posted
It's VERY simple. If you belong to an organization, then you belong to that organization.
As we said before, we're considering anybody who supports and/or who fights on the side of the terrorists to be part of their organization. We said that wayyy back in September.
It's already obvious that any Al-Qaeda members caught are members of Al-Quaeda, because they were already identified as such.
Any Afghani 'soldiers' caught fighting in support of Al-Quaeda are, by our definition, members of that organization. So's John Walker.
Therefore they're terrorists.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, since the U.S. runs the "School of the Americas", shouldn't we bomb ourselves ... ?
Since we gave bin Laden training and weapons, and told him to fight our enemy, shouldn't we bomb ourselves?
And since we invaded a nation and overthrew its government by aiding the rebellion (who, it should be noted, can't be proven they wouldn't be supporting bin Laden if it wasn't in their best interests to do so), shouldn't we treat the soldiers of that government as SOLDIERS? Bush's "definitions" doesn't really impress me that much, since this nation had as much a role to play in bin Laden being what he was, as the Taliban did in protecting him.
posted
Didn't you ever learn the difference between apples and oranges?
quote:Since we gave bin Laden training and weapons, and told him to fight our enemy.
I'm so gods-damned sick of this lie. 'We' for the last goddamn time, didn't do it. If you want to indulge in liberal breast-beating guilt-trips, fine, but leave the rest of us out of it.
If someone teaches you karate in self defense, they are NOT personally responsible if you forsake your honor and go around attacking the weak and helpless. (However, it is their responsibility, once you do so, to stop you, which is exactly what we're finally doing).
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Oh, please don't tell me you can't see any difference between supporting someone BEFORE they become a terrorist and supporting them AFTER they become one.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
But, Rob, close your eyes as much as you want, stick your fingers in your ears and yell "NOOOOOOO I DON'T WANT TO LISTEN NOOOO!" as much as you want ...
The FACT of the matter is that the United States did provide to bin Laden and other "freedom fighters" (what we called them at the time) the means to train themselves, and the weapons to use against the Soviets. Now, we may have funneled these through Pakistan, but we're still ultimately responsible, and while you might convince yourself we're NOT, you're only convincing yourself.
When you provide a group with the training that we did to bin Laden the mujarhdeen, you have an obligation to keep your eyes on them. Think of it as a parent child relationship. Daddy gives junior a big 4x4, shows him how to operate the thing and how to run over Daddy's enemy, then cries ignorance when junior plows over sixty people at a shopping market "for fun."
quote:Oh, please don't tell me you can't see any difference between supporting someone BEFORE they become a terrorist and supporting them AFTER they become one.
I'm sure the Soviets considered him a terrorist when we were supporting him, Omega. We made him a terrorist, we just didn't call him that until he decided the Soviet Union wasn't his enemy. That's why Bush's definition is tricky. Terrorist ... freedom fighter, what's the difference except in the ideological outlook one views them through?
posted
The difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter MAY fall down to who attacks first.
If you're invaded, you're a freedom fighter. If you're fighting a war with the intent of creating greater freedom, you're a freedom fighter.
The Afghanis are currently none of these things. They WERE freedom fighters back during the USSR invasion, (except those that were fighting with a secret agenda) just as the Colonials were during the Am. Revolution.
[ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
So, if these "terrorists", thought the American attack on Iraq was an "invasion" of Islam (and the forces in Saudi Arabia an extension of that "invasion"), then the attack on the Cole, the embassys, and the World Trade Center now makes them "freedom fighters."
See the problem in your logic, Rob? It's impossible to define someone as a "terrorist", or as a "freedom fighter." Two sides of the same coin.
quote:Then again, your side is well-established as the best players in the 'guilt by accusation' game, when you use the accusation to 'prove' the guilt.
I give you your quote one more time in case you don't read what you write.
quote:It's already obvious that any Al-Qaeda members caught are members of Al-Quaeda, because they were already identified as such.
Is this not guilt by accusation? And you have trouble with my logic. Also who identified them, Sec. of defence, US army, seems to me this is one person or team, and you do not, by your own admission, believe one person or team.
So anyone who takes up arms against the US is now a member of a terrorist group. How do you know that these captured people are not just men who the Northern alliance had a grudge against and threw them into the hands of the US to get rid of them. Remember this is an area of ethnic squables as well as the War on Terrorism. Or they could be men who took up arms to stop US forces from raping their daughters as they went through the areas. The only facts we have, that don't just come from one source: Men are being airlifted to Cuba Three of them were British citizens 2 men spirited away by US forces from Bosnia( i think)
The rest of the info we have all comes from the same source. The US government. And it is hard to believe you, who thinks they must have arms to protect himself from that same government, would take what the have to say at face value without having anymore facts.
-------------------- "and none of your usual boobery." M. Burns
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:So, if these "terrorists", thought the American attack on Iraq was an "invasion" of Islam
1, it wasn't an American attack. 2, Iraq attacked Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia, thus WE were the freedom fighters.
quote: (and the forces in Saudi Arabia an extension of that "invasion"),
We were invited.
quote: then the attack on the Cole, the embassys, and the World Trade Center now makes them "freedom fighters."
Still doesn't. They aren't attacking targets within their own borders or territorial extent, and they're attacking people who have nothing to do with the policies and practices on EITHER side (Or have you conveniently forgotten that LOTS of non-US people were in the WTC and the embassies?)
And dont try to tell me that the Continentals attack on Canada was the same, because there wasn't any Canada there, there was ONLY 'British Territory.'
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Is this not guilt by accusation? And you have trouble with my logic. Also who identified them, Sec. of defence, US army, seems to me this is one person or team, and you do not, by your own admission, believe one person or team.
Wrong on all counts (again.)
Its guilt by preponderance at the evidence, and its accusation by SEVERAL nations' intelligence agencies, including ours, the UK's, and Israel's.
If a guy frequently shows up at the meetings of a club, there's pretty good evidence to deduce that he's a member. Or a close friend.
Deductive reasoning is your friend. Do not fear it so.
You also seem to have an odd belief that our givernment runs our several hundred media outlets. I doubt that what youre saying has any accuracy, though I admit to retaining my opinion that the media in general has a left-leaning bias.
[ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well I don't have the odd belief that your gov. runs media outlets, but you seem to have the odd belief that in times of war the government doesn't control what comes out of a military zone. I'm not sure how old you were during the Gulf War but this was very evident then as it is now. Anything about these prisoners is coming from the US military, they are the ones controlling the camps in Afghanistan and they are the ones controlling the camp in Cuba. And unless the US, UK and Iraeli intellegence agencies are sending you emails about known terrorist, I can only assume you are getting your info about these prisoners from the same source as everyone else, which is press releases from the US military. Sorry to burst you bubble about freedom of the press but there is no such thing in war/military actions. And lastly I thought that you rightwing types were for law and order. All I am asking for, is to have these people processed by the geneva convention, a treaty which your government signed. If these people are the terrorist you claim they are then, by all means do with them as your laws dictate. But if they are not then they should be treated as prisoners of war and treated as the geneva convention dictates. Why does your government fear this simple request?
-------------------- "and none of your usual boobery." M. Burns
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I think you're getting bogged down in the same arguments again. The central issue here is, what legal status do the detainees hold? This in turn dictates how they are to be held and treated, and the legal rights - first, that the US have in detaining them, and secondly who tries them.
(I hope that sentence made sense, don't feel very articulate tonight!)
I hope we all agree that there needs to be some due process of law, right? That way we'll be able to determine any among them who might NOT be Al-Qaeda. Just saying "oh, they've all been interned as such, therefore they must all be" doesn't cut it.
I'll be as happy as anyone to see these guys hung out to dry, but if they're POWs then they should be treated as such, and if not then their status needs to be determined before it becomes the central issue and clouds the real reason why they've been locked up.
posted
It just seems to me that we're using some very outdate notions of what a soldier is. And it seems to me that the United States is hanging on that vagueness to say that we can treat them however we want to treat them. The should of the question in question never seems to have entered the minds of the administration.
The concepts of cohesive units and ranks don't have the same meaning for rebel or terror groups that they have for an organized standing army. And yet that does not make rebels or terrorists any less soldiers in a cause.
The modern concept of warfare on insurgency or terror and use of arms to combat such has very little to do with pitched battles like Iwo Jima. Mr. Bush declared a war on terrah...or terror as the case may be...and these are the soldiers on the opposing sides.
The only thing that we have to do is treat them the way we would want our soldiers to be treated.
[ January 24, 2002, 19:52: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Except our soldiers and soldiers in most other countries didn't/don't go around intentionally bombing civilian targets and mass murdering their own peoples... slight difference in being a soldier and terrorist. Yes the definition of a soldier and all that it entails needs to be updated but I don't think the Al Qaeda and Taliban would fall under any old or new definition of soldier, especially given they don't have a real structure of any sort. Bin Laden is their leader, they have some lieutenants but that hardly constitutes an army or military. I can grab a bunch of my friends, delcare myself their General and they're my troops, declare war on Kentucky because I don't like their chickens and it would be no more legitmate than what they're claiming.
[ January 24, 2002, 20:39: Message edited by: TLE ]
-------------------- It takes 42 muscles in your face to frown. It only takes 4 muscles to extend your arm and smack someone upside the head.
Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
