US of A Presidential Elections 2012

I know. But we are now living in a paradise compared to that. So enjoy it. As long as it lasts. Because it won't.
 
MacGuffin said:
I know. But we are now living in a paradise compared to that. So enjoy it. As long as it lasts. Because it won't.
Click to expand...
Well, we are not living in any paradise, but people like you won't help to make the world a better place, that's for sure...
 
Last edited:
narf said:
So you're saying current times are not paradise compared to Europe 70 years ago? :hmm:
Click to expand...

I'm saying that we are going through some shitty times and looking elsewhere or pretending that everything is going well is not going to help at all.
 
He is saying it's going well, but that it could be going better. Stop picking hairs.
 
nomix said:
It's illegal now, but once you make it into a POW camp, it isn't.

As for the IRA, Ted Heath introduced detention without trial, and you used deprevation of sleep, kept people from legal representation, kept them from courts, their families and you tortured and beat them. :p


This isn't a traditional war..

As for the innocents in Guantanamo, bring in good investigators and identify them. The innocent people kept there should be released, as soon as they're identified as innocent.
Click to expand...


You can't fight a War on Terror any better than the War on Drugs, it will never be over. The men that are there that are terrorists have converted those that weren't. They also won't talk to us any more, they have no incentive to do so.

I would also say that the USA has become as much of a terrorist nation as Pakistan or Iran. How often have we read about drones dropping missiles on an innocent group? The only difference is we won't, or are not willing to strap the vest on and sacrifice one of our own in doing so.
 
nomix said:
As for the innocents in Guantanamo, bring in good investigators and identify them. The innocent people kept there should be released, as soon as they're identified as innocent.
Click to expand...
So you're assuming everyone to be guilty until proven innocent?
 
GRtak said:
You can't fight a War on Terror any better than the War on Drugs, it will never be over. The men that are there that are terrorists have converted those that weren't. They also won't talk to us any more, they have no incentive to do so.
Click to expand...
The "War on Terror" is not a war at all. It's a political term to build a coherent narrative from several different measures and actions: Two wars (three if you count NATO's Somali pirate operation), a bunch of national security measures, including, but not limited to the Patriot act, and targeted killings and drone strikes in Pakistan and Africa, which don't count as "war" cause they are not large-scale.

If we would define the Gitmo inmates as POWs, their tenure their would have to end when the US involvement in their country of origin ends, not when the "War on terror" ends.
 
Last edited:
GRtak said:
You can't fight a War on Terror any better than the War on Drugs, it will never be over. The men that are there that are terrorists have converted those that weren't. They also won't talk to us any more, they have no incentive to do so.

I would also say that the USA has become as much of a terrorist nation as Pakistan or Iran. How often have we read about drones dropping missiles on an innocent group? The only difference is we won't, or are not willing to strap the vest on and sacrifice one of our own in doing so.
Click to expand...

There is a huge difference between the War on Terror and the War on Drugs.

We could stop fighting the War on Drugs right now, and it would stop. Let the cartels move their drugs, and the violence would stop (except for the inter-gang violence which i don't give a shit about).

If we stopped fighting the War on Terror today, it wouldn't stop. Terrorists would still be around trying to kill people. Suicide bombers would still blow up markets. Their agenda would remain, and thus they would work to strengthen their efforts. The Al Qaeda which has been so heavily wounded this past decade and especially the last 4 years would have the room to regroup and start doing their thing better than ever.

"War on Drugs" is just a phrase to make it sound important. "War on Terror" is an actual thing we are fighting.
 
Yeah but it will never stop. It'd only escalate. The only chance it could stop is if America stops meddling with other people's countries and making them hate them. Unlike many politicians would like you to believe, they don't "hate your freedoms", they just hate that every couple of years there are american planes dropping bombs on them and killing loved ones.
 
SpitfireMK461 said:
If we stopped fighting the War on Terror today, it wouldn't stop. Terrorists would still be around trying to kill people. Suicide bombers would still blow up markets. Their agenda would remain, and thus they would work to strengthen their efforts.

"War on Terror" is an actual thing we are fighting.
Click to expand...
See my post above you conveniently ignored. If you're interested I can provide you with a scientific paper on what I posted above.

Furthermore, I would ask you to define:
-"Terrorists": Which groups do you mean by this? "The Islamists" is not a valid reply by the way.
-"Suicide bombers": Since when have suicide attacks outside U.S. soil have been a reason to fight the "war on terror"? If the suicide bomber attacks US military personal abroad, he or she does not even break the rules of war: One could argue that he's fighting a CAR conflict and thus, according to the Geneva convention, excused from the requirement to wear an uniform and only killing combatants in his suicide attack.
-"Their agenda": What agenda(s) of which terrorist group(s) do you refer to?
 
Dr_Grip said:
See my post above you conveniently ignored. If you're interested I can provide you with a scientific paper on what I posted above.
Click to expand...

Please. I didn't ignore it, I just didn't see it. No reason to get uppity.

I am merely using the term Terrorist because that's that word that gets used. I'm aware that terrorism doesn't have a good definition (I don't even agree with its usage) and like I said before, it's not the labeling that concerns me, just that we are in a conflict with a group or groups of people.

You point out the exact complication in dealing with the conflicts we currently have. The War in Afghanistan is actually the simple part of the issue as it's a relatively well defined conflict (keep the Taliban out of power). The complicated part, the part I'm most concerned with, is the ongoing conflict we have with groups such as Al Qaeda. This is a group that has committed attacks on innocents in numerous countries and they are based out of numerous countries.

Now, I need to make myself clear before going any further. I am not arguing FOR the War on Terror (and its related actions). I am not arguing FOR Guantanamo Bay. I'm not arguing about the definition of a terrorist. My previous posts on this issue were purely in response to the simplistic nature of some posts. That is, saying the prisoners at question should be released because we aren't in a war.

It is true we aren't in a conventionally defined war, but that's irrelevant. What is being fought doesn't have any definition under International Law (or any, really), and it has no precedence in history. A conflict is being fought with one or multiple groups across multiple countries between mainly the US on one side and international, non-governmental organizations on the other. When you start taking into account the existence of these groups in countries that have very weak governments (like Pakistan, which doesn't even have government control in its northern regions), the issue gets even more complicated. These conflicts fit a definition which does not readily exist. In my own belief (and I have studied this issue, though I am by no means an expert) is that our accepted definition of war is simply outdated and antiquated, and that a new one is needed to accommodate the changes we see in military action in the modern age. The people detained at Guantanamo are prisoners of this conflict(s) which makes it difficult to figure out exactly what to do with them.

To make it clear again, the detainees at Guantanamo either need to be officially charged with crimes and put on trial, or released. Indefinite detainment is inexcusable.
 
GRtak said:
You can't fight a War on Terror any better than the War on Drugs, it will never be over. The men that are there that are terrorists have converted those that weren't. They also won't talk to us any more, they have no incentive to do so.

I would also say that the USA has become as much of a terrorist nation as Pakistan or Iran. How often have we read about drones dropping missiles on an innocent group? The only difference is we won't, or are not willing to strap the vest on and sacrifice one of our own in doing so.
Click to expand...
That's true enough, but it's hard not to fight a "war" on terrorism.

As for the difference between "the terrorists" and the US bombing innocent people, it is not that different tools are used, it is the intentional targeting of civilians that make the difference. If the United States were to intentionally target civilians, it would be terrorism, even if they were to use a cruise missile that costs half a billion dollars. It's not about the equipment, it's about the target.

DanRoM said:
So you're assuming everyone to be guilty until proven innocent?
Click to expand...
No, I assume anyone's innocent until proven guilty. But I'm a pragmatist. We might be able to effectively release the innocent people in Guantanamo en masse if we take that approach, and it's sure better than the alternative. You won't get any sollution any other way.

Dr_Grip said:
-"Terrorists": Which groups do you mean by this? "The Islamists" is not a valid reply by the way.
Click to expand...
What the hell does islamism have to with it?

A terrorist is someone who intentionally targets civilian targets with the goal of achieving a political or religious aim, or with the aim of spreading fear and terror among a populace. If it's done by a state, it can, in my opinion, be understood as either state terrorism or war crimes.

Dr_Grip said:
-"Suicide bombers": Since when have suicide attacks outside U.S. soil have been a reason to fight the "war on terror"? If the suicide bomber attacks US military personal abroad, he or she does not even break the rules of war: One could argue that he's fighting a CAR conflict and thus, according to the Geneva convention, excused from the requirement to wear an uniform and only killing combatants in his suicide attack.
-"Their agenda": What agenda(s) of which terrorist group(s) do you refer to?
Click to expand...
He breaks the rules of war by not being uniformed (with an armband or a distinct uniform), but the act of blowing yourself to bits to kill a percieved enemy is in itself not against the rules of war, given that the ones you blow up are uniformed members of an occupying army.

It's worth noting that this shouldn't really be understood as a simple yes or no, take for instance suicide bombers on buses in Israel. They often pick(ed) the buses with a few uniformed soldiers on. But even if a sucicide bomber picks the bus in question because there's military personal on it, isn't exactly withing the rules of war.
 
SpitfireMK461 said:
Please. I didn't ignore it, I just didn't see it. No reason to get uppity.
Click to expand...
Sorry 'bout that. it was out of line.

SpitfireMK461 said:
[L]I said before, it's not the labeling that concerns me, just that we are in a conflict with a group or groups of people.
Click to expand...
I am more interested in what groups these are than in the labeling.
You point out the exact complication in dealing with the conflicts we currently have. The War in Afghanistan is actually the simple part of the issue as it's a relatively well defined conflict (keep the Taliban out of power).

SpitfireMK461 said:
The complicated part, the part I'm most concerned with, is the ongoing conflict we have with groups such as Al Qaeda. This is a group that has committed attacks on innocents in numerous countries and they are based out of numerous countries.
Click to expand...
The problem is that terrorists use the infrastructure of the very people they want to attack - from air mailed bombs as poor man's drones all the way to 9/11 style use of civilian airliners as cruise missiles. Thus they only need few equipment, are highly mobile and can blend within the civilian populace easily. You can't fight them in a war because they are gone before even a quick response team has moved in. On top of that, one has to remember that Al-Quaeda training camps might be useful in generating jihadist cannon fodder, but that the 9/11 attackers were trained in Germany and the United States.
Some people think targeted killings and drone strikes are the solution. They certainly are quick enough to catch the terrorists. But they occur within what is supposed to be a state of peace, thus blurring the line between war and peace that has painstakingly drawn in the 19th century with the rise of the Westphalian system.
I personally think that fighting terrorism is a law enforcement task, not a military task. Leave them alone in their home countries and try to stop them from carrying out attacks in our countries. They are too opaque to be fought efficiently. Their home soil is the whole world, you can't invade it and do some nation-building.

SpitfireMK461 said:
In my own belief (and I have studied this issue, though I am by no means an expert) is that our accepted definition of war is simply outdated and antiquated, and that a new one is needed to accommodate the changes we see in military action in the modern age. The people detained at Guantanamo are prisoners of this conflict(s) which makes it difficult to figure out exactly what to do with them.
Click to expand...
There are several new definitions of war floating around in academia. If you're interested, Mary Kaldor's "New and Old Wars" or Herfried M?nkler's "The New Wars" are good starting points. M?nkler is one of my Ph.D advisors, by the way.

nomix said:
What the hell does islamism have to with it?
Click to expand...
Nothing except for being one of the things that's often thrown into the mix in arguments about terrorism, even within academia. That's why I said I don't count that as a valid answer.

nomix said:
A terrorist is someone who intentionally targets civilian targets with the goal of achieving a political or religious aim, or with the aim of spreading fear and terror among a populace. If it's done by a state, it can, in my opinion, be understood as either state terrorism or war crimes.
Click to expand...
Anne Schwenkenbecher defines this as "strong terrorism". She thinks it's also possible (and sometimes even morally acceptable) to carry out acts of "weak terrorism", using terrorist tactics against legitimate military targets. The USS Cole attack comes to mind as an example.

nomix said:
He breaks the rules of war by not being uniformed (with an armband or a distinct uniform)
Click to expand...
As I said, that's not correct. According to the 1977 amendment Protocol to the Geneva convention insurgents fighting CAR wars (against a Colonial or Alien Regime) are exempt from wearing an uniform as it would leave them without a fighting chance. One could argue that both insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan and Palestinian fighters in Israel are fighting CAR wars. That's more a matter of how your stance on Isreali and US policy over there is than of hard facts.

nomix said:
the act of blowing yourself to bits to kill a percieved enemy is in itself not against the rules of war, given that the ones you blow up are uniformed members of an occupying army.
Click to expand...
I'm with you on that. And in cases like Iraq and Afghanistan, were there are no enemy civilians around, it's pretty hard to break the rules of war in a suicide attack.

nomix said:
It's worth noting that this shouldn't really be understood as a simple yes or no, take for instance suicide bombers on buses in Israel. They often pick(ed) the buses with a few uniformed soldiers on. But even if a sucicide bomber picks the bus in question because there's military personal on it, isn't exactly withing the rules of war.
Click to expand...
These suicide bombers break the rules of war only by either not obeying the principle of discrimination, forbidding indiscriminate attacks on Soldiers and Civilians alike or by accepting more collateral damage in attacking their military target of choice (ie. soldiers on a bus) than they should according to the DDE.
 
Last edited:
narf said:
He's disagreeing with "we are now living in a paradise compared to that" - which I find very disturbing indeed.
Click to expand...

What I find really disturbing is your extremely low level of comprehension.

What some people don't seem to realise about is that certain 'practices' that they seem to tolerate and that these days are suffered by people they don't give a shit about could be suffered in the future by them or they children.
 
Dr_Grip said:
using terrorist tactics against legitimate military targets. The USS Cole attack comes to mind as an example.
Click to expand...
Is "terrorist tactics" even the correct term? I'd call terrorism a strategy, not a tactic. The terroristic aspect of an attack tactic is the integration of civilian victims, creating fear amongst the target population. When attacking military targets, that aspect does not come into play.
Terrorists make use of tactics associated with the weaker side of asymmetrical warfare simply because it's what they are able to do.

Thus, the attack on the USS Cole was quite simply an attack on a (perceived) enemy war ship, with no danger of colleteral damage whatsoever. In my opinion, it doesn't meet any criteria for "terrorism". Except if you define any violence done by non-regular forces as such.
 
Dr_Grip said:
Nothing except for being one of the things that's often thrown into the mix in arguments about terrorism, even within academia. That's why I said I don't count that as a valid answer.
Click to expand...
Nor should you, and nor should you have to expect it. I suppose it's like the death penalty, I know I'm against the death penalty because I agree Breivik shouldn't be put to death.

Dr_Grip said:
Anne Schwenkenbecher defines this as "strong terrorism". She thinks it's also possible (and sometimes even morally acceptable) to carry out acts of "weak terrorism", using terrorist tactics against legitimate military targets. The USS Cole attack comes to mind as an example.
Click to expand...
I just call it terrorism. There are acts of political violence that may not be terrorism by any common sense definition (driving a steam roller over an empty party political stand for instance, it's closer to criminal damage), but as long as it's not attacking a civilian target, it isn't terrorism.

Dr_Grip said:
As I said, that's not correct. According to the 1977 amendment Protocol to the Geneva convention insurgents fighting CAR wars (against a Colonial or Alien Regime) are exempt from wearing an uniform as it would leave them without a fighting chance. One could argue that both insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan and Palestinian fighters in Israel are fighting CAR wars. That's more a matter of how your stance on Isreali and US policy over there is than of hard facts.
Click to expand...
My bad. Attacks on the IDF in the occupied territories or in Israel are legitimate. Attacks on Israeli settlers of civilians are not.

Dr_Grip said:
I'm with you on that. And in cases like Iraq and Afghanistan, were there are no enemy civilians around, it's pretty hard to break the rules of war in a suicide attack.
Click to expand...
Yeah.

Dr_Grip said:
These suicide bombers break the rules of war only by either not obeying the principle of discrimination, forbidding indiscriminate attacks on Soldiers and Civilians alike or by accepting more collateral damage in attacking their military target of choice (ie. soldiers on a bus) than they should according to the DDE.
Click to expand...
Yup.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top