rvg, some couple of years later?

[Hax]

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?

[rvg]

Why are we fighting against the Taliban again?

They are killing our guys in Afghanistan and threatening the already explosive situation in Pakistan.

[Hax]

But you realise they only started killing our guys in Afghanistan after​ we went in there.

[rvg]

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]

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.

[rvg]

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?

[Fragony]

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?

[Hax]

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]

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?

[rvg]

... 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

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.

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?

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.

[rvg]

This Nation would be rather evil, no?

Of course not.

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."

[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.

[rvg]

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]

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.

[Hax]

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.

Worked out well enough.

And yet, our guys are still being killed. Worked out well enough?

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:

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:

As Ali Allawi writes, "Being an afterthought does not give rise to gratitute and celebration"

And Lebanon:

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:

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.

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]

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.

[rvg]

And yet, our guys are still being killed. Worked out well enough?

Well enough.

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"

For example, concerning the invasion of Iraq:

I never defended the invasion of Iraq.

And Lebanon:

That's Israel, not us.

And political Islam:

Like Hamas?

You can buy the book on Amazon for 26 dollars secondhand. I'd recommend it.

It's not worth $26.00

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]

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?

[rvg]

What nukes? The ones found in Iraq?

No, the real ones.

[Fragony]

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]

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.

[Xiahou]

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]

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?

[Hax]

That's Israel, not us.

Since you don't bother reading: American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

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".

Like Hamas?

Yes, because that's the only Islamist organisation everywhere anywhere all the time.

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

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The next pages, therefore, belong to dr. Shahristani: [...]"One prisoner told me he was seventeen and he was the youngest prisoner and so they made him sweep the corridors of the internal security headquarters every morning at seven o'clock. He saw a peasnt woman from the south with tattoos, he said, a woman from the marshes with a girl of ten and a boy of about six. She was carrying a baby in her arms. the prisoner told me that as he was sweeping, an officer came and thold the woman: 'Tell me where your husband is - very bad things can happen.' She said: "Look, my husband takes great pride in the honour of his woman. If he knew I was here, he would have turned himself in.' The officer took out his pistol and held the daughter up by the braids of her hair and put a bullet into her head. The woman didn't know what was happening. Then he put a bullet into the boy's head. The woman was going crazy. He took the youngest boy by the legs and smashed the baby's brain on a wall.

[rvg]

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.

Since you don't bother reading: American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Condi has nothing to do with the 2006 war

Read again: "and largely ignorant of".

Ignorant how?

Yes, because that's the only Islamist organisation everywhere anywhere all the time.

It's an offshoot of muslim brotherhood.

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.

[Fragony]

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]

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?

[Hax]

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.

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.

[rvg]

Which is still not the only Islamist organisation.

It's certainly the largest one, the most influential, with branches all over Middle East.

Of course she has something to do with it, she was the then-Secretary of State of State.

Something? What something?

How about the presumption that Islamist movements are legitimate. Let's start there.

Why should I presume that?

[Hax]

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.

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.

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.