Putting aside the problem with defining “modern terrorist,” it’s beyond disingenuous to declare that we are “at war” with somebody, and then say it’s “unlawful” for them to fight back against our military.
Enraged sure, but I said murderers.
Apparentely, the word “meaning” has a different meaning in your dictionary. It does have a meaning that people understand or disagree on or disagree of what should be done with it, but saying it has no meaning it disingenous to say the least. I will no longer pursue this line.
Not even a bit? I’m not saying it would’ve been right to keep the guy in prison, the law is the law. However, I do not believe you if you tell me you would not have a nagging feeling about the previous case, even if you acted by the book.
Kind feelings? No. Desire to blow up shit and kill lots of people? No. What a person calls himself should be on little relevance when examining his guilt.; you don’t get to define your own guilt. Your justifications for violence are very interesting though and I will keep them in mind.*
- to distort them and take them out of context, of course
You can be at war with someone/something and they/it can still be unlawfully fighting back. If you don’t know that, you should come better prepared to the grownup table next time.
That is utter bullshit.You don’t get to declare a “war” on somebody, then cry like a little bitch when they defend themselves.
And what do sufficiently enraged people tend to do? Kill.
Yes. How many innocent people have we killed over 9-11? And most Americans weren’t even personally affected.
Of course. “Terrorism is what the big army calls the little army” has a lot of truth to it. We want our outnumbered, outgunned opponents to neatly line up in uniform so we can efficiently massacre them.
Why not? I thought that was SOP. The enemy is the villain because they are the enemy. The villain is the enemy because they are villains.
Us or them?
So did I. We are responsible for radicalizing Islamic murderers in Gitmo, and we should have the courage to own that responsibility. We are our own worst enemy.
Not unless they are using internationally banned weapons like poison gas or blistering agents. If you want to label this a “war on terror”, it is not unlawful for Muslim terrorists to blow up Americans with IED’s, shoot them with guns or incinerate them in airplanes. This is what happens when you choose to go to war.
Using banned weapons is only a part of it. There are a lot more rules and principles combatants must follow. There are essentially three separate wars (with overlap): War in Iraq, War in Afghanistan, and the infamous War on Terror(ist organizations).
Using IED’s by Iraqi regulars = fine. Assuming the are remote controlled, I suppose.
Shooting American soldiers with guns by Iraqi regulars or Afghans who carry arms openly, distinctive military emblem, ect = fine.
AQ using a commercial airplane to incinerate the World Trade Center = nope. For one, you can’t intentionally target civilians. That’s illegal and a classic war crime.
Not following/breaking the laws of war makes one unlawful (or unprivileged of POW/Combatant Immunity Status) and therefore they can be tried for the way they choose to fight.
On this debate:
-Terrorism and plotting terrorism should be an offense punishable by death.
-All national intelligence agencies (FBI, CIA, NSA, Secret Service) should be combined into one to streamline intelligence activity.
Keep the attacks focused on the argument and leave the snide comments about posters for the BBQ Pit.
[ /Modding ]
Which will terrify people who blow themselves up, I’m sure.
Really ? Even if it’s the good ol’ West doing it ? You know… gun running, helping coups, funding rebellions, “destabilizing” here and there, etc ?
The conditions for lawful war set by Geneva include: not targetting civilians and wearing identifiable uniforms among others, therefore it is unlawful to pursue war by incinerating a civilian plane.
IEDs that target soldiers are lawful, shooting soldiers is lawful.
That’s never stopped us. And the “wearing identifiable uniforms” part is just so we can blame them for not lining up to get killed.
If the point you are trying to make is that U.S. soldiers/governemnt *sometimes break the laws of war and *sometimes use the Geneva conventions as toliet paper, you got no disagreein’ from me.
However, the laws exist.
*(you may substitute sometimes with the frequency adverb of your choice)
Battlefield executions would solve that issue. (pause for panicked indignation)
No, I’m not advocating the summary execution of people who survive a firefight or are suspected of participating or abetting terrorist activity. But short of killing them all or letting them run wild and do what they want, there has to be some system to hold them.
And if you choose to hold them, you have to choose when and how to release them. If some of them go back to terrorism, then you are responsible for making an incorrect decision.
I think it would best serve our interests if prisoners are interrogated and then either released as non-participants or executed for participating, no matter what the level.
If they are already radicalized enough to be ready to die for allah, they’ll keep coming until they do. We should accomodate their wishes. And please don’t try the “that will only inflame them” argument. They are already inflamed. Some people just don’t want to face that fact.
When we trained and armed the Afghans to fight the Soviets ,we were terrorists in their eyes. Therefore we are guilty of international terrorism.
Fallujah.
I’m sure they’ll be held at least as accountable as your own war criminals.
And some don’t want to face the fact that there are more people who can be “inflamed”. Like all the Islamic people who became radicalized over our conquest of Iraq; people who before were NOT trying to kill us.
[quote=“Oakminster, post:26, topic:522903”]
If the next attempted terrorist attack is successful and traced to someone released on Obama’s watch, he’ll get crucified for it. QUOTE]
And this is where ideology enters the picture. Obama supporters would become apologists and detractors would be screaming to the high heavens. The same would have/will happen to GWB.
Obama might suffer a bit more based on the fact that Democrats are generally seen by independent voters as weaker on national defense than Republicans, so anything that plays into this perception is worse for them. (Please resist the temptation to play “cite tag”. Anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of domestic politics is aware of this.)
Obama’s pandering to the left on the campaign trail when promising to “close Gitmo on day one” would also be an issue for him. It would demonstrate that he was looking for a soundbite instead of fully considering the consequences.
The desperate attempt to paint Major Hassan as a “nut” instead of a radicalized terrorist after his Fort Hood attack shows that Obama and his supporters are well aware of these issues.