The catch is that by irrationally lashing out just to get back at someone, we’re only exacerbating the problem. The best course of action would involve maintaining the moral high ground, but that’s the least likely scenario when we’re all hot headed.
To Left Hand of Darkness:
What is it with this “Stupid bloody git” business? You’re in North Carolina!
I repeat: The terrorists *do not care * if we take the high ground, low ground or middle ground. They *do not care * if we treat our captives gently, badly or indifferently. None of it changes the fact that, as Christian, non-Muslim Americans, we are an obstacle to them. No matter what we do or say, we are marked for death.
When the terrorists bombed the Madrid trains, they claimed that they did it to force the Spanish government to withdraw its troops from Iraq. But that was just a cruel, opportunistic lie. The fact is, the Madrid bombing was planned before the invasion of Iraq. What was their goal? Ultimately, to force an Islamic government and society on Spain - to turn the clock back 500 years. Ferdinand and Isabella threw the last of the Muslims out of Spain in 1492. And they are still pissed off about it. Osama bin Laden himself explicitly stated that one of his goals was to re-establish the caliphate in Spain. Lunacy!
A Palestinian woman was quoted as saying how relieved she would be on the day when the flag of Islam finally flies over the White House. Lunacy! Nothing like setting a plausible goal for yourself in order to avoid ultimate frustration.
At one time Islamic civilization was a mighty thing, full of energy and creativity, and Muslims have a right to be proud of that. But the thing withered under centuries of despotism and repression. And the decline started long before America even existed.
All this anti-Israel, anti-American, anti-Western Civilization bullshit they wallow in is nothing but an excuse to avoid looking in the mirror. The problem is within themselves and until they face up to it and rethink their place in the world, Muslim civilization will never be great again.
Some random lawyer checking in…
Actually, the UN Convention Against Torture, which the United States has ratified (with no reservations relevant to this discussion) hits the nail on the head.
It prohibits “…any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.”
You know Rose, the problem isn’t just them, we have a pretty big hand in it. Take an objective look at the Iraq war, it was a pretty fucked up thing to do. We as a country need to take a look in the mirror and determine why they’re pissed at us. I don’t see really see Canadians or Germans being targeted.
Why so I am. Perhaps you’re not so stupid after all–but from all signs, you’re still a bloody git.
And I repeat: the people who are not yet terrorists do care. Terrorists are not, contrary to my previous pernicious lies, bred in mad scientist vats. They are recruited from the general populace.
If the US acts like barbarians, then the terrorists will have a lot easier time recruiting more terrorists.
If the US acts like a civilization, then the terrorists will have a much harder time recruiting new murderers to their cause.
Daniel
To World Eater:
I may be a hawk and a conservative, but I am willing to concede that the Iraq War might be a mistake. The thing is, it is much too early to tell. That will require at least 50 years of historical hindsight. In the meantime, we have done what we have done. And by doing so, we have made an implicit promise to the Iraqi people: We will stick with you and help you rebuild a (more or less) stable country. If we cut and run, how can we ever expect other countries to keep their promises to us? There are always larger issues. And that includes strategic considerations. As long as we have a military presence in Iraq, we can keep an eye on Syria and on Iran, which seems hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons.
Which brings up a couple of other points I may as well get off my chest (This is the BBQ Pit, after all).
Some have compared the War on Terror to the Cold War, arguing that containment and economic pressure ultimately won the Cold War, therefore the same strategy should be applied to the War on Terror. There are two problems with this.
First of all, even though the US and the Soviet Union held nuclear arsenals to each others throat, they trusted each other. That is, each believed that the other side was rational and unlikely to push the button. The terrorists are irrational. A nuclear weapon (or some other WMD) in the hands of terrorists is a weapon which will be used. The Israelis are acutely aware of this threat since the Iranians, among other, have gleefully pointed out that it would take only two large atomic explosions to obliterate Israel. They have the right to defend themselves. Iran’s nuclear facilities are spread all over the map. The US government recently delivered 500 bunker-buster bombs to the Israelis. Draw your own conclusions.
Secondly, a certain presidential candidate has suggested that we should try to return to the days of 9-10 and attempt to hold the terrorists to a “nuisance level” (the containment idea). I will skip over the obvious point that we are never, ever going to recover those halcyon days prior to 911. My question to the candidate: What “nuisance level” will you accept? 300 dead Americans per year? 500? 1000? 2000? The idea is absurd. Beyond the fact that you are suggesting that terrorist attacks are akin to tornados - bad things we just have to accept - the terrorists have *no slightest intention * of being held to a nuisance level. As long as they are alive and free to move about, they will attempt to inflict maximum damage on us.
Others have compared the War in Iraq to the Vietnam War, usually for a chance to whip out the “quagmire” word. But there is an important difference. Once we left Vietnam, that was the end of it. Our enemies were happy to see us go. The last thing they wanted was to draw hostile attention to themselves again. We left them alone and they left us alone.
If we disengage from the enemy in Iraq or in Afghanistan or wherever, the terrorists will not disengage from us. They will not leave us alone. After all, if Zarqawi was not busy fighting us in Iraq, where else might he be, plotting some nastiness closer to our home? If we do not fight the terrorists overseas, ultimately American citizens will have to fight them in our own streets.
I suggest that any of you Dopers who take issue with my notions should go to the Jihad Watch site and start reading a few of the things there. The situation is graver than you think, not just for America but for Europe.
The storm gathers.
How many people die every year from organized crime? Organized crime is the kind of “nuisance” that Kerry compared terrorism to–obviously it’s not something that acceptable, but neither do we build our entire national policy around combatting organized crime. We give it to our cops to fight, and we get on with our lives. How is this a stupid idea?
In this particular case, it’s in a teacup.
Daniel
Here is the link to Jihad Watch: http://www.jihadwatch.org/. The article “The Mullah’s Europe” (Tues, Sept 14, 2004) is especially disturbing.
Frankly, I never expected to kick up such a fuss in the BBQ Pit. I am, after all, only a newbie. You folks need more hawks and conservatives on this board, that is for damn sure.
Now you will have to excuse me. I must get something to eat and attend to other matters of daily living. In the meantime, fire away.
Stay cool, kids.
Sometimes it is necessary to sink to the enemy’s level of brutality.
Were the Nazi’s defeated because of any philosophical flaw in their mentality? Was it because the Western allies showed them that we’re a bunch of swell folks and there’s no need to hate us?
Did the Japanese surrender because of a sudden realization that their world view
was inferior to that of the West?
Or was it caused by using brute force to crush the enemy?
It is generally believed that the Japanese were willing to fight off an allied invasion and would continue fighting indefinitely.
It took 2 atom bombs for the Japanese to realize that their cause was truly hopeless and they could literally be wiped off the face of the Earth if necessary.
Think of what the Romans did to Carthage as an ultimate solution. Savage and brutal it was, but then again, Rome saw no further trouble from those folks.
It’s always a good sign to me when a person takes time to compose a rational repsonse.
Time will truly tell, but it’s pretty easy to see we’re not going anywhere for at least 10 years.
This implies that the Iraqi people are united in purpose, which is far from the case. It’s no big secret that as soon as we pull out, there will most likely be a big, bloody civil war. As fucked as it sounds, this is a neccessary step to get through in order to return to some semblance of country. I’d rather pull the hell out now and let them slaughter each other, instead of 10 years from now. Of course I advocated not going in before the war, which would have spared us making this horrible lose lose decision in the first place.
They’re going to get that shit one way or another, 10 years, 20 years from now. What do we do then? I want a policy other then “you can’t have it”, because that’s not going to be the case for long. I also would tone down the “axis of evil” crap. We might want to think about getting on their good side from now on.
[quote]
Some have compared the War on Terror to the Cold War, arguing that containment and economic pressure ultimately won the Cold War, therefore the same strategy should be applied to the War on Terror. There are two problems with this.
First of all, even though the US and the Soviet Union held nuclear arsenals to each others throat, they trusted each other. That is, each believed that the other side was rational and unlikely to push the button. The terrorists are irrational. A nuclear weapon (or some other WMD) in the hands of terrorists is a weapon which will be used. The Israelis are acutely aware of this threat since the Iranians, among other, have gleefully pointed out that it would take only two large atomic explosions to obliterate Israel. They have the right to defend themselves. Iran’s nuclear facilities are spread all over the map. The US government recently delivered 500 bunker-buster bombs to the Israelis. Draw your own conclusions.
I agree with this. I don’t think it should be fought as the cold war. The real problem is this. The WOT should be fought in the shadows. It should be a operation of quiet diplomacy, and cooperation. We should be silently knocking these guys out and moving on. We SHOULD NOT be bandying about every single guy we kill who was once OBL’s towelboy. Of course this is horrible from a political standpoint and a PR standpoint, because if you make no mention of things, people will assume nothing is being done.
I think we as a country need to accept that we will never eliminate this threat to us. It’s impossible. So yes, getting things down to a horrible incident every decade or so is the only realistic way to look at it.
Good point, I agree 100%
This won’t happen.
No: it’s because we set up extermination camps and gassed the Germans by the millions.
No: we set up torture and rape camps.
No: we descended to their level of brutality, like you said, torturing and committing genocide on a scale previously not seen in human history.
You’ve completely persuaded me.
Daniel
Oh, very funny joke! You’re a riot. What? You weren’t kidding?
What? After fifty years, we’ll discover that falsifying intelligence and lying about the existence of WMD’s so as to start a war against the wishes of the rest of the civilized world, save Poland and England, is bad? That a preemptive strike against a sovereign nation that in actuality poses no threat to us was wrong?
Roseworm, you are a coward.
A snivelling, pusillanimous child, cowed by your own hatred. You are the kind of person who think that Born In The USA and America: Fuck Yeah! are patriotic pro-war songs. You would turn America into a juggernaut of hate and fear for the sole purpose of destroying the opposition, a juggernaut of hate and fear? Are you familiar with the concept of a Pyrhhic victory? I offer you this: go ahead, torture someone.
Go to Guantanamo Bay, find a nice terrorist, who, by your own admission is not human, and torture him. Shove that broom straw up his nose. Twist off his toes with a pair of pliers. Crush his fingers in a vise-grip. Listen to his screams and see the fear in his eyes. Slice his eyes open with razor blades so that you don’t have to see the look of terror and fear in them. Give him a tracheotomy with a Phillips-Head screwdriver so that you don’t have to listen to the horrible screams. While you are doing this, shout to the world about how good it makes you feel, how cathartic the experience is. Yell out how American you are, and how truly patriotic you feel. How his broken body embodies American ideals, that all men are created equal and endowed with the inalienable rights of life, libery and the pursuit of happiness. How it dovetails with the principles of our great country set forth in the Constitution. Think about how much the rest of civilization will applaud you and applaud America’s new tack in the war on terror and how the terrorists will quail in fear of your fell spectre. Think about how much Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson and George Washington would respect you if only they could see the mutilated corpse of your victim. Above all, think about the glory and liberation you will feel after you mortify everylast one of your inhuman enemies.
You sickening, disgusting coward. You would vomit and curl into the fetal position yelling for mommy after the first scream issued from his lips.
Go fuck yourself with a rusty razorblade, you impuissant planarian. I feel nothing but contempt for you, and am ashamed that I have to share my country with fucking imbeciles like yourself (my present location notwithstanding).
Hate is our ally, indeed.
Yeah I was going to ask. What the fuck are you doing down in NZ? 
Ahem…Ilsa?
I think the OP asked about Bin Laden, not some anonymous Guantanamo prisoner who may or may not have harmed someone. He’s talking about the cold-blooded murderer of thousands of men and women who were at one moment sitting at their desks talking to their bosses, or to their spouses on the telephone, or were riding in elevators on the way to their offices, and who the next moment found themselves plummeting head over heels story after story after story toward their deaths.
Either that or burned to death, as many of them were.
I have refrained from expressing what I’d like to do to him simply because it would accomplish nothing positive to do so and would likely only diminish me in the eyes of some of my friends here. But you aren’t far off the mark in much of what you suggest. And you wouldn’t find me quailing at the look of fear in his eyes either.
(Sorry for the vitriol, but remember…I’m speaking as a dick desirous of protecting pussies from assholes.) 
I have to agree with World Eater. The Sunnis and Shiites are gonna be at one another like black and red ants the moment we leave. Saddam is out, the WMDs are long gone, and although accusations flew that it was all about oil, the price at the pump says different. Let’s cut our losses and bail now.
I’m really tired of the US being the volunteer fire department for the world. Let’s cut the deficit by eliminating the billions given to foreign countries. Solve your own problems, and if you want our help, we’ll offer a business proposal with appropriate terms for compensation.
Couldn’t have said it better.
Now, what’s the next problem you need us to solve?
But what about the people of the world? This is the sticking point for me. When millions are being repressed, murdered, tortured by dictatorial or religious governments, in almost every instance they cannot rise up and overthrow their oppressors. Their lives are miserable at best, and horrid at worst. Why are we, or the free world’s powers in unison, not to interfere? This is why we have such powerful laws in effect in our country to protect children; they cannot protect themselves. Why should we care so little for the plight of men, women and children in other countries simply because a border separates us? They feel love and concern for their families and friends just like we do. They suffer when hurt just like we do. The free world has the power to help them, so why shouldn’t it?
Not that I seriously expect it to happen, but I would have no problem with imposing democracies on dictatorial and/or repressive regimes, and/or regimes that are directly or indirectly a threat to other countries. When has a democracy every been violently overthrown by the will of its people? I see no problem whatsoever in imposing freedom on people.
I agree with the gist of what you’re saying, but honestly I don’t feel that we’re in the best position to offer help right now. We have some domestic issues we need to take care of.
But who’s a threat? What’s oppressive? There are just too many fuzzy lines here that practical execution is an impossibility.
Yes, I agree we are not now in the position to do much in this regard. I’m thinking mainly of national and world trends when I talk about these things.
Yes, these are complicating questions and frankly I don’t know what the practical answer to them would be. I guess for the immediate future it would just have to be on a case-by-case basis like now.
However, I didn’t really have this sort of thing in mind when I said I saw no problem with imposing freedom on people. When I said that I was speaking from a moral standpoint.
But just for the record, I think when we (either the U.S. or a world coalition) have the chance to free a clearly oppressed and horribly treated people we should not refrain from doing so simply because we have no right to impose our will on another people, especially since those “other people” are likely the oppressors and not the populace at large who would likely welcome being able to govern themselves.