The Iraq / war on terror thread

[Holy War]

Nobody here has said we should fight this passively.

Keep strawman back at your headquarters too, thanks.

OK SLC, how should we - as in the U.S. miliatary and its allies - conduct interrogations of prisoners?

According to the Geneva Conventions.

And what of the circumstances where the Geneva Convention does not apply or doesn't work?

Such as?

Correct me if I'm mistaken (I realize this gets brought up a lot) but does not the Geneva Convention indeed apply strictly to traditional, uniformed military?  In other words, what Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are not.

And not strictly hypothetically speaking, for this has happened a number of times, what if we capture a high ranking operative of Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, insurgents in Iraq, etc. that we believe or know to have crucial information?  We try everything allowed by the Geneva Convention (even though it might not strictly apply here) and we are unsuccessful.  Then what?

[SLCPUNK]

Bush has been sending them to other countries for the treatment that is what.....

Domestically, the administration is denying these people due process because they claim they are Prisoners of War - Then internationally, they deny the same people their rights under the Geneva Convention, because they are criminals.

Which one is it?

[Sterlingdog]

Did I miss something?? At some point, was what England and her friends did supposed to be interrogation?? Because it sure looked like some young idiots with a little bit of authority humiliating people for thier own amusement.

Is there an echo in here?? I could have sworn I just said virtually all of this...

No, I'm honestly trying to figure out why you keep bringing up interrogations. ?Do you really think that England and Graner and whoever else was involved was "interrogating" those prisoners? ?England was a PFC, she wasn't in charge of interrogations. ?I know there were some other incidents that  involved interrogations, but I don't believe this was one of them.

And not strictly hypothetically speaking, for this has happened a number of times, what if we capture a high ranking operative of Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, insurgents in Iraq, etc. that we believe or know to have crucial information? We try everything allowed by the Geneva Convention (even though it might not strictly apply here) and we are unsuccessful. Then what?

I don't have an answer to that question, I'm no ?expert on the Geneva Convention. But what do you think we should do? ?Resort to torture? ?

[Holy War]

Bush has been sending them to other countries for the treatment that is what.....

That, as a last result, is what I personally don't have a problem with if it is fully needed since we "can't" do it.? However you and others seem to be undecided on this...

Domestically, the administration is denying these people due process because they claim they are Prisoners of War - Then internationally, they deny the same people their rights under the Geneva Convention, because they are criminals.

Which one is it?

Technically speaking, you may have a point there.

[Holy War]

No, I'm honestly trying to figure out why you keep bringing up interrogations. ?Do you really think that England and Graner and whoever else was involved was "interrogating" those prisoners? ?England was a PFC, she wasn't in charge of interrogations. ?I know there were some other incidents that? involved interrogations, but I don't believe this was one of them.

OK babe, before you respond to anymore of my posts, make sure you read them all carefully mmmkay.

I'm not bringing up interrogation.? It's pretty much the topic at hand.? I said I didn't think England, Graner, etc. were engaging in interrogation of prisoners.? Not effective interrogation anyway.

I don't have an answer to that question, I'm no ?expert on the Geneva Convention. But what do you think we should do? ?Resort to torture?

I'm also no expert on the Geneva Convention.? But I'm not sure it applies in every case were discussing either.

Well I guess it depends on what your definition of "torture" is?? That could be relative.

[Sterlingdog]

OK babe, before you respond to anymore of my posts, make sure you read them all carefully mmmkay.

I'm not bringing up interrogation.? It's pretty much the topic at hand.? I said I didn't think England, Graner, etc. were engaging in interrogation of prisoners.? Not effective interrogation anyway.

That's why I was asking, to better understand your position.  And don't call me babe.  I don't call people names, and I expect the same treatment.

[Holy War]

That's why I was asking, to better understand your position.? And don't call me babe.? I don't call people names, and I expect the same treatment.

As far as I'm concerned you can call me names.? Stud, hunk, sexy, Mr. God's gift to women all work quite well.? ?

[gilld1]

Why do you think that all these AQ guys and insurgents get sent to Jordan or Egypt?  Because they speak Arabic?  No, they are getting the shit tortured out of them but hey, we're not doing it so our hands are clean.  They have had 70 year olds in Gitmo for 2-3 years and the isolation they put the prisoners in is torture.  The US shouldn't have to do these things...

[SLCPUNK]

 

I don't have an answer to that question, I'm no  expert on the Geneva Convention. But what do you think we should do?  Resort to torture? 

That seems to be what he is pointing at, yes.

[gilld1]

Tortue?  Did you say torture?  I hadn't thought of that.....


But only if Michael Madsen is doing it and a cool 70s song is in the background.  (Resivoir Dogs for those who don't get it.)

[Holy War]

Why do you think that all these AQ guys and insurgents get sent to Jordan or Egypt?? Because they speak Arabic?? No, they are getting the shit tortured out of them but hey, we're not doing it so our hands are clean.

?

I do know this is why these Al-Qaeda guys get sent there.? And I'm absolutely fuckin' positive that, for some of them, it is definitely warranted.

They have had 70 year olds in Gitmo for 2-3 years and the isolation they put the prisoners in is torture.

?

Horseshit.? You want to see what torture is my friend?? Watch a guy get his head cut half way off while he is slowly bled to death.

The US shouldn't have to do these things...

You're right.? We shouldn't have to.? Nevertheless you fail to understand the enemy we're up against.

[Holy War]

I don't have an answer to that question, I'm no? expert on the Geneva Convention. But what do you think we should do?? Resort to torture??

That seems to be what he is pointing at, yes.

Again, it depends on the so-called "torture."  Give me some examples and I'll give you a yeah or nay.

Oh and by the way SLC, you still haven't answered my questions...

[gilld1]

What's horseshit? ?They have indeed had old men in Gitmo and isolation is indeed a torture, psychological but still torture. ?Over time an inmate in iso ?goes crazy so that is indeed inhumane.

I don't understand the enemy? ?Au contraire. ?This is an unconventional war with unconventional combatants. ?We have an enemy that is so convicted in what they believe that they are willing to blow themselves up for their cause. ?We have enemy groups that have put aside differences to unite against a common enemy, the US. ?A small group of rag tag mercanaries is taking it to the US. ?Yes, I understand all this but those in charge seem oblivious to all this as do you. ?If the US had the conviction and determination of AQ and the such the War on Poverty would have been won, Drug war=over, no homelessness, no unemployment, etc. ?Instead we have a bunch infighting in our leadership and the most divided public since the Civil Rights Era.

[Holy War]

What's horseshit? ?They have indeed had old men in Gitmo and isolation is indeed a torture, psychological but still torture. ?Over time an inmate in iso ?goes crazy so that is indeed inhumane.

Once again, I'm not neccessarily for any type of detention, isolation, or interrogation that isn't warranted.

I don't understand the enemy? ?Au contraire. ?This is an unconventional war with unconventional combatants. ?We have an enemy that is so convicted in what they believe that they are willing to blow themselves up for their cause. ?We have enemy groups that have put aside differences to unite against a common enemy, the US. ?A small group of rag tag mercanaries is taking it to the US. ?Yes, I understand all this but those in charge seem oblivious to all this as do you. ?If the US had the conviction and determination of AQ and the such the War on Poverty would have been won, Drug war=over, no homelessness, no unemployment, etc. ?Instead we have a bunch infighting in our leadership and the most divided public since the Civil Rights Era.

What you say is absolutely correct.  Which is why I don't understand the seemingly knee-jerk reaction you and others have to what it might, and probably will, take to defeat Al-Qaeda, etc.

[SLCPUNK]

You're right.  We shouldn't have to.  Nevertheless you fail to understand the enemy we're up against.

Yea, lets just take everything the USA stands for and throw it out the window for you guys....

[Holy War]

Yea, lets just take everything the USA stands for and throw it out the window for you guys....

While that may be a matter of interpretation, I don't believe I said that.

I just do think many people's ideas (including yours) on how to deal with Islamic terrorism is viable.

[SLCPUNK]

Yea, lets just take everything the USA stands for and throw it out the window for you guys....

While that may be a matter of interpretation, I don't believe I said that.

I just do think many people's ideas (including yours) on how to deal with Islamic terrorism is viable.

I just think you are ignoring the point and trying to change the subject.

What I said is that invading Iraq is not the way to deal with terrorism. Since no links to 9-11, or terror came from Iraq.

Your response is: "It may not be pretty or popular".

Well I agree with that, just not your method of "fighting it" (ie, Iraq).

Then you claim my idea of dealing with terror is not viable. So I must ask you, what are you referring to? Me saying no to Iraq, or me asking the USA to uphold the GC rules? What?

You say "This is a war like no other" and I say "You fight it like every other war though". What about this statement is difficult to understand?

Rules must be upheld, we can't change rules on our terms (although we already do), no matter how much you want them to change. You can't go into guilty until innocent mode, or continue like we have so far with that method.

[Holy War]

I just think you are ignoring the point and trying to change the subject.

I'm honestly not.? Besides, this thread is dealing with a lot of related subjects.

What I said is that invading Iraq is not the way to deal with terrorism. Since no links to 9-11, or terror came from Iraq.

Your response is: "It may not be pretty or popular".

Well I agree with that, just not your method of "fighting it" (ie, Iraq).

What we have here is a failure to communicate...

When I said "it may not be pretty or popular," I was referring to the war on terrorism in general.? Not specifically Iraq.? However other people and countries feel about the U.S. invading Iraq, I don't think many of them currently have the stomach or resolve to even go after Al-Qaeda.? Let alone possible force against hostile nations themselves.

Then you claim my idea of dealing with terror is not viable. So I must ask you, what are you referring to? Me saying no to Iraq, or me asking the USA to uphold the GC rules? What?

I thought you'd never ask.

Somehow lessening Al-Qaeda's resolve or passively creating a more pro-west mentality among the average Muslim in the middle east by pulling out most if not all of America's presence there and cutting of Israel.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.? It wouldn't matter if every last American and Isreali left the middle east tomorrow.? There would still be Islamic-terrorist attacks against the United States, Europe, and elsewhere.

You say "This is a war like no other" and I say "You fight it like every other war though". What about this statement is difficult to understand?

Rules must be upheld, we can't change rules on our terms (although we already do), no matter how much you want them to change. You can't go into guilty until innocent mode, or continue like we have so far with that method.

As far as I'm concerned, the actual terrorists themselves are not the only ones who are "guilty until proven innocent."

While they may not be directly involved in any way with terrorist activities, many Muslims in the middle east (and other places) support what they are doing.? It may be a lot to ask but they need to make a choice of where they stand regarding terrorism.? As I said, many of them seem to have made that choice.

If they are not willing (or able) to fix the failing Islamo-fascist societies that, in turn, breed the terrorists who have hijacked Islam, we have to.?

[Holy War]

Deaf. Dumb. Blind. - A Guest Editorial

In 1998, 1999 and 2000 I lived in Wellington, New Zealand. I was with my fianc? who was shooting a movie and we happily traveled up and down both the South and North Islands as the shooting schedule demanded. Sheep grazed the meadows, possums were flattened on the highways and Kiwi life floated along at an idyllic, unworrying pace.

One night, in either ?98 or ?99, as we sat in the living room of our glorious, rented, 1920s, Art Nouveau, semi-mansion, atop a hill overlooking the beautiful Wellington bay, a strange report came on the news. It seems a savage group of Islamic militants had occupied a soccer stadium somewhere in Malaysia (or was it Indonesia?). I had barely been paying attention when the New Zealand anchorman mentioned, between yawns, that the men were some kind of self-appointed religious assassins who were marching around the soccer field as they chanted their intention to leave the stadium and kill as many Christians and Catholics as they could find.

Huh? What did he just say? I looked at my half-slumbering fianc?. He opened his eyes, stared at the TV a second, then looked at me. Did we hear what we heard? We changed the channel and hunted for further information. There was none.

In New Zealand you get the ?Austro-Asia? news on the local nightly newscast and it?s a hodge-podge of international news service reports and the daily goings on of local Maoris. It usually took all our concentration to figure out exactly what the various anchormen and women were saying, because of their puzzling New Zealand accents and strange syntax, which left us alternately scratching our heads or dissolving into pools of laughter.

But. Wait a minute. Did that guy just say some pissed-off, religious guys with pointy knives in their scarfy belt things were heading out to murder Christians? Yep. He did and there was a similar report the next night?and the next.

But why were these killers so ticked? What had the Christians done? What was happening? They didn?t say. Hey, CNN International will know. Christiane Amanpour will have parachuted in, wearing that khaki safari jacket, and she?ll have every detail. (Is it just me or has Mrs. Rubin gotten really snippy lately?) But, nope. No Christiane. No report. Nothing. Not a word about Christians being butchered?where was it? Indonesia? Malaysia? Panama? Damn, I can?t remember. Why didn?t I pay closer attention?

Then, some time later, in the Wellington Times, buried deep in the paper under ?International?, there started to appear tiny news service pieces about ?Christian/Islamic conflicts? on some Asian islands somewhere. Could that be our story? I was getting really frustrated and couldn?t wait to get back to the states to find out what the Hell was going on. I just knew the L.A. Times, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Newsweek or Time magazine would have page after page of horrific images, plus long, detailed explanations of what this monstrous story was about. But for right now, the whole thing disappeared. Gone.

A few weeks later there were more news reports, this time of whole Catholic and Christian congregations being wiped out by?whom? They didn?t say, (or did they?) but priests and ministers were beingbeheaded and entire churches were being wiped out by some group. Why won?t anyone give us some back-story on these things?

Then I started to re-think the whole thing. Maybe I was over-reacting. That must be it. No one else was upset by these reports. Most of the people I talked to hadn?t even heard about them. No one else was talking about it on TV talk shows or at parties. People weren?t calling and saying, ?Have you heard? Isn?t it horrible? Somebody has got to do something!!!!!? No. None of that was happening, so was it, maybe, not such a big thing? Was there some sort of history to this event that I was newcomer to? That must be it. It either wasn?t real or it had been exaggerated by the news. I was just an alarmist who took everything I heard and read way to seriously.

In December of 2000 the movie wrapped and we headed back to the states. I went returned to burying myself in my usual four newspapers, plus The Hollywood Reporter and Variety everyday. Of course, there was not a single word about any mass slaughter of innocent Christians by marauding Islamic murderers (were they Islamic? I couldn?t remember). Oh, there was the occasional two sentence item about a couple of boatloads of people drown fleeing some religious island conflict somewhere and there were brief mentions of ?Christian/ Muslim infighting? here and there, but nothing was connected. No report was linked to any other report suggesting that an all out religious war had been declared on Christians, missionaries and the West in general by lunatic Islamo-fascists.

I finally shelved the whole thing. Someone named Osama bin Laden had been out there blowing our stuff up and killing our embassy workers and he better cut it out or we?ll have to kick his ass. Other than that, all that was on the nightly news or in the papers were reports of how the Democrats were happily blocking Bush cabinet nominees. Nothing new there.

Now, gentle reader, you might think my retelling of all this is a tad sketchy or confused concerning when and where and why these events took place, and you would be exactly right. To tell the truth, I?m not sure. It?s not clear. I lose bits of it everyday with no place to reload the info. And that?s because I made a huge HUGE mistake. I put my own brain on ?Pause? and counted on the American press, the international press, Jerry Springer, Joe Franklin, ANYONE to take notice that a group of innocent people of God were being massacred by another group of ?God-fearing? monsters, maybe connect it to the guy blowing our stuff up and explain it all to me. I now know, that was a childishly na?ve notion. I now realize that Watergate-worshiping ?reporters? would never take a break from demanding our new president lay out a plan to protect the endangered funds in our Social Security Lock Box, long enough to cover the story of the civilized world being under attack.

Even after September 11, 2001, the slaughter of school children in Beslan, Russia, the bombings in Spain and London, there are only isolated ?News In Brief? items suggesting this war is international and continuing.

How can this be?

A few years ago when the space shuttle Columbia blew up on reentry and its crew tragically lost, a Muslim cleric in London celebrated. Stop me if you?ve heard this. He was a happy man, our cleric, and praised Allah because not only had several Christian Americans perished on that day, but a despised Jew (Israel?s first astronaut, Ilan Ramon) and a hated Hindu (Kalpana Chawla) were also incinerated. Yes, members of the reviled Big Three, all dead in one momentous event. Happy, happy. Joy, joy. Remember that cheery cleric? Didn?t hear about him? Hmm.

Well, last week in Kashmir an apartment building was forcibly emptied, the residents were lined up, sorted by religion and all the Hindus were murdered. Did you hear that on the network news? Really? But is there any doubt who did the killing?

And how about this one. A few days ago, in southern Thailand, an entire village was wiped out by Islamic terrorists ?demanding an Islamic state?. Villagers butchered, houses burned to the ground. Gone in a day. Did you hear about that? Figures.

If you spend a good long time Googling, hunting and Lexis-Nexising you will probably find mention of the stories above, but chances are it will be far easier to find Gold Star Moms, columnists and editorials claiming that current waves of terrorism have been brought on by ?Bush?s immoral war?, our ?Israeli policies? or general ?American warmongering?. You?ll hear everyday from Joe Biden and Chris Matthews that the terrorist are being created by the president?s unilateral, go-it-alone policy of trading the lives and limbs of our brave, young men for oil.

If you believe anything except that the entire non-Islamic population of the planet is living under a bull?s-eye next to a ticking clock?you?re just not informed. But I can?t really blame you.

http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/deaf-dumb-blind-a-guest-editorial/

[Rain]

Jesus what's that supose to mean ? We are surrounded by mean muslims everywhere and they are there waiting to behead any christians they encounter ?
It's been centuries things like that keep on happenning. Where were this person living before 98 ? In a cave ? Hindu and muslims don't get along for ages ... man you've got to read and learn your history, never heard about the creation of Pakistan and Bangladesh ?
Stop bullshitting about a suppose global war between muslims and Christians ... no civil war in France yet ... I'm so damn frightened, I'm surrounded by 5 million muslims in here ....  Give me a fuckin break !