Originally Posted by :
Good? Bad? I'm not the one trying to ride the high horse. It's not necessarily about good vs evil, it's about us vs them. Rules of engagement apply only to conventional wars. In the war against al-Qaeda and Taliban rules can be bent and/or broken.
Why are we fighting against the Taliban again?
Originally Posted by Hax:
Why are we fighting against the Taliban again?
They are killing our guys in Afghanistan and threatening the already explosive situation in Pakistan.
But you realise they only started killing our guys in Afghanistan after we went in there.
Originally Posted by Hax:
But you realise they only started killing our guys in Afghanistan after we went in there.
They thought they could harbor OBL and get away with it. They thought wrong.
Kadagar_AV 16:42 09-10-2012
Originally Posted by rvg:
They are killing our guys in Afghanistan and threatening the already explosive situation in Pakistan.
OH NOES!! Are the EVIL EVIL Talibans killing troppers You send there? No wonder You feel You have the right to not only kill them, but torture them as well then.
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV:
OH NOES!! Are the EVIL EVIL Talibans killing troppers You send there? No wonder You feel You have the right to not only kill them, but torture them as well then.
And your point is?
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV:
OH NOES!! Are the EVIL EVIL Talibans killing troppers You send there? No wonder You feel You have the right to not only kill them, but torture them as well then.
You like the idea of the Taliban getting a hold of Pakistan?
Originally Posted by :
They thought they could harbor OBL and get away with it. They thought wrong.
Not
exactly. What we see as "the Taliban" is actually a pretty loose confederation of different groups in that particular area, some, but definitely not all of them militant. In fact, when the attacks happened, most Taliban leaders actually condemned the 9/11 attacks and denied that Bin Laden was involved or that he was even in the country at the time. Whether or not this is true, one might question the effectiveness of sending an entire army into Afghanistan to capture or kill a single person, which was in fact proven when Bin Laden was assassinated by the strike force over in Abottabad last year.
U.S. policy towards the Middle-East can be characterised by general
ignorance concerning even aspects that any amateur historian or anthropologist could know about the Middle-East. As for conspiracy theories and their believers, I have no patience for them. I don't think there are that many ulterior motives where it concerns the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. I think it's plain to see that the invasions were based on misguided preconceptions, a general lack of research and fear mongering.
Kadagar_AV 16:52 09-10-2012
Originally Posted by rvg:
And your point is?
If a nation sent assassination teams against their own and foreign citizens.
If it was known for spying on Western nations, it also tracks any electronic communication by its own citizens.
If it refused to send its war criminals to the international court.
If it was open about torturing others.
If it started wars killing civilians left and right, on very sketchy grounds...
If its operatives directs an attack against UN personnel.
This Nation would be rather evil, no? So You'd think it OK if more civilized countries would occupy it and torture the population?
Originally Posted by Hax:
... and denied that Bin Laden was involved or that he was even in the country at the time.
Which of course was a lie since OBL *was* there and later on he admitted masterminding 9/11
Originally Posted by :
Whether or not this is true, one might question the effectiveness of sending an entire army into Afghanistan to capture or kill a single person, which was in fact proven when Bin Laden was assassinated by the strike force over in Abottabad last year.
Worked out well enough.
Originally Posted by :
U.S. policy towards the Middle-East can be characterised by general ignorance concerning even aspects that any amateur historian or anthropologist could know about the Middle-East.
Lots of epithets. Can you give me some evidence to support them?
Originally Posted by :
As for conspiracy theories and their believers, I have no patience for them. I don't think there are that many ulterior motives where it concerns the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. I think it's plain to see that the invasions were based on misguided preconceptions, a general lack of research and fear mongering.
There's a whole lot of difference between the Afghan and the Iraqi campaigns. I fully supported the Afghan campaign and never supported the Iraqi one.
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV:
This Nation would be rather evil, no?
Of course not.
Originally Posted by :
So You'd think it OK if more civilized countries would occupy it and torture the population?
They can try... How did Clint Eastwood put it? Oh yeah: "Go ahead, make my day."
Gah, if we're going to veer off into whether or not the occupation of Afghanistan was legit, and whether or not the U.S.A. is some uniquely horrible entity, then I'm going to tag out.
This whole thread has a rather retro vibe to it. Carry on.
Originally Posted by Lemur:
Gah, if we're going to veer off into whether or not the occupation of Afghanistan was legit, and whether or not the U.S.A. is some uniquely horrible entity, then I'm going to tag out.
This whole thread has a rather retro vibe to it. Carry on.
Yeah, you do that. You evil American, you.
Kadagar_AV 18:32 09-10-2012
Originally Posted by Lemur:
Gah, if we're going to veer off into whether or not the occupation of Afghanistan was legit, and whether or not the U.S.A. is some uniquely horrible entity, then I'm going to tag out.
This whole thread has a rather retro vibe to it. Carry on.
I just find the mental hurdles interesting, that pro-USA fanatics have to jump.. And the way they do it is rather amusing. It is also scary how so much is trumpeted out as being "good" or "just" about the USA, where in fact the rest of the world look at USA and think it rather rotten from within. Not to mention dangerous, as the former reasons to go to war seem to have been set aside.
Oh well, I just wondered if RVG had changed plenty of years after originally having high and loud defended the American ideal, and defended breaking those ideals, to, you know, save those ideals, because that makes sense, see?
I have found that a lot of Americans have switched view after the initial paranoia around the WTC attacks died down. But I guess not all. Or even enough.
Originally Posted by :
Which of course was a lie since OBL *was* there and later on he admitted masterminding 9/11
Indeed he was. It does not necessarily imply the Taliban.
Originally Posted by :
Worked out well enough.
And yet, our guys are still being killed. Worked out well enough?
Originally Posted by :
Lots of epithets. Can you give me some evidence to support them?
Hindsight is always 20/20, but let's give it a go, quoting from William L. Cleveland's book
A History of the Modern Middle East:
Originally Posted by :
Yet perhaps the most crucial link among September 11, al-Qa'ida, and the core Middle East can be traced to US foreign policy and perceptions of the United States itself [...] It seemed to come as a surprise to many Amerians that their country's policies could generate levels of anger frustration sufficient to trigger suh deadly retribution. Yet, as we have seen eswhere in this beek, recent history reveals a pattern of US policy that was insensitive to, and largely ignroant of, Arab and Islamic public opinion.
For example, concerning the invasion of Iraq:
Originally Posted by :
As Ali Allawi writes, "Being an afterthought does not give rise to gratitute and celebration"
And Lebanon:
Originally Posted by :
Lebanese leaders who pushed for aligning their country more closely with the West were gravely undermined by the assessment of the [2006] war by American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's description of the bloodshed as "the birth pangs of a new Middle East"
And political Islam:
Originally Posted by :
Not only did American policy lump together a diverse collection of actors whose interests often lashed (for example, al-Qa'ida, Saddam Husayn, and the Iranian government), it marginalized religious parties that had followed a strategy of political participation. It alsno ignored the vast majorityt of Islamists who were working peacefully for domestic reforms within their respective countries. By constructing a framework that judged all Islamic movement s in the narrow contet of its security interests and antiterrorist measures, the United States distaned itself from tgenuinely popular movements within Islamic states and reated barriers to working with the forces that might shape the future of Islam globally.
You can buy the book on Amazon for 26 dollars secondhand. I'd recommend it.
Originally Posted by :
There's a whole lot of difference between the Afghan and the Iraqi campaigns. I fully supported the Afghan campaign and never supported the Iraqi one.
Indeed.
Conradus 18:37 09-10-2012
Originally Posted by rvg:
They thought they could harbor OBL and get away with it. They thought wrong.
Are you going to invade Pakistan as well then? In so far that you're not doing it already.
Originally Posted by Hax:
And yet, our guys are still being killed. Worked out well enough?
Well enough.
Originally Posted by :
Hindsight is always 20/20, but let's give it a go, quoting from William L. Cleveland's book A History of the Modern Middle East:
Being insensitive to public opinion <> "characterised by general ignorance concerning even aspects that any amateur historian or anthropologist could know about the Middle-East"
Originally Posted by :
For example, concerning the invasion of Iraq:
I never defended the invasion of Iraq.
Originally Posted by :
And Lebanon:
That's Israel, not us.
Originally Posted by :
And political Islam:
Like Hamas?
Originally Posted by :
You can buy the book on Amazon for 26 dollars secondhand. I'd recommend it.
It's not worth $26.00
Originally Posted by Conradus:
Are you going to invade Pakistan as well then? In so far that you're not doing it already.
If the Taliban takes over? Hell yes. We can't allow Taliban get their hands on the nukes.
Kadagar_AV 18:47 09-10-2012
Originally Posted by rvg:
If the Taliban takes over? Hell yes. We can't allow Taliban get their hands on the nukes.
What nukes? The ones found in Iraq?
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV:
What nukes? The ones found in Iraq?
No, the real ones.
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV:
I just find the mental hurdles interesting, that pro-USA fanatics have to jump.. And the way they do it is rather amusing. It is also scary how so much is trumpeted out as being "good" or "just" about the USA, where in fact the rest of the world look at USA and think it rather rotten from within. Not to mention dangerous, as the former reasons to go to war seem to have been set aside.
Oh well, I just wondered if RVG had changed plenty of years after originally having high and loud defended the American ideal, and defended breaking those ideals, to, you know, save those ideals, because that makes sense, see?
I have found that a lot of Americans have switched view after the initial paranoia around the WTC attacks died down. But I guess not all. Or even enough.
If there is anything that is rotten it's Europe.
PanzerJaeger 18:49 09-10-2012
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
There is no argument to be made, all that's needed is a description of reality. I gave a basic description of what was done, you can read more detailed descriptions if you bother to find a good source. Anyone who has a simple desire for the truth will percieve that what we did was not torture and was most certainly a good thing to do. But too many people don't care about that, especially the talking heads on tv and the avid news watching talking-point repeaters, and that's where the arguments start. People who have filled some sort of existential gap in their soul with some ideological beliefs, religious beliefs, moral posturing, social group identification, etc, and are willing to say anything that sounds good to them. It's narcissism gone wild. People love the image of CIA agents dousing people with water with sadistic glee and scribbling down whatever they babble out to make the pain stop. McCain loves his "maverick" image too much to care that he's saying things that are idiotic. The media treats anyone who says "waterboarding is torture" like a hero, and ordinary people want a bit of that glory for themselves, or at least want to avoid being "some patriotic wingnut".
Human nature is deeply flawed and this particular flaw is very well illustrated by the Orwellian equivocation over the word "waterboarding" for deeply selfish purposes.
Brilliant. Thank you for this. I've long held the notion that the hysterical whinging over waterboarding has been more about the whingers than the practice, but I haven't been able to translate that notion into a cogent statement. If people took the time to understand what actually happened, a collective 'meh' would be heard around the nation. Self-righteousness supported by a sensationalist media is a powerful combination. I mean, what a great feeling it must be to take a stand against 'torture', no matter how ridiculously broad the definition has become.
Originally Posted by Kralizec:
To me it appears that you're merely trying to restrict the meaning of the word "torture" because you're unwilling to challenge the notion that all torture is bad.
I think you've nailed the other side of the discussion. Sasaki, as I read him, is talking about where the marker for "torture" should be placed. You're asking if some torture can ever be acceptable.
To me, I don't think there's a black and white answer to either question. I think there are places on the far ends of the spectrum that everyone can agree on. Everything in between can get murky. That's where governments and treaties come in so the populace, via their elected representatives can decide....
Kadagar_AV 19:15 09-10-2012
Originally Posted by Xiahou:
I think you've nailed the other side of the discussion. Sasaki, as I read him, is talking about where the marker for "torture" should be placed. You're asking if some torture can ever be acceptable.
To me, I don't think there's a black and white answer to either question. I think there are places on the far ends of the spectrum that everyone can agree on. Everything in between can get murky. That's where governments and treaties come in so the populace, via their elected representatives can decide....
We have set rules how to treat civilian prisoners.
We have set rules for how to treat captured military personnel.
If a country then decide to make up their own rules, you must understand that the world get somewhat... skeptical. No?
Originally Posted by :
That's Israel, not us.
Since you don't bother reading:
American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Originally Posted by :
Being insensitive to public opinion <> "characterised by general ignorance concerning even aspects that any amateur historian or anthropologist could know about the Middle-East"
Read again: "and largely ignorant of".
Originally Posted by :
Like Hamas?
Yes, because that's the
only Islamist organisation everywhere anywhere all the time.
Originally Posted by :
It's not worth $26.00
Yes well, y'know, it's your choice. You do realise that's exactly what's wrong with the world, right? By the way, it was written by
this guy.
The thing is that you already think that you know
everything you need to know about the Middle-East. Everything that differs from or seems to disagree with this opinion is immediately disregarded as wrong.
EDIT: By the way, remember that thing I said about the Ba‘ath party executing children a couple of threads back? I found the passage:
Warning: graphic descriptions
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV:
We have set rules how to treat civilian prisoners.
We have set rules for how to treat captured military personnel.
If a country then decide to make up their own rules, you must understand that the world get somewhat... skeptical. No?
Terrorists are neither civilians nor military. Those rules do not apply to them.
Originally Posted by Hax:
Since you don't bother reading: American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Condi has nothing to do with the 2006 war
Originally Posted by :
Read again: "and largely ignorant of".
Ignorant how?
Originally Posted by :
Yes, because that's the only Islamist organisation everywhere anywhere all the time.
It's an offshoot of muslim brotherhood.
Originally Posted by :
The thing is that you already think that you know everything you need to know about the Middle-East. Everything that differs from or seems to disagree with this opinion is immediately disregarded as wrong.
I do? They are? What makes you think that I think I know everything? I yield to arguments, provided that they are logical.
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV:
We have set rules how to treat civilian prisoners.
We have set rules for how to treat captured military personnel.
If a country then decide to make up their own rules, you must understand that the world get somewhat... skeptical. No?
Who is that world you are talking about, it's certainly not me
Kadagar_AV 19:20 09-10-2012
Originally Posted by Xiahou:
I think you've nailed the other side of the discussion. Sasaki, as I read him, is talking about where the marker for "torture" should be placed. You're asking if some torture can ever be acceptable.
To me, I don't think there's a black and white answer to either question. I think there are places on the far ends of the spectrum that everyone can agree on. Everything in between can get murky. That's where governments and treaties come in so the populace, via their elected representatives can decide....
We have set rules how to treat civilian prisoners.
We have set rules for how to treat captured military personnel.
If a country then decide to make up their own rules, you must understand that the world get somewhat... skeptical. No?
Originally Posted by :
It's an offshoot of muslim brotherhood.
Which is
still not the only Islamist organisation.
[QUOTE]
Condi has nothing to do with the 2006 war[/QUOTE]
And yet she said this thing about the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Of course she has something to do with it, she was the then-Secretary of State of State.
Originally Posted by :
I do? They are? What makes you think that I think I know everything? I yield to arguments, provided that they are logical.
How about the presumption that Islamist movements are
legitimate. Let's start there.
Originally Posted by Hax:
Which is still not the only Islamist organisation.
It's certainly the largest one, the most influential, with branches all over Middle East.
Originally Posted by :
Of course she has something to do with it, she was the then-Secretary of State of State.
Something? What something?
Originally Posted by :
How about the presumption that Islamist movements are legitimate. Let's start there.
Why should I presume that?
Originally Posted by :
It's certainly the largest one, the most influential, with branches all over Middle East.
Citation required.
Furthermore, all these "offshoots" that you mention are nowadays as far removed from the Muslim Brotherhood as the Marlboro Baptist Church is from the Vatican, theologically speaking.
Originally Posted by :
Something? What something?
You tell me, I'm not an expert on what the Secretary of State can and can't or should and shouldn't say.
Originally Posted by :
Why should I presume that?
I could just go the easy way and say: "read Cleveland's book, maybe just
maybe you'd understand why."
The hard way, of course, will be the one to take: the rise to power of secularist and authoritarian regimes largely went hand-in-hand with an increase in unemployment and corruption, which led to widespread disillusionment with the ruling regimes, which in turn led to the formation of political opposition parties which were then more often than not (violently) suppressed. As a result of these crackdowns, the only remaining form of domestic political opposition was through religious opposition.
Examples of a dramatic increase of unemployment can be seen in countries as diverse and with completely different policies as Iran (the Shah vis-à-vis the Tudeh party), Indonesia (the failure of secular parties), Turkey (the rise of the AKP) and more recently Egypt and Tunisia, in which the two dominating political parties were Islamist in nature. The only places so far where we've seen the reverse are Libya and Lebanon, the latter primarily because a sectarian civil war that has lasted more than thirty years has made the people sick and tired of sectarian mumbo-jumbo, to put it mildly.
Basically, Islamism was a
logical consequence of the dominating policy concerning political opposition in many different countries. And it should be treated, in my opinion, as a completely legitimate political current.
Single Sign On provided by
vBSSO