11/2009 04:54:31 PM
- 499 Views
It would help if you would offer any argument in favour of your stance.
20/11/2009 08:43:08 PM
- 441 Views
I only use the word army cause I can't think of a better one
21/11/2009 04:32:01 AM
- 458 Views
Military struggles involve militaries.
20/11/2009 03:23:14 PM
- 619 Views
Once again, bullshit.
20/11/2009 06:09:31 PM
- 580 Views
This is wrong
20/11/2009 07:41:35 PM
- 486 Views
We're a long way from the shore of Tripoli.
23/11/2009 05:59:19 AM
- 537 Views
Your little diatribe in the beginning only makes me glad...
22/11/2009 05:32:57 AM
- 606 Views
I understand your "jihadist narrative"
22/11/2009 06:36:41 PM
- 585 Views
No you don't
22/11/2009 11:16:18 PM
- 522 Views
Oh, so you know better than Army attorneys about Miranda rights?
22/11/2009 11:52:00 PM
- 562 Views
I can explain it to you right now if you want?
23/11/2009 08:21:48 AM
- 455 Views
Credible legal and moral justifications for not trying terrorists in civilian court:
23/11/2009 02:56:19 PM
- 527 Views
Re: Credible legal and moral justifications for not trying terrorists in civilian court:
24/11/2009 04:55:12 AM
- 661 Views
I'm glad that you will never be in a position where a decision you make can affect my life.
23/11/2009 12:27:35 AM
- 424 Views
Actually people of my thinking are already making decisions that affect your life.
23/11/2009 08:29:24 AM
- 559 Views
Please explain to me how military tribunals compromise my principles?
24/11/2009 02:54:18 AM
- 421 Views
And your little hyperbolic rant would make more sense if it were grounded in reality.
22/11/2009 11:47:17 PM
- 452 Views
Looks like we'll get a Not Guilty plea, and a defense focusing on condeming US foreign policy
23/11/2009 12:36:47 AM
- 678 Views
They'll publicly accuse us of tyranny and brutality in front of a jury and without our censorship.
23/11/2009 08:27:13 AM
- 580 Views
My main objection is the awful precedent set by trying prisoners of war here in America.
24/11/2009 02:57:13 AM
- 501 Views
"My main objection is the awful precedent set by trying prisoners of war here in America. "
24/11/2009 06:57:34 AM
- 500 Views
We've had Mohammed in custody for over 6 years...
23/11/2009 07:56:49 AM
- 524 Views
I've already responded to your absurd statements, but let me reiterate a few here
23/11/2009 02:59:09 PM
- 420 Views
And I've responded to yours
24/11/2009 04:57:58 AM
- 498 Views
It's not, at least for me, that we feel the civilian courts are inadequate
24/11/2009 05:28:51 AM
- 477 Views
Good analysis of the situation.
23/11/2009 08:17:01 AM
- 592 Views
It isn't about sending a message. It's about horrible war fighting strategy.
24/11/2009 02:59:31 AM
- 545 Views
No. It's about not using a horribly ineffective strategy just to send a message to terrorists.
24/11/2009 09:29:06 AM
- 465 Views
enemy combatants and terrorists
23/11/2009 08:03:25 PM
- 560 Views
They're not different because from the Third World, but because terrorists.
24/11/2009 08:09:13 AM
- 675 Views
not every soldier in history has worn a uniform
24/11/2009 11:00:34 PM
- 353 Views