Things are getting worce

[Catherine_Puce]

How many innocents does a terrorist have to put in the house before he can have a planning meeting to attack the US in peace? What number of civilians gives him immunity? This is writing the "rules of engagement" and is the job description for a significant number of people in real life. So what's your answer?

I think that you've got the utilitarian math wrong. Taking out a terrorist is saving all his future victims. The several AQ leaders that actually got hit had a very high probability of being responsible for the future murder of many more innocents. The chances are that a great majority of those future victims would be fellow muslims who aren't sympathetic to Al Queda so it's not a civilizational/race/religious matter of trading more valuable for less valuable lives. The strike worked in this case but even if it hadn't, trying to get decapitation strikes in is overall going to get fewer net civilians killed than any alternative I can think of so the tactic is justified whether or not a particular strike works.

I see your point but imagine that a terrorist sleep in an appartement in the building where you life and that the government of an another country decide to simply blow up the whole building to get rid of it. Send missiles on an another country is an act of war. I doubt that citizen of this country will see USA like a friendly country. They will probably think that this is a monster that must be destroyed at all cost. I bet that the lost of the AQ leaders will be easilly replaced there are so many fanatic and the new voluntary will just boost their army. Fight terrorist is not simple, fast to do or easy.

Les ?tats-Unis d'Am?rique ont une longue guerre devant eux.

S.P.P.

[Jfries289]

not by the system that they have relied on for thousands of years. Even if 'our way is better', you still can't expect them to change without being increadably disgrunteled about doing so

For Iran:
http://www.daneshjoo.org/
http://www.iran.org/news/WT_990715.gif
http://www.democracyforiran.de/
http://www.payvand.com/news/05/jun/1079.html
There is a large and growing movement for democracy in Iran that started mostly with their university students but has now moved on to other sections of their society (the last link is for a recent big protest for women's rights in Iran)


For Iraq, I believe I will let the pictures speak for themselves:







These Iraqis look pretty happy with the outcome so far.

[LoneWolf23k]

Furthermore, Ben Ladin recently popped out of hiding and said Al-Quaeda was going to launch a new series of attacks on American soil, but that they would hold back of the Americans agreed to a truce to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now, consider that those guys have a "Kill Them All, Show No Mercy!" approach to warfare.

Suddenly, they're the ones asking for a truce?

Showing signs of Weakness, anyone?

I think Ben Ladin's warning is an empty threat made by an organisation that's now desperately looking for breathing room to recover from American attacks.

Let's not give them that breathing room. Let them know what it's like to be on the other end of a "Kill Them All, Show No Mercy!" approach...

[StrangeWulf13]

More of the same, really. Threaten attacks, then give us a chance to back off. As if they were in a position to be making threats.

Hell, when they confirmed it was him, my first response was, "That little @#%!er's still alive?!" Gentlemen, we missed the first time.

But Solidus' personal army shouldn't...

*rolls out the Metal Gears*

[The JAM]

[...unWARP!!!]

Good evening.


Just pointing something out I mentioned in another forum.

If Al-Qaida is OBVIOUSLY spending money to prepare for new attacks.....

....why don't they take out from that a MEASELY US$300 and BUY Mr. Bin Laden a NEW [CENSORED] video camera so he can make his petty little demands a bit more convincing??


?Zacatep?ngolas!

Until next time, remember:

I

AM

THE

J.A.M. (a.k.a. Numbuh i: "Just because I'm imaginary doesn't mean I don't exist")

Good evening.

[WARP!!!]

[BlasTech]

Because if they did that then the capitalists have won?

[TMLutas]

Anyone still think exporting democracy is a bad idea?

*Razes hand*

Its dificult for us to imagin just how difrent there culture is unless you've experianced it for yourself. Politics and law take second place too and are littlulary part of religion out there. Their people have relied on a system where a good majority of decisions that they make is dictated by their religion. When its time to pray, the police will littulary hurd people with sticks so that they won't be late for the 'survice', everything about their socity relies on religion taking presidence over all things. Now sudenly, these strange people have turned up, have taken their lands by force and now are telling them that politics and law should be dictated by 'them', not by the system that they have relied on for thousands of years. Even if 'our way is better', you still can't expect them to change without being increadably disgrunteled about doing so.
The westen equivelent would be if comuniests sudenly tookover your home contery and started saying that you've been doing things wrong all this time and not just telling, but forcing you to do things their way. I'm not saying this is 'exactly' how things are for the iraqie people, but it must be damn close. Wouldn't you feel obliged to protect your way of life? Even if the consepts the invader delivers are perfectly resonably or would 'make things better' (at least in their opinion) wouldn't you still feel opressed by these alien rules and values?

I don't know if you read/heard/watched President Bush's 2nd Inaugural speech. In it he made clear (and it's been emphasized subsequently so it wasn't a fluke) that democracy exportation would be done by encouraging indigenous democracies, not imposing alien structures from abroad. This is why we give halfway countries like Jordan a pass on a bunch of things. They're obviously trying and we send advisors not bombs and tanks because an effort at creating indigenous institutions is underway. Egypt and KSA improved their position by moving towards elections and freeing up civil society though by any measure they've a long way to go.

I think that you should read up on history. The muslim world has seen free elections in the past and have had their own pro-democracy advocates as long ago as the 19th century. They do things differently in that part of the world but that doesn't mean that they're doomed to despotism.

The Islamists would like everybody to think that radicalism and rigid religious practices were universal and eternal. This is an orwellian lie that they put out, a lie that is best symbolized by the veil. Women veiling themselves is a recent phenomenon that started off as an Egyptian college girl craze in the 1970s, revivalism, muslim style.

Iraqis are more panicked that the US will leave too soon than stay too long for the most part. The sunni revolt is fizzling as they gain parliamentary representation. I don't think that there will be an indigenous revolt past the next elections at all. Al Queda and other outside troublemakers will still be there but their awful tactics of brutality and war crimes as policy will continue to alienate the Iraqi people.

[TMLutas]

How many innocents does a terrorist have to put in the house before he can have a planning meeting to attack the US in peace? What number of civilians gives him immunity? This is writing the "rules of engagement" and is the job description for a significant number of people in real life. So what's your answer?

I think that you've got the utilitarian math wrong. Taking out a terrorist is saving all his future victims. The several AQ leaders that actually got hit had a very high probability of being responsible for the future murder of many more innocents. The chances are that a great majority of those future victims would be fellow muslims who aren't sympathetic to Al Queda so it's not a civilizational/race/religious matter of trading more valuable for less valuable lives. The strike worked in this case but even if it hadn't, trying to get decapitation strikes in is overall going to get fewer net civilians killed than any alternative I can think of so the tactic is justified whether or not a particular strike works.

I see your point but imagine that a terrorist sleep in an appartement in the building where you life and that the government of an another country decide to simply blow up the whole building to get rid of it. Send missiles on an another country is an act of war. I doubt that citizen of this country will see USA like a friendly country. They will probably think that this is a monster that must be destroyed at all cost. I bet that the lost of the AQ leaders will be easilly replaced there are so many fanatic and the new voluntary will just boost their army. Fight terrorist is not simple, fast to do or easy.

Les ?tats-Unis d'Am?rique ont une longue guerre devant eux.

S.P.P.

In the country that I lived in, a request for a warrant would be issued internationally and the terrorists would be arrested and extradited to the requesting country. A missile wouldn't happen because a missile wouldn't be needed. Knowing that, in this country, I don't need to know who the other people in the building are. I don't need to worry about whether there's a terrorist in the building imperiling us all.

Were I a resident of an apartment building in Iraq, I would vacate my apartment as soon as I found out that a terrorist was hiding out and depending on the effectiveness of the government would report the terrorist to them for less violent extraction methods or would just pray for the best.

Terrorists, by their nature, draw violence to them and they positively enjoy the collateral damage that occurs in efforts to kill them. They need to be expelled from your building and neighborhood. Would I feel happy about the US bombing my apartment to nothing? Of course not. I would understand it, though and would not hate them.

[BlasTech]

Did everyone there know he was a terrorist? did they know he was there? We havnt heard much on this from our news but terrorists dont strike me as the sort of people who announce their profession that freely when they're moving in.

[StrangeWulf13]

From what I hear, they missed Zarqawi (or however you spell it)...

...but they got the aides he sent in his stead.

How come we don't hear about that in the freakin' news?

[TMLutas]

Did everyone there know he was a terrorist? did they know he was there? We havnt heard much on this from our news but terrorists dont strike me as the sort of people who announce their profession that freely when they're moving in.

You don't sound like know much about village life. It's boring as there's nothing to do but gossip about your neighbors for entertainment or go to the one tavern that is in town. Quentyn's village troubles are a pretty good reflection of village life as I've had it described to me and from independent personal observation.

The village knew about the terrorists at least as quickly as everybody hears about aunt sally's new cyst, in other words, within a day or two. Why do you think that collective punishment in villages is so common when they're occupied. It's incredibly hard to keep a secret.

[BlasTech]

Well you're right i dont know much about village life, it just strikes me as taking way too much stuff for granted. I mean, suspicion doesnt equal proof right?

I just dont think you should hold an occupied village (or any village for that matter) accountable for what some of its residents did. Just look back to WW2 in Lidice, granted they destroyed the whole village instead of one housing group, but the rationale was very similar to what you just said.

[RedSquirrel456]

It's times like this when you wish we had an intelligene agency with the drive to recruit a team of dedicated Jason Bournes to go out and kick butt without the media even catching a whiff.

Instead we send an ICBM at a target that may or may not even be near the blast radius?

They do say truth is stranger than fiction...

[TMLutas]

Well you're right i dont know much about village life, it just strikes me as taking way too much stuff for granted. I mean, suspicion doesnt equal proof right?

I just dont think you should hold an occupied village (or any village for that matter) accountable for what some of its residents did. Just look back to WW2 in Lidice, granted they destroyed the whole village instead of one housing group, but the rationale was very similar to what you just said.

Let me make myself clear, collective punishment is an abomination. The low levels of privacy in village life make it a tempting abomination, though because most of the time the locals will lie to the occupiers' faces and cover for each other. This doesn't change from continent to continent, there's a certain village solidarity that's a constant. In other words, it is highly unlikely that the presence of Al Queda was unknown to the rest of the village because of the nature of that way of life.

[BlasTech]

Still, i dont think "highly likely" is certain enough enable the civilian deaths as a result of the strike to be justified as those befitting tacit accomplices.

That missile strike was a very blunt tool to use in this situation, and i believe that it was a major stuffup that such an attack was allowed to go ahead with such an obvious risk of (imo) unjustified collateral damage.


(braces for flaming) ^^

[RHJunior]

It's called war, kids. And the rest of us don't have time to hold your hand and wipe your nose and wait for you to grow up. We will do everything in our power to exclude innocents and prevent collateral damage, but we are fighting an enemy that hides behinds the skirts of its women and uses its own children for suicide bombers and human shields. And in any war, especially this one, the window of opportunity for taking out an enemy target is vanishingly small. We are not going to throw away a strategic opportunity or a tactical advantage just to soothe your poor ruffled corn-fed nursery-raised feelings.

We're not going to have another 9-11 just because someone got soppy. Harbor an enemy, sign your own death warrant. It's that simple.

[Kerry Skydancer]

Hear, hear! This is a war of cultures and ideas, as well as bombs and bucks. And we're not going to win it by being considerate of the other side's medieval notions, because it's damn sure they're not going to be considerate of our sensibilities.

Harbor an enemy of the US, you risk destruction. The very fact that they show up asking for guest privileges has to be recognized as a threat by the villagers, the very request violating the rules of guest and host, or we're not going to be able to find them quickly - and the longer it takes, the more of -both- side's innocents will die. We did get three of their second-tier folks, from the most recent reports - the rest is an object lesson. We can find them. Sooner or later, we will find them. And when we find them, we can kill them.

This time, we also killed fifteen bystanders. We could have easily killed the whole village, but we chose not to. We destroyed entire cities in WW2 just to knock out transportation links and factories, because we had no choice then. Now we do, and we choose to spare as many innocents as we can. Although the media doesn't comprehend it, we -are- showing vast amounts of restraint.

It boils down to this. Islam must be brought into the 21st Century. They must give up the ideas of jihad and the global dominion of Dar al Islam, no matter what damage it does to what they refer to as their culture. Or they must cease to exist.

[TMLutas]

Still, i dont think "highly likely" is certain enough enable the civilian deaths as a result of the strike to be justified as those befitting tacit accomplices.

That missile strike was a very blunt tool to use in this situation, and i believe that it was a major stuffup that such an attack was allowed to go ahead with such an obvious risk of (imo) unjustified collateral damage.


(braces for flaming) ^^

Here's the major problem I have with the opposition at this time. I hear a lot of criticism but it's criticism unmoored from the responsibility of actually getting the war won. This doesn't mean that we all have to be GWB cheerleaders. It does mean that we should take our criticism and pair it with alternative courses of action.

For instance, dump a hit team that will take out the targets would be an alternative that could be discussed. I think that any serious discussion would eventually conclude that such a hit team couldn't be assembled in a short enough time and with a reasonable chance of success without greatly risking an international incident that would cause more trouble than it's worth.

I don't mind it when Hillary Clinton advocated increasing body armor. She was ultimately wrong on the facts (our troops teeter on the edge of too slow to survive as it is) but she saw a problem (dead and wounded soldiers and marines) and came up with a solution. She's now probably a little more informed on the ratio of benefits and costs of adding weight to our warrior's kits. That's no bad thing for a US Senator and possible next president.

RHJunior - You're being a little too harsh on the opposition here, IMO. While GWB might have his dance card too full to debate the issues (and legitimately so), I'm not doing anything vital for national security today. A little light keyboarding supporting US actions when I think they're justified is a light price to pay for my freedom, a very light price.

Kerry Skydancer - I don't mind giving Islam the same chance christianity has to dominate the world, persuasion, eloquence, and voluntary adherence are perfectly acceptable. I don't think they'll make it, in fact I'm sure they won't. They don't either which is why so many of them turn to violence.

[Emile_Khadaji]

Emile: *steps lightly up to the podium* "Why are you taking the intellegence offered by our avowed enemy as a gospel truth? Remember that strangers and foreign reporters are not permitted in the area where this attack occured so all 'witness' reports are extremely suspect."

The photos offered to the NY Times right after this attack showed an artillery shell as a recovered American Hellfire Missile. It was so obviously staged that even the NYT removed it off their website with in hours of posting it. This shows that the enemy will do anything to decieve us. Your misplaced compassion is leading you in to error. All war is deception, so do the rest of us a favor and apply the 72 hour rule before you start doing the blame game. If you really feel strongly about this ... then use your time more wisely to say some prayers for the dead and wounded while you wait for events to unfold and the truth to be revield.

In a shadow war like the one the USA is involved in now, the enemy is going to do anything and everything to deny US any type of victory. This includes hiding the bodies of the slain so we don't know how successful our attacks were. It also includes placing bodies of 'innocent women & children' in the blast zone to embarrass the CIA. This shadow war is fought on your TV and newspapers as much as it is on the ground around the world. So please remember that the more sensational the story the more likely it is wrong in some important aspect.

Emile: "How could the CIA identify those people who were INSIDE a building at night in a lonely distant spot in Pakastan as a valid target? Could there have been an operative who guided that missile to the correct building by laser?" *steps lightly down from the podium*




FYI: placing bodies at the scene of an incident is an old tactic often used by those attempting to influence US Politics.

[Kerry Skydancer]

Yeah, they use the fake bodies bit against the Israelis, too. They screwed up after the claimed Jenin massacre, though... they got caught on film when they dropped a couple of the 'bodies', who then scrambled back up on their biers.

Kinda typical, really. They're too dumb to even play dead convincingly...