MacGuffin
Forum Addict
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2008
- Messages
- 8,329
- Location
- Wilhelmshaven, Germany
- Car(s)
- '17 Ford Mustang GT Fastback
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.
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...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.
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...
So you're saying current times are not paradise compared to Europe 70 years ago?
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.
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.
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.
So you're assuming everyone to be guilty until proven innocent?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.
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.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.
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.
See my post above you conveniently ignored. If you're interested I can provide you with a scientific paper on what I posted above.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.
See my post above you conveniently ignored. If you're interested I can provide you with a scientific paper on what I posted above.
That's true enough, but it's hard not to fight a "war" on terrorism.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.
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.So you're assuming everyone to be guilty until proven innocent?
What the hell does islamism have to with it?-"Terrorists": Which groups do you mean by this? "The Islamists" is not a valid reply by the way.
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.-"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?
Sorry 'bout that. it was out of line.Please. I didn't ignore it, I just didn't see it. No reason to get uppity.
I am more interested in what groups these are than in the labeling.[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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.What the hell does islamism have to with it?
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.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.
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.He breaks the rules of war by not being uniformed (with an armband or a distinct uniform)
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.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.
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.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.
He's disagreeing with "we are now living in a paradise compared to that" - which I find very disturbing indeed.
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.using terrorist tactics against legitimate military targets. The USS Cole attack comes to mind as an example.
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.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.
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.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.
My bad. Attacks on the IDF in the occupied territories or in Israel are legitimate. Attacks on Israeli settlers of civilians are not.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.
Yeah.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.
Yup.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.