Terrorism Discussion V2

To Mr44's reply.

But this can't be done by military means. Ok some day Iraq may have a democracy, but countries like Saudi Arabia are the ones where the terrorists come from. The US have friendly relations with the Saudis, so unless something is done there, terrorism won't stop. Iraq won't bring an end to it. Even if there is democracy you can't change a terrorists mind set.

There are probably terrorist cells operating in the US itself. How do you plan to destory them, by military means?

I have a theory on how to end terrorism but it wouldn't be very popular.

 

You guys have hit all the main issues of the war right now.

Well... war is bad for soldiers and civilians who happen to get in the way.

Soldiers are doing exactly what they are trained to do. Soldiers in the elite forces have even volunteered to serve multiple tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. As far as civilians, is it better to leave them in the hands of a brutal dictator who as killed 100s of thousands?

When faced with annihilation, there are no rules... but on the offensive? That's 'morally' rocky ground you're treading on there. We are discussing, after all, the invasion of an enemy state.

This is the Bush doctrine...Preemption. We are not going to sit around and wait for another attack and clean up the mess. The first attack was unprovoked unless you believe professor Churchhill that those working at the WTC deserved what they got as "Little Eichmans." We are going to do whatever it takes to make sure Arab states do not give extremist terrorists the weapons to attack us.

Ok some day Iraq may have a democracy, but countries like Saudi Arabia are the ones where the terrorists come from.

They came from a variety of nations, the chief among them being Saudi Arabia...which many experts on both sides agree that Osama picked to send a message to his home country. Iraq having a democracy is a good thing and will prevent future agreements, such as the one between Saddam and al-Zarqawi. Iraq?s interim prime minister, Ayad Allawi is leading his country in the right direction.

There are probably terrorist cells operating in the US itself. How do you plan to destory them, by military means?

Through the sharing of intelligence. The Dept. of Homeland Security coordinates their efforts with the FBI, national guard units, and local law enforcement.

The new Director of National Intelligence will be coordinating the efforts of all 29 of our top intelligence agencies to do the very thing you are asking. That's a lot of good people working hard to keep us safe. And they're doing a good job considering how many attacks have been prevented.

 

But this can't be done by military means.

Dude, you do know there are other means being used than just military force, right? There is diplomatic activity undertaken by the State Department, covert activity being undertaken by the intel community, and defensive activity being undertaken by homeland security.

The Army isn't the end-all, be-all of US foriegn policy.

Your statement is similiar to claiming that firemen can't put out fires with an axe, but ignoring the fact that they also have water hoses available. Sometimes an axe needs to be used, sometimes a ladder works better.

Unless of course you think that invading Iraq is the only thing being undertaken in the context of terrorism, but such a belief would be extremely narrow-minded.

Ok some day Iraq may have a democracy, but countries like Saudi Arabia are the ones where the terrorists come from. The US have friendly relations with the Saudis, so unless something is done there, terrorism won't stop. Iraq won't bring an end to it. Even if there is democracy you can't change a terrorists mind set.

And again, it's extremely narrow minded to put all "terrorists" under the same umbrella.

Yes, Saudi Arabia has Islamist activity, but there is very little in common between them and say, Basque separatists, or the Supreme Truth terrorists who gassed Tokyo.

However, different organizations require different responses.

Again, the goal isn't to round up and eliminate every single "terrorist" in the world. That would be just as impossible as trying to round up every "bank robber."

The goal to disrupt the activity of the large scale networks, so that the focus is re-directed back at the personal level, ala 1960's terrorism.

 

This is the Bush doctrine...Preemption. We are not going to sit around and wait for another attack and clean up the mess. The first attack was unprovoked unless you believe professor Churchhill that those working at the WTC deserved what they got as "Little Eichmans." We are going to do whatever it takes to make sure Arab states do not give extremist terrorists the weapons to attack us.

And this is innately foolish. The same justification can be used by countries hostile to the United States to justify attacking us.

 

As far as civilians, is it better to leave them in the hands of a brutal dictator who as killed 100s of thousands?

People die by the thousands everyday. Human lives are cheap in the grand scheme of the universe, even if we were to unanimously believe and live by the concept of the 'sanctity of human life'.

As an exercise, provide us, if you can, the statistics of deaths in Saddam's Iraq vs death rates in other nations (democratic, theocratic and monarchic... whatever). Then correlate that number with the number that died during the war by American and insurgent weapons. How many years until the two match up?

Was it worth it?

Ever heard of the Treaty of Westphalia? (it was before your time...)

This is the Bush doctrine...Preemption. We are not going to sit around and wait for another attack and clean up the mess. The first attack was unprovoked unless you believe professor Churchhill that those working at the WTC deserved what they got as "Little Eichmans."

I think it's quite clear that although the people in the WTC didn't deserve their fate, the United States of America certainly did.

Those who died were collateral damage.


We are going to do whatever it takes to make sure Arab states do not give extremist terrorists the weapons to attack us.

Where is the line drawn in 'whatever it takes'? The use of nuclear weapons? Genocide?

And then explain precisely who decides when the US is under threat?

 

And this is innately foolish. The same justification can be used by countries hostile to the United States to justify attacking us.

What coutries would that be? Countries run by islamic extremist? They are already trying. Surely you are not suggesting our allies. (I know, don't call you shirley)

As an exercise, provide us, if you can, the statistics of deaths in Saddam's Iraq vs death rates in other nations (democratic, theocratic and monarchic... whatever). Then correlate that number with the number that died during the war by American and insurgent weapons. How many years until the two match up?

First of all, we are not talking about death rates from world hunger and other devices around the world...we are talking about death's from Saddam's regime...just to be clear.

Now secondly, the number of civilian death's caused by U.S. troops in Iraq is minimal compared to Saddam's mass graves. We are more careful today with unintended casualties than ever before. Compare 5% precision smart bombs used in the first gulf war compare to 99% used today as one example.

Finally, our troops aren't the ones killing civilains. It is the terrorist insurgents that are doing all the suicide bombings targeting civilians and police officers to sow discord and choas. Let's put the blame on who is belongs!

 

What coutries would that be? Countries run by islamic extremist? They are already trying. Surely you are not suggesting our allies.

Iran, China, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia if Putin completes his change in character, any of Isreal's stated enemies, etc.

Any doctrine of preemption implicitly justifies attacking nations you feel pose a threat to you, in an effort to prevent a larger threat or attack. Given the line of U.S. rhetoric (Axis of Evil, Doctrine of Prevention) and U.S. actions - attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq - clearly we pose a threat to other nations, who could use the same "Doctrine of Preemption" to strike against us.

 

attacks in Afghanistan

This was not a "preemptive strike". The fact that you so easily forgot this is further proof of bias in the media.

 

My biggest concern about terrorism currently is how well it is adapting to evolving circumstances on the world theater. It is no longer sufficient to engage in foreign wars meant to root out 9/11 sympathsizers.

The policy of combating terrorism abroad so we don't have to fight them domestically is being rendered obsolete by an enemy that is not accustomed to changing its tactics and targets.

Osama bin Laden's call for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to begin sending jihadists to intiate attacks on soft targets in the U.S. (malls, for example) via the vast Mexican border tells us as much.

It is not al-Qaida's policy to diferentiate between civilian and soldier. The inexorable result of fighting militants in Iraq and Afghanistan was a shift in their strategy.

Now they've redirected their attention back to the U.S. itself. I believe that there's an urgent need to address the border problem to stymie those plans before they can come to fruition.

I am almost 100% sure the federal government is just as ignorant of prospective numbers of terrorists on U.S. soil as the general public. Obviously a new plan is needed to keep the tide of the war with us.

<[-]> Saber

 

the absolute destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, etc., are unconscionable acts.

Now be careful, here. Farraday might accuse you of lumping the U.S. in the same boat as terrorists.

I cannot imagine anyone being satisfied with such an explanation were said "damage" to be their friends and family.

Of course. But shouldn't any innocent person being killed accidentally in an attack or used as a "terror" tool be equally deploreable? Not just friends and family?

Then you're willfully ignorant.

You're going to label me as "ignorant", and then post these words....

The kamikaze pilots of Imperial Japan were not terrorists. They too crashed planes into their targets but the point is more who the targets were then the tactics used.

Did the Japanese Kamikaze pilots steal passenger planes and crash them into unweary targets? No. They used MILITARY planes....and struck at MILITARY targets.

Again completely missing the point. Methods are not the same things as weapons. You can be as much a terrorist with a smart bomb as you can with a knife.

No...you are missing the point. Go bark up the correct tree if you can't discuss without insulting anyone.

I'm not a mod anymore, haven't been for years. Therefore I feel no compuction against telling people when they're full of *****.

You give yourself far too much credit, I don't think you're physically capable of sympathy.

Isn't discussing posters and not the topic a violation of the TOS?

 

I heard on the news last night that the Pakistani government have conceded that Osama Bin Laden's trail had gone cold.

I actually laughed when General Musharraf said that compared to 8 or 10 months ago, when intelligence from captured Al-Qaeda operatives led them to believe "the dragnet had closed and we thought we knew roughly the area where he possibly could be" they have lost track of him completely.

How vague can you get? The dragnet had closed because they sort of knew where he may have been? Now, instead of kind of sort of not knowing where he is, they definitely don't know where he is. LOL. Yeah, top marks for intelligence operations guys.

 

This was not a "preemptive strike". The fact that you so easily forgot this is further proof of bias in the media.

If only I were referring to that when I made the point. I am not calling Afghanistan preemptive. I *am* calling Iraq pre-emptive, considering that was the impetus for Dubya to pursue that policy.

 

Upon rereading your post, I see the mistake I made. Oooooops.

 

Devil I made one mistake, and that was to reply to you at all. There is no more point to trying to explain anything to you then there is to explain Physics to a mollusc. Maybe one day you will stumble across reality, but no one can guide you where you steadfastly refuse to tred.

Adeiu.

 

And this is innately foolish. The same justification can be used by countries hostile to the United States to justify attacking us.

Yes, indeed, you have illustrated precisely what international lawyers have argued for some time against preemptive self-defence. Now, I don't want to defy the current Senate trend of eschewing anti-intellectualism, but to paraphrase Dr Stanimir Alexandrov, it is equally foolish to allow total preemptive self-defence as it is to expect a state to adopt a sitting duck position.

Jade, you ought read this article. Sir Humphrey Waldock makes a case in favour of limited anticipatory self-defence, but otherwise it should show the folly of preemptive strikes clearly.

The Myth of Preemptive Self-Defence

Loopster - consider, also, we may never know if bin Laden was caught and quitely executed on the spot. Arresting him and trying him in the US would simply provide a flimsy raison d'etre for terrorists to attack any and all American targets they could, and he'd be executed a martyr.

Now, I'm not suggesting I buy this line of thought, but it's worth considering a reason behind the inability of allied forces to capture him.

(That, or he and Elvis are jamming together)

E_S

 

I don't believe for a second that they'd kill him and not trumpet the news to all and sundry.

I don't know why they haven't found him, other than he's got a great network of people sympathetic to him. Seems pretty likely actually.

 

Endor,

I read through the paper you posted, but it is a total opinion paper with a lot of referrences listed, but no real substance. Veiled propaganda in it finest form.

I saw no mention of UN Resolutions 1556 and others which authorized force in Iraq if Saddam did not allow inspectors to do their work in determining disarmament. The entire world thought he had WMDs and was capable of passing them to terrorist groups, whick are outside of internation law. The UN thought Iraq had them and sent inspectors and passed resolutions authorizing force. U.S., British, and Russian intelligence all suggested the same.

The paper focuses on the legalities of responding to "armed attack" and goes back to WWII for a lot of historical evidence. Clearly, this kind of thinking is outdated in our nuclear age. Any country can attack any other in name of "preemption," but if they did, the truth of why the attack was initiated will be clearly manifested.

The U.S. goes through all formal legal considerations before using military force. Our Congress just won't allow it otherwise. And that's the difference between us and other countries, such as the Axis of Evil countries.

 

First of all, we are not talking about death rates from world hunger and other devices around the world...we are talking about death's from Saddam's regime...just to be clear.

I called it an exercise for a reason. Precisely how many people have died from Saddam's regime? And how many people have died under Saddam's regime? Are you counting indirect deaths (starvation, war with Iran etc) amongst those specifically executed for dissent? Are you making any distinctions between what Saddam does, and what Baathists do, then what Muslims do, and then what humans do?


Now secondly, the number of civilian death's caused by U.S. troops in Iraq is minimal compared to Saddam's mass graves.

Where are your figures to back this assertion?

We are more careful today with unintended casualties than ever before. Compare 5% precision smart bombs used in the first gulf war compare to 99% used today as one example.

Approximately 10,000 Iraqis died during the 2003 campaign (and it's not even over). That's rather a lot of collateral damage/unintended casualties, and hardly a 'careful' approach (though it's certainly careful in the sense that it saves the lives of US troops).

Finally, our troops aren't the ones killing civilains. It is the terrorist insurgents that are doing all the suicide bombings targeting civilians and police officers to sow discord and choas. Let's put the blame on who is belongs!

But who created the insurgency problem in the first place? The insurgents wouldn't be blowing up civilians if the US had never gone there....

So once again... we have two questions. First, did the lost of life during the war justify overruling the regime? Second, is the aftermath better for the Iraqi people?

More succinctly, which was the lesser evil?


I saw no mention of UN Resolutions 1556 and others which authorized force in Iraq if Saddam did not allow inspectors to do their work in determining disarmament.

Probably because he had already disarmed, and therefore the issue was irrelevant.

The entire world thought he had WMDs and was capable of passing them to terrorist groups, whick are outside of internation law.

Wrong. Colin Powell gave a long lecture to the UN Security Council with recordings, slides and satellite imagery in an effort to convince them that Iraq had these weapons... they didn't buy it.

The UN thought Iraq had them and sent inspectors and passed resolutions authorizing force.

Not in 2003.

U.S., British, and Russian intelligence all suggested the same.

Now we know the Labour government 'sexed up' this 'intelligence', and that the Bush Administration was getting most of its information from an exile who faced charges of fraud in Jordan who wanted to return to Iraq as its new leader.

I think it's abundantly clear that the intelligence was wrong on Iraq's WMD. It could actually be possible that, just like we were told in 1995, Saddam destroyed them all. He's certainly never had a nuke...

Of course, now the issue has been misdirected by the use of words such as 'weapons programmes'.



he U.S. goes through all formal legal considerations before using military force. Our Congress just won't allow it otherwise. And that's the difference between us and other countries, such as the Axis of Evil countries.

I don't see the difference personally.

 

What about the situation in Cuba in the early 1960's, E_S? Would JFK be justified in taking action then, even though it would be considered to have been 'pre-emptive'?

A similar situation applies today, where a terrorist won't have to park a missle in another country close by our shore, but smuggle it in the United States and obliterate one of our cities.

 

But who created the insurgency problem in the first place?

Terrorists. al Zaqawi. Blaming our troops is like blaming a cop going into a bad neighbor for anti-police violence. "If the cop hadn't gone there in the first place..."

First, did the lost of life during the war justify overruling the regime? Second, is the aftermath better for the Iraqi people? More succinctly, which was the lesser evil?

1. Yes, more lives will be saved in the long run. 2. Yes 3. Saddam a lessor evil than a democratic Iraq? I say YES!

I saw no mention of UN Resolutions 1556 and others which authorized force in Iraq if Saddam did not allow inspectors to do their work in determining disarmament.

Probably because he had already disarmed, and therefore the issue was irrelevant.

Way to side-step the issue. We didn't know if he disarmed or not. He kicked out inspectors. This is irrelevant!?

From RUSH: This was the famous New York Times story on Sunday in which they admitted, whether it was wittingly or unwittingly, that weapons materials for weapons of mass destruction were indeed found in Iraq but were looted, and, of course, it undercut the whole theory that Bush lied. And, of course, Democrats and the left oppose our Middle East policy because Bush lied, never mind that they might be admitting that what's going on there is good, and that maybe Bush was right. Of course, it remains to be properly said that they were wrong. So they're out there whispering, "Maybe Bush was right, but he still lied to us and so it doesn't change anything."

 

I am objective enough to admit that 1,500 dead U.S. troops, as well as many other coalition troops, 10,000 U.S. troops maimed for life, 130,000 to 160,000 dead Iraqi civilians, and the potential for coup after coup, may not be better than Saddam.

<[-]> Saber

 

"130,000 to 160,000 dead Iraqi civilians"


PPOR, git.

 

Here's at least 40,000 - but not all civilians (read the analysis). I'll see if there is a source from 2003-2005.

EDIT:

Move along, move along...

 

Iraq Body Count only lists between 16389 and 18670 civilians killed since the start of military operations 2 years ago. However, most of the recent ones do not come from US military action, but from insurgent/terrorist activity.

You are claiming that civilian casualties are up to 10 times worse than what has been verifiably reported. You might want to back up your claims a bit.

Kimball Kinnison

EDIT: Quix, you are misreading your 40,000 link. In that link, they estimated only about 13,000 dead as a result of Operation Iraqi Freedom (3750 of them noncombatant) and around 26,000 dead as a result of Desert Storm (3500 of them civilians). The total for the two operations comes to the 40,000 ficure they used in the discussion.

 

Easy, I'm sleepy, just got out of an exam, and missed a decimal point. My bad.

EDIT: All better now...