>>> Your very basic claim that terror tactics (torture) must all of a sudden be >>> used because of US involvement
Wrong... I assume the US acts the same way when it is seeking to combat groups that terrorize... That is using non lethal methods to extract timely and critical information from terrorists is more the rule rather than the exception...... Many countries willingly use lethal methods in a crunch... To suggest otherwise ignores otherwise... Hell, the Gitmo prisoners were better treated that the IRA in Northern Ireland, or how Iran treats political prisoners, or does China, South Africa, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or so many others... You like so many make an issue of US shortcomings while ignoring others --- as Hamas, the PLO, Hizbollah, as Sadr's militias, or so many others... >>> The conventions are there to protect Humanity from from itself. To reinterpret or at times flat out ignore these covenants for the short term geographically limited American minority interest while ignoring what this does and permits to be done in the mind of the terrorist is just idiotic. Yet all nations do it... The British actions in Burma in the early 50's, the French in Algeria, the Russians in Georgia, The French in NorthWest Africa, the AU peace keeping troops in Africa, the Chinese in Tibet, The Sudanese in Dafer.... ANd their callousness and abuse and branch of the accords are far graver... >>> SPRAY THE POPPY CROP and then deny the Afghani farmer a living... Not unlike the edict the EU gave Zimbabwe, send us you grain refuse free grain to feed your starving or else we will stop buying your grain... All the while giving European farmers money for growing crops that cost many times what the Zimbabwean grain cost... On Apr 23, 2:09 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > Your very basic claim that terror tactics (torture) must all of a sudden be > used because of US involvement and their moral use of amoral tacctics is > necessary is exactly equatable to saying that something new is in the wind > and that the internationally legal methods as outlined in plain ( fill in th > language) in the conventions is either not suitable or sufficient, did not > envision terrorists what Americans are considering "special circumstance" > when it is indeed an age old problem says EXACTLY that. > > The conventions are there to protect Humanity from from itself. To > reinterpret or at times flat out ignore these covenants for the short term > geographically limited American minority interest while ignoring what this > does and permits to be done in the mind of the terrorist is just idiotic. > > Want to truly fight terror .......... SPRAY THE POPPY CROP.... your nation > supplied the seed which gives the terrorists a 3 billion dollar income every > year. Then cancel Moslems use of any sort of public or private > transportation outside their own nations. > > Problem solved. > > No army, no torture, no denial of rights. > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 9:34 AM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Please Mark stop misrepresenting my words when my words are clear... > > > >>> I do not understand how or from where you get this idea that "stateless > > terror" is anything new or that was not considered when the Covenants were > > written. > > > 1) I did not claim stateless terrorism was new... YOU said I claimed > > that... And then attack me for my error which I never made... > > > 2) Let examine what I said... > > > >>> "it did NOT take into account GLOBAL stateless groups like AQ" > > > When the Geneva accords were written, stateless groups were local or > > regional, but NOT GLOBAL... Why??? Stateless group lacked the > > internal structure to support such a global presence -- only nation- > > states did (and then primarily large nation-states0... The > > communication and travel technologies to allow for such infrastructure > > did not exist... > > > Semi-official trading company as the British East Asia Company came > > closest, but they where effectively an agent of Britain... Chinese > > associations as the Tang also had regional infrastructure, but it did > > not seek to overthrow local governments as a principle... Or one can > > suggest corporations are transcending stateless organizations, but > > they in the end require the official backing of some nation-state > > complete with the nation-states military... AQ however is an > > independent stateless group with its own laws, military, and courts > > that has a global presence... And the Geneva Accords never addressed > > or took into account such a global stateless group... > > > Not you shift meaning when you change "take into account" into "did > > not consider"... One can consider a possibility and dismiss any need > > to address it... But if the formal structure takes into account, it > > requires addressing the issue in an institutional fashion... > > > So again you twist words, create straw men, and ignore my basic > > question --- Is torture ok if you can save thousands??? If no, then > > you embrace the slippery slope that the needs of one outweigh the > > needs of the many all the time, that is most folks would disagree with > > you... If yes, then the question did using methods you define as > > torture save thousand is pertinent... > > > Even the NYT times now admits that Obama deleted key paragraphs of the > > memos that so stated it did save thousands... Such an omission of > > course was deliberate so as to spin the debate, a rather dishonest act > > by Obama... > > >http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22blair.html?_r=2 > > > FYI atleast some Lefties are being honest and arguing even it it did > > save lives torture is never good... > > > I part with my concern about Pakistan... Paki officials have tried > > to bargin with AQ and the Taliban... The agreements have always been > > ignored or broken openly by the Taliban and AQ... Now the lowland > > citizens are being invaded by the Paki Highlanders... Not unlike the > > history of Scotland... The Highlanders 1,000 year threat to power > > was broken by a brutal and long fight before and after 1745... And > > forced deportation to America... > > > What do you do with an enemy who demands your destruction??? > > > On Apr 23, 10:34 am, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > It DID take "such groups" into account. It also took US treatment of > > "such > > > groups" into account as the US in the 20th century had at one time a > > habit > > > of decapitating the dead stuffing the mouths with meat and burying the > > parts > > > separately. Nice history you have there. > > > > It has all been done before.... like car bombs... first one was LA in the > > > early 20th century.. > > > > I do not understand how or from where you get this idea that "stateless > > > terror" is anything new or that was not considered when the Covenants > > were > > > written. > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 8:05 AM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > My words were posts in an earlier post > > > > > Once again you twist words... I said "it did NOT take into account > > > > global stateless groups like AQ" Huge difference between "did not > > > > exist" and "did not take into account" > > > > > Either you are not reading the post carefullly or you intentionally > > > > twist words... > > > > > On Apr 22, 6:30 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > jgg, > > > > > > Your evasion of a direct question and saying that any of my > > statements > > > > > are fallacious even down to denying "turtle syndrome" when faced with > > > > > an overwhelming fear/adrenaline situation is ludicrous. You continue > > > > > to try to debate based on press reports and from a purely ignorant > > > > > view of other cultures and traditions while inserting a holier than > > > > > thou attitude of kneejerk revisionism and what a withdrawal from or > > > > > allowed individual interpretation to the conventions will certainly > > > > > bring about. > > > > > > To say that the rest of the world has not been dealing withh > > stateless > > > > > terrorist groups on a successful basis for a long time before the US > > > > > involvement is just STUPID. > > > > > > Here is a PARTIAL list : > > > > > > AFGHANISTAN > > > > > > NAME: al Qaeda > > > > > > DATE STARTED/FIRST ACTIVE: Established by Osama bin Laden in the late > > > > > 1980s. > > > > > > GOALS: Establish a pan-Islamic Caliphate throughout the world by > > > > > working with allied Islamic extremist groups to overthrow regimes it > > > > > deems "non-Islamic," and expelling Westerners and non-Muslims from > > > > > Muslim countries. > > > > > > MAIN ANTI-U.S. ACTIVITIES TO DATE: Is suspected of involvement in the > > > > > October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Aden, Yemen. Conducted the > > > > > bombings in August 1998 of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and > > > > > Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, that killed at least 301 persons and injured > > > > > more than 5,000 others. Claims to have shot down U.S. helicopters and > > > > > killed U.S. servicemen in Somalia in 1993, and to have conducted > > three > > > > > bombings that targeted U.S. troops in Aden, Yemen, in December 1992. > > > > > > STRENGTH: May have several hundred to several thousand members. > > > > > > OPERATIONAL LOCATIONS: Al Qaeda has a worldwide reach with cells in a > > > > > number of countries, and benefits from its ties to Sunni extremist > > > > > networks. Bin Laden and his top associates reside in Afghanistan, and > > > > > the group maintains terrorist training camps there. > > > > > > AFFILIATIONS: Serves as the umbrella organization for a worldwide > > > > > network that includes many Sunni Islamic extremist groups, such as > > > > > Egyptian Islamic Jihad, some members of al-Gama'at al-Islamiyya, the > > > > > Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, and the Harakat ul-Mujahidin. > > > > > > COMMENTS: Bin Laden is the son of a wealthy Saudi family, and uses > > his > > > > > inheritance to finance the group. Al Qaeda also operates moneymaking > > > > > front organizations, solicits donations, and illicitly siphons funds > > > > > from donations to Muslim charitable organizations. > > > > > > ALGERIA > > > > > > NAME: Armed Islamic Group (GIA) > > > > > > DATE STARTED/FIRST ACTIVE: 1992. > > > > > > GOALS: GIA aims to overthrow the secular Algerian regime and replace > > > > > it with an Islamic state. > > > > > > MAIN ANTI-U.S. ACTIVITIES TO DATE: None. > > > > > > STRENGTH: Unknown, probably several hundred to several thousand. > > > > > > OPERATIONAL LOCATIONS: Algeria. > > > > > > AFFILIATIONS: Algerian expatriates and members of the Salafi Group > > for > > > > > Call and Combat (GSPC) splinter group abroad, many of whom reside in > > > > > Western Europe, provide financial and logistic support. In addition, > > > > > the Algerian government has accused Iran and Sudan of supporting > > > > > Algerian extremists. > > > > > > COMMENTS: The GSPC splinter faction appears to have eclipsed the GIA > > > > > since approximately 1998 and is currently assessed to be the most > > > > > effective remaining armed group inside Algeria. A U.S. Designated > > > > > Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) listed as "active" during 2000. > > > > > > NAME: The Salafist Group for Call and Combat (GSPC) > > > > > > DATE STARTED/FIRST ACTIVE: 1996. > > > > > > GOALS: Overthrow the Algerian government and impose fundamentalist > > > > > Islamic theocracy. > > > > > > MAIN ANTI-U.S. ACTIVITIES TO DATE: Unknown. > > > > > > STRENGTH: Unknown; suspected to be several hundred to several > > > > > thousand. > > > > > > OPERATIONAL LOCATIONS: Algeria. > > > > > > AFFILIATIONS: Algerian expatriates and GSPC members living abroad. > > > > > The Algerian government has accused > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
