Eric, I have respectfully disagree... This isn't about fighting for one's believes, this is about potentially helping an enemy succeed in harming your daughter, because the hands of the people actively working to prevent such harm get tied behind their backs with political correctness.

We're not talking about mutually agreeable approach to conduct on both sides of the conflict. We're talking about severely limiting what we can do, knowing full well that no matter how well we conduct ourselves during the conflict - the enemy no intention of doing the same.

9/11 happened in your own backyard... that wasn't enough of a wake-up call to do anything and everything possible to prevent it from ha...

Eric, I have respectfully disagree... This isn't about fighting for one's believes, this is about potentially helping an enemy succeed in harming your daughter, because the hands of the people actively working to prevent such harm get tied behind their backs with political correctness.

We're not talking about mutually agreeable approach to conduct on both sides of the conflict. We're talking about severely limiting what we can do, knowing full well that no matter how well we conduct ourselves during the conflict - the enemy no intention of doing the same.

9/11 happened in your own backyard... that wasn't enough of a wake-up call to do anything and everything possible to prevent it from happening again?

Why is it that we can only stand together when thousands of our citizens die? We live in a different world now, much different than even even a decade ago and we have to adapt, especially with the kind of danger that we're being faced with. This isn't pro-Bush/anti-Bush thing... Bush will be gone in a year... the enemies we face start this war many years before Bush and I don't see them having any intentions of stopping it after he's gone. International laws are great... on paper, but in the end the only people who truly care about America and Americans are the very people who are trying to protect us, here and abroad and if we currently aren't active participants in their efforts - seems to me that the least we can do is try to assist them wherever possible and certainly not impede their work and daily sacrifice on our behalf.

I understand your sentiments RS, but.

Why wouldn't it be possible to be prepared to undertake action against terrorism and principally (or even pragmatically) oppose torture.
(and don't start about the red hot chilipeppers again; deaths have been reported and it's not likely rock music is to blame for that)

I think this is a major rift between US & most of the world.
Everybody sees the need to undertake action; we almost all agree on that.

But why does that type of action have to include torture?

Furthermore, and this is why I added the term pragmatically above.
This torture, cia-prison, 'we're above international law, 'we're gonna liberate you with our army' & 'kill innocent pe...

I understand your sentiments RS, but.

Why wouldn't it be possible to be prepared to undertake action against terrorism and principally (or even pragmatically) oppose torture.
(and don't start about the red hot chilipeppers again; deaths have been reported and it's not likely rock music is to blame for that)

I think this is a major rift between US & most of the world.
Everybody sees the need to undertake action; we almost all agree on that.

But why does that type of action have to include torture?

Furthermore, and this is why I added the term pragmatically above.
This torture, cia-prison, 'we're above international law, 'we're gonna liberate you with our army' & 'kill innocent people ourselves when necessary' thinking an acting only further enrages terrorists/ islamofascists/ or whatever you'd like to call those people who want to make their point with blowing up innocent people.
Actually, this type of acting is a main cause of that.

And this is not only a US problem. Bombings, the killings of innocent people happen all over the world.

My point is: This cannot possibly the way to reduce terrorism. It's the opposite.
Innocent people are bound to get killed.
And I just want to emphasize this is not only a 'does the end justify the means' discussion; not a discussion on the principiality of justification of it.
Also from a pragmatically point of view this thinking an acting is flawed and only 'helps' terrorism/-ists.

Ok, no more Chili Peppers... although mostly I brought it up before to show ridiculousness of that being shown as a type of torture. I'm sure there are people who have been tortured by its real definition. You want to tell me that somehow that it happening secretly somewhere in the world was somehow known to people in Iraq, who beheaded Americans? So, I don't buy this being 'the cause' argument. It sounds good philosophically, but when you have people living without electricity and decent water most of the time - I highly doubt they'll have the info you mention and that it would become 'the cause'. If I kill you - that has nothing to do with my horrible childhood, or violent tv cartoons...

Ok, no more Chili Peppers... although mostly I brought it up before to show ridiculousness of that being shown as a type of torture. I'm sure there are people who have been tortured by its real definition. You want to tell me that somehow that it happening secretly somewhere in the world was somehow known to people in Iraq, who beheaded Americans? So, I don't buy this being 'the cause' argument. It sounds good philosophically, but when you have people living without electricity and decent water most of the time - I highly doubt they'll have the info you mention and that it would become 'the cause'. If I kill you - that has nothing to do with my horrible childhood, or violent tv cartoons or vampire web sites - it's my fault and I should be the only one held accountable for my actions, period. The rest becomes philosophy.
I'm not defending torture here, don't misunderstand me. I'm simply stating that when dealing with the kind of enemy we're dealing with (and I'm talking about every country that's subject to terrorism) - we should be taking whatever steps necessary to prevent the terrorists from accomplishing their objectives. Like you said - we all agree on that. Once the movement and its perpetrators and sponsors get crushed to the point of no return - then we can get back to the table and establish civilized rules for conflict resolution... provided all sides adhere to such rules. The Geneva convention was drafted for adoption by all sides of conflicts and it was drafted way before the current islamofascism was introduced into the international arena. To me, the question is simple - do I care about international or any laws when it comes to protection of my child? I don't know if you have children or how you'd respond to such a question, but I can totally and wholeheartedly tell you - I couldn't care less about doing anything to someone who intentionally wants to cause harm to my child...

You're right, terrorism can't be 'reduced' using the tactics we use now. It needs to be totally eliminated, not just reduced!

And if my child is saved with 'end justifyng the means' approach - I'm all for it.

This is where there's a divide between philosophical & intellectual approach, trying to use civility and good will vs. being dead-on practical and looking at it from an extremely personal point of view. A good example of this would be the Canadian tragedy yesterday. I'm sure that there are plenty of people who say evesdropping on people's personal web sites etc. to see what they're up to would be considered intrusive, big brother, 1984 and all this kind of jazz. Yet, if this cr...

You're right, terrorism can't be 'reduced' using the tactics we use now. It needs to be totally eliminated, not just reduced!

And if my child is saved with 'end justifyng the means' approach - I'm all for it.

This is where there's a divide between philosophical & intellectual approach, trying to use civility and good will vs. being dead-on practical and looking at it from an extremely personal point of view. A good example of this would be the Canadian tragedy yesterday. I'm sure that there are plenty of people who say evesdropping on people's personal web sites etc. to see what they're up to would be considered intrusive, big brother, 1984 and all this kind of jazz. Yet, if this creep's site/blog or whatever the heck he kept was observed and the guy was arrested - you'd have the tragedy of yesterday not be an event. The woman would be alive and nobody distressed going about their way.

The bottom line, Djiezes, I'm with you on being pro-peace and anti-terrorism and for civility... but when it comes to protecting my family - all bets are off, and thus full support for people who put their lives on the line daily to keep my family protected.

RS said:


You want to tell me that somehow that it happening secretly somewhere in the world was somehow known to people in Iraq, who beheaded Americans? So, I don't buy this being 'the cause' argument.

Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism in the first place. That discussion is about how mad Iraqi's are of an unexcusable pre-emptive strike (unexcusable= non of the excuses have shown to be true: neither WMD's nor a link to al al-qaeda. In fact, the opposite has been shown) and a lot of other factors.

It sounds good philosophically,

I guess I'll repeat myself in other words.
The philosophical, principal discussion of torture aside; there is a pragmatical, factual ...

RS said:


You want to tell me that somehow that it happening secretly somewhere in the world was somehow known to people in Iraq, who beheaded Americans? So, I don't buy this being 'the cause' argument.

Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism in the first place. That discussion is about how mad Iraqi's are of an unexcusable pre-emptive strike (unexcusable= non of the excuses have shown to be true: neither WMD's nor a link to al al-qaeda. In fact, the opposite has been shown) and a lot of other factors.

It sounds good philosophically,

I guess I'll repeat myself in other words.
The philosophical, principal discussion of torture aside; there is a pragmatical, factual downside to it.
It enrages people further, no matter what the reason was they became enraged in the first place.

RS:
I'm simply stating that when dealing with the kind of enemy we're dealing with [...] we should be taking whatever steps necessary to prevent the terrorists from accomplishing their objectives. Like you said - we all agree on that.

No, i did not say whatever it takes.
That's where I think this becomes a vicious circle?
'Doing whatever it takes' to prevent terrorist acts helps the terrorist cause; in that more people will be prepared to terrorize.
That way terrorists cannot be crushed as you say.

I'm not saying nothing has to be done. Just not pre-emptive wars, torture.
This is not the unilateral decision of the US; everybody is involved. As I said before, terrorism is not confined to the US.
...
[to be continued]

And about the children-argument. That counts for both sides.
For example; look at the Israeli 'solution' to Hezbollah terrorism; which has a lot of valid comparisons with the way US tries to handle it (invasion, pre-emptive, crushing it totally). Lots of children died in that conflict, predominantly on the Lebanon side. I've read 1/3th of the casualties in Lebanon were children, 1/3th of over 1000 deaths!
I guess you see were the circle becomes vicous.
So is torture or the way the US or Israel seem to be prepared to do whatever it takes not the cause of it? If it were your child that got killed or hurt, what would be the cause of you getting revenge, for example?

And yes, I think Eric has a...

And about the children-argument. That counts for both sides.
For example; look at the Israeli 'solution' to Hezbollah terrorism; which has a lot of valid comparisons with the way US tries to handle it (invasion, pre-emptive, crushing it totally). Lots of children died in that conflict, predominantly on the Lebanon side. I've read 1/3th of the casualties in Lebanon were children, 1/3th of over 1000 deaths!
I guess you see were the circle becomes vicous.
So is torture or the way the US or Israel seem to be prepared to do whatever it takes not the cause of it? If it were your child that got killed or hurt, what would be the cause of you getting revenge, for example?

And yes, I think Eric has a point here. The answer to 9/11 so far hasn't resulted in a better world.
Again exactly what the terrorists want to accomplish. Which imo is a reason to choose another way to handle it.

Quite honestly Sage, i think that the Bush administration's reaction to 9/11 has resulted in world chaos and an omnipresent sense of doom.

there was no other reaction to conduct.....to take a blow like we did on 9/11 and not retribute would be more of a disaster than what you claim is currently a disaster, our country would be washed over by rogue terrorists, because they don't understand anything but a firm fist. And while we may not have caught Osama YET we have destroyed the organization he lead, destroyed his funding, his training camps.....so while he may not be physically dead, his terrorist days are severly limited, much more so than if we did not react by stopping th...

Quite honestly Sage, i think that the Bush administration's reaction to 9/11 has resulted in world chaos and an omnipresent sense of doom.

there was no other reaction to conduct.....to take a blow like we did on 9/11 and not retribute would be more of a disaster than what you claim is currently a disaster, our country would be washed over by rogue terrorists, because they don't understand anything but a firm fist. And while we may not have caught Osama YET we have destroyed the organization he lead, destroyed his funding, his training camps.....so while he may not be physically dead, his terrorist days are severly limited, much more so than if we did not react by stopping the threat. Unfortunately todays world cannot be one of diplomacy and haggling, and talking things out because the countries that present the problems these days are run by terrorist cells and man men.

War is not a solution to terrorism

RS, sounds like your suggesting genocide.

Once the [terrorist] movement and its perpetrators and sponsors get crushed to the
point of no return - then we can get back to the table and establish
civilized rules for conflict resolution
...terrorism can't be 'reduced' using the tactics we use now. It needs to be totally eliminated, not just reduced!

There is no way that terrorism could ever occur be abolished. What would be the "terrorist" litmus test to gauge who lives and who dies? Do you spare the family, or whack them too, in case they're vengeful? What tactics would you sug...

War is not a solution to terrorism

RS, sounds like your suggesting genocide.

Once the [terrorist] movement and its perpetrators and sponsors get crushed to the
point of no return - then we can get back to the table and establish
civilized rules for conflict resolution
...terrorism can't be 'reduced' using the tactics we use now. It needs to be totally eliminated, not just reduced!

There is no way that terrorism could ever occur be abolished. What would be the "terrorist" litmus test to gauge who lives and who dies? Do you spare the family, or whack them too, in case they're vengeful? What tactics would you suggest? Surely, they wouldn't be civilized, if the round-table for rules doesn't come until after the crushing.

I am all for protecting my family and supportting the troops. But, I cannot say the same for the administrastion (of ass-ministers). They have got us into this mess, and they don't even know how or when to get US the hell out of Iraq. I tell you, with such a long-view that this president has, he sure looked past the end of the war. Or did he really think the "Mission [was] Accomplished"?

You know the main problem of us in iraq is......it's that we cannot run this war the way it needs to be run, because corrupt people like Kerry, who is a worse enemy of America then terrorism. This war needed to be relentless, like when we were supported when the war originated, we needed to show them that resistance from guerillas would not be tolerated, then the media and politicians got involved and all hell broke loose, thus why wars can never be won when politicians get mixed in it.

There is no way that terrorism could ever occur be abolished. What would be the "terrorist" litmus test to gauge who lives and who dies?

there will always be terrorists, but by doing w...

You know the main problem of us in iraq is......it's that we cannot run this war the way it needs to be run, because corrupt people like Kerry, who is a worse enemy of America then terrorism. This war needed to be relentless, like when we were supported when the war originated, we needed to show them that resistance from guerillas would not be tolerated, then the media and politicians got involved and all hell broke loose, thus why wars can never be won when politicians get mixed in it.

There is no way that terrorism could ever occur be abolished. What would be the "terrorist" litmus test to gauge who lives and who dies?

there will always be terrorists, but by doing what you are doing and rationalizing and accepting it it will only become worse, to the point where it overtakes all those who do not believe in what they do. We cannot allow them to take the freedoms each country holds dear, just because of their jealousy and hatred towards us. And we certainly cannot allow them to freely attack our citizens without penalty,

We cannot win against evil by becoming more evil ourselves. If we do not uphold a standard of good, if there is no Geneva Convention (which is a pretty minimum standard of goodness), then soon there will be no difference between us and the enemy. And then there will be no reason at all to fight. Or the fight will be as meaningless as two dogs in an alley, squabbling over a dirty bone.

We should fight, but lowering ourselves does not help us win. It only helps our enemies.

It is not weakness to support humane treatment of people, whether combatants, civilians or prisoners. Our standards, our freedoms, our rights, and our morals are what make our country strong.

And BTW, experience ...

We cannot win against evil by becoming more evil ourselves. If we do not uphold a standard of good, if there is no Geneva Convention (which is a pretty minimum standard of goodness), then soon there will be no difference between us and the enemy. And then there will be no reason at all to fight. Or the fight will be as meaningless as two dogs in an alley, squabbling over a dirty bone.

We should fight, but lowering ourselves does not help us win. It only helps our enemies.

It is not weakness to support humane treatment of people, whether combatants, civilians or prisoners. Our standards, our freedoms, our rights, and our morals are what make our country strong.

And BTW, experience shows that torture and "hard" interrogation tactics do not produce superior results anyway. So we would ultimately give away our strength and get nothing in return.

Djiezes, without getting too philosophical - what do you think the solution is then?

I agree with your comment that it's not just the US problem, but the entire world isn't united on fighting this. Look at my fellow ex-comrades, even with their Chechnya problems, where they've tasted islamic terrorism (Moscow, Beslan) very well - they still don't stand firmly with US on this issue (their lack of support for sanctions against Iran). Look at China - terrorism hasn't touched them and they get to make a few bucks in dealing with places like Iran, so they're with the Russians on this deal. So, the notion of the world uniting against this evil is non-practical, which is why I think every natio...

Djiezes, without getting too philosophical - what do you think the solution is then?

I agree with your comment that it's not just the US problem, but the entire world isn't united on fighting this. Look at my fellow ex-comrades, even with their Chechnya problems, where they've tasted islamic terrorism (Moscow, Beslan) very well - they still don't stand firmly with US on this issue (their lack of support for sanctions against Iran). Look at China - terrorism hasn't touched them and they get to make a few bucks in dealing with places like Iran, so they're with the Russians on this deal. So, the notion of the world uniting against this evil is non-practical, which is why I think every nation should take its own path to protection, including the US specifically (because that's where my citizenship and thus most concern is).

teejay1111 - I don't advocate genocide, but I do advocate using an approach similar to what was done in WW2, where the Germans weren't totally wiped out, but given such a serious blow that they lost their ambitions for world domination after the fact. Negotiating with them accomplished nothing, same as is with islamofascists. Hitting them somewhat hard and just letting them be didn't accomplish much either, i.e. WW1 and its aftermath. Only WW2 put an end to the madness. So, if there's no other way (at least that I can see - perhaps you can point me where there would be) to get this handled and put a stop to it - it'll continue and continue and continue.

Muslims worldwide, by harboring terrorists and not condeming their actions are guilty parties in this mess. The notion that these are just fundamentalists etc. is false, because we can see just how vocal they can get in today's response to Pope's speech, as an example, or the response to the Dutch cartoons. We know they can be vocal... they just don't seem to be on this issue, so it's not just the fundamentalists.

RecordSage said:

Djiezes, without getting too philosophical - what do you think the solution is then?

My solution? Well, don't expect a perfect answer to this, especially considering the 2000 character limit. If I knew that I'd better run for UN president or something.

Personally, if I were the decider ...
I should get rid of the unllateral action.
UN gets the authority, and necessary measures should be taken to make that possible.
I don't believe that the military and armies can resolve terrorism.
Lots of international bodies are already in place. Build on them, rebuild them.
Beef up the (international) police system, intelligence. There's interpol, there's europol; expand tha...

RecordSage said:

Djiezes, without getting too philosophical - what do you think the solution is then?

My solution? Well, don't expect a perfect answer to this, especially considering the 2000 character limit. If I knew that I'd better run for UN president or something.

Personally, if I were the decider ...
I should get rid of the unllateral action.
UN gets the authority, and necessary measures should be taken to make that possible.
I don't believe that the military and armies can resolve terrorism.
Lots of international bodies are already in place. Build on them, rebuild them.
Beef up the (international) police system, intelligence. There's interpol, there's europol; expand that and its authorities.

Refrain to terrorize yourself. Refrain from (all forms of) torture. Refrain from revenge & retribution.
Respect international law (geneva convention, humanitarian law, laws of war, etc.).

And don't make it bigger as it is. This doesn't even compare to WW2. And there are a lot of conflicts in the world, even today, that are even worse than terrorism. Look at africa: Sudan, Congo, etc.
Terrorism is not an act of war; it's a crime. I'm not minimizing terrorist acts here. Action needs to be undertaken. But not just any kind of action.
This is not a war in the conventional sense. Some kind of (semi-)worldpolice seems a more appropriate answer to his, imho.

How specifically? Don't take my answer to be the true one. Set up one hell of a task force/ think tank and tackle the problem in a coherent way, non-unilateral way.

I believe there would'nt have been an Iraqi war this way, no Abu Graib, no guantanamo bay, no cia prisons, no torture.
Much less innocent deaths, children killed, ...

Staying within the 2000 character limit; that's my less philosophical take - as you requested - on your question.