I think Terrorism is Criminal Act and not War

[francisca]

I have to admit, this is true (and yes, I am American). Without a balancing superpower, we can lose our way by just not being forced to think things through.

I wasn’t talking about balancing superpower, but
I’m glad that you get to see some of my point.

The thing is that no one wants to destroy the whole world. Even for a power-hungry arch-villian, what would be the point?

Exactly

Is it the job if the military to teach people to love freedom? (Which I am not sure is a good goal, but is another discussion!).

I should have wrote “democracy” instead of “freedom”.

Democracy is what the US foreign policy use for reasoning to topple “dictators” or “bad regimes”. History shows that democracy takes time to build, and military intervention will only hinders such process. However, in a paradoxal way of thinking, US foreign policy always use this reasoning. Exacly my question: how do you teach democracy (as in opposite of a dictatorship) if the means you use is military intervention. Isn’t a military intervention is a form of dictatorship in itself?

No matter how bad a dictator (example Saddam Hussein) of another country, it takes local people’s own dynamic aspirations to topple if so they wish. Otherwise maybe they (the people) need time to learn what to do or what they want as a nation. Moreover, if in an area wounded by long time civil war (example Syria), sometimes one stronger regime is what it takes to stabilize the situation, no matter how bad the said regime is (example Assad), it’s no other countries affairs to interfere with them. If peace were so easy for them, they would have found it themselves a long time ago.

If you really want to teach democracy, then use diplomatic means or even education or any other positive means. This is out of topic now, but I am trying to explain how paradoxal US foreign policy especially regarding military intervention using “dictatorship of another country” as a reason to do things in another’s sovereign territory which is a form of dictatorship in itself.

I woukd say that various groups have their functions: police are to protect those within a nation; military to protect from enemies outside the nation,

Police or Military is not based on physical territory neither their equipments/ weaponry. They are different kind of institutions with different philosopy.

I would say that Police job is to ensure that everyone abide under the law.

Military job is to win with whatever means necessary for the targeted victory.

Police have to be neutral, Military is never neutral and always have “agenda”.

and it is the job of missionaries to bring the peace of Christ to others.

Right

In what wat could we possibly teach anything to people who are actively engaged in the level of cruelty ISIS is engaged in?

I think ISIS has learnt their way from somewhere…
Now, how can we suddenly say “no, no, no don’t do that boys…!” to them?
Good question you asked. No easy answer

Yes, I think that developing alternate sources of energy would be good, but environmentalists have been fighting against that for decades.

 

[francisca]

…, what are we to do?

Depends on what kind of victory we want…

Your own military people said they do not have any strategy fighting ISIS at this point.

The area is too crowded with each of everyone agenda including regional neighbours, factions within each countries, religion, race, oil, weapon trade and so on.

 

[St_Francis]

If it weren’t for the fact that we’ve been in a couple of wars (the one in Iraq being unnecessary and perhaps partly causal of the rise of ISIS) and are exceedingly war-weary and that ISIS has a way of hiding among civilians, we could probably along with many other nations of the world go to war with ISIS…which is claiming to be a state, a wannabe state.

My posts were mainly with 9/11 and al Qaeda in mind.

I guess I see Al Qaeda as having the same goals as ISIS but being smaller. I do not think our involvement in the ME is a direct cause of ISIS. Al Qaeda, ISIS, and numerous other groups have their own actual goals unrelated to us. They want to fulfill what they consider to be the mandate of Islam: to conquer the entire world for Islam.

 

[St_Francis]

…I should have wrote “democracy” instead of “freedom”.

Democracy is what the US foreign policy use for reasoning to topple “dictators” or “bad regimes”. History shows that democracy takes time to build, and military intervention will only hinders such process. However, in a paradoxal way of thinking, US foreign policy always use this reasoning. Exacly my question: how do you teach democracy (as in opposite of a dictatorship) if the means you use is military intervention. Isn’t a military intervention is a form of dictatorship in itself?

No matter how bad a dictator (example Saddam Hussein) of another country, it takes local people’s own dynamic aspirations to topple if so they wish. Otherwise maybe they (the people) need time to learn what to do or what they want as a nation. Moreover, if in an area wounded by long time civil war (example Syria), sometimes one stronger regime is what it takes to stabilize the situation, no matter how bad the said regime is (example Assad), it’s no other countries affairs to interfere with them. If peace were so easy for them, they would have found it themselves a long time ago.

If you really want to teach democracy, then use diplomatic means or even education or any other positive means. This is out of topic now, but I am trying to explain how paradoxal US foreign policy especially regarding military intervention using “dictatorship of another country” as a reason to do things in another’s sovereign territory which is a form of dictatorship in itself.

Yes, it is ironic to consider imposing democracy on another nation by force.

This comes about because of a philosophical error, imo. Shortly after 9/11, Bush said that everyone really yearns for freedom… I do not agree with him. *We *yearn for freedom because that is what we have been taught [Total aside: however, the meaning of the freedom we are taught to yearn for has changed…], but in other cultures, people are taught to yearn for different things.

OTOH, we really have a fear of tyrants and despots because we see them as intrisically evil and capable of pretty much anything. We always think of the appeasement of Hitler and think we must do something about the evil before it gets out of hand. Even in our domestic politics, this is a fear.

On yet another hand, we didn’t have a lot of options. Either we institute another government, or we ourselves stay to govern. The latter was impossible because colonialism is an evil institution which we (the US) were instrumental in destroying. And what else could we impose except democracy–allowing the people to choose rather than installing what would have been seen as another despotic government?

Police or Military is not based on physical territory neither their equipments/ weaponry. They are different kind of institutions with different philosopy.

I would say that Police job is to ensure that everyone abide under the law.

Military job is to win with whatever means necessary for the targeted victory.

Police have to be neutral, Military is never neutral and always have “agenda”.

I understand better what you are getting at, but the practicality is still a huge problem.

Police are able to be neutral because they are dealing with a defined area and a defined set of laws. Even within the US, it is hard for the police to deal with large interstate gangs. The FBI has to deal with them, but it does end up causing problems of overlapping jurisdictions, etc. So dealing with multi-national “gangs” on a police level is very, very difficult.

…I think ISIS has learnt their way from somewhere…
Now, how can we suddenly say “no, no, no don’t do that boys…!” to them?
Good question you asked. No easy answer

I think ISIS learned their way from Islam, not from us. Sayyid Qutb seems to have been cery influential in this area.

 

[Darryl1958]

I guess I see Al Qaeda as having the same goals as ISIS but being smaller.** I do not think our involvement in the ME is a direct cause of ISIS**. Al Qaeda, ISIS, and numerous other groups have their own actual goals unrelated to us. They want to fulfill what they consider to be the mandate of Islam: to conquer the entire world for Islam.

I agree. Terrorist organizations have dominated in the ME since the success of the revolutions in SA and Iran that happened in that year.
ISIS is not a new phenomena emerging out of the chaos of the Iraq War, but a continuation of the same phenomena of religiously inspired violence that has predominated in the region since those revolutions.

The religious foundations of the modern Islamists were laid down long before America had any real interests in the region, as far back as the 1920’s even.
While where the terrorists come to the fore in the region are not entirely independent of American actions in the region, the roots of ISIS lay in the nature of Islam itself, and in the historic developments of the region as events interact with everything that has come before.
It is a simplistic analysis that is often being made that if America did not aid the rebels in Afghanistan, then Obama and el quada would not have come into existence, of if America had not been involved in Iraq after 911, ISIS would never have been.

 

[Latias]

Could anyone tell me how the Mujahideen fighting against the modernizing influence of the PDPA and Soviets are “freedom fighters”, but those resisting Western influence are "terroristst? Well, I suppose “terrorism” has been prevalent in the Middle East.

The Islamists are just fighting to preserve their culture against Western globalization and against the socialist and secular reforms against the communists. It just shows the primary influence of terrorism is perceived foreign occupation as argued by Robert Pape.

 

[Darryl1958]

Could anyone tell me how the Mujahideen fighting against the modernizing influence of the PDPA and Soviets are “freedom fighters”, but those resisting Western influence are "terroristst? Well, I suppose “terrorism” has been prevalent in the Middle East.

The Islamists are just fighting to preserve their culture against Western globalization and against the socialist and secular reforms against the communists. It just shows the primary influence of terrorism is perceived foreign occupation as argued by Robert Pape.

Soviet overlords did not pretend to be free societies, nor do those fighting against Western values and for the preservation of their Islamist way of life have any belief in freedom either.

Hate Western values all that you want, but please don’t pretend that those who are fighting against the West are ‘freedom-fighters’ fighting for freedom. These people are fighting against freedom.

They are fighting for the right to oppress.

Terrorism itself is a method. It has no effect on countries that are not democratic, because tyrannies are not led by people who have any need to care about the sensitivities of their people. Terrorism is only effective against democracies, because it plays with the emotions of people, and thereby influences their governments, who have a need to care what they think.
As a method then, terrorism only works against freedom, and never for it.

 

[Latias]

Soviet overlords did not pretend to be free societies, nor do those fighting against Western values and for the preservation of their Islamist way of life have any belief in freedom either.

Hate Western values all that you want, but please don’t pretend that those who are fighting against the West are ‘freedom-fighters’ fighting for freedom. These people are fighting against freedom.

They are fighting for the right to oppress.

Terrorism itself is a method. It has no effect on countries that are not democratic, because tyrannies are not led by people who have any need to care about the sensitivities of their people. Terrorism is only effective against democracies, because it plays with the emotions of people, and thereby influences their governments, who have a need to care what they think.
As a method then, terrorism only works against freedom, and never for it.

The Soviets and the PDPA were socially progressive. The Soviets were certainly not “overloads”; they didn’t own productive property in Afghanistan, but they just provided some technical and military advisers. They did not even orchestrate the Saur Revolution, nor did they want to initially send in their troops to help the PDPA against the Islamist insurgency. The insurgency was funded by the CIA before the so-called “invasion of Afghanistan”.

At the same time women would be liberated from the constraints of traditional Islam. Bride price – the treating of marriageable women as chattel to be exchanged in commercial transactions – was severely limited. The age of consent for girls to marry was raised to 16. And students from the cities were dispatched to the countryside to teach both men and women to read and write. [11]

While some gains were achieved, especially in Kabul where PDPA support was strongest, the reforms never took root in the countryside, where the government pressed ahead too quickly, arousing a determined opposition by the rich landlords and Mullahs it lacked the military power to suppress. [12] Washington’s recruiting of tens of thousands of mujahedeen from Muslim countries to jihad, including the Saudi-born millionaire Osama bin Laden, eventually contributed to the Soviet decision to withdraw its military forces and to the eventual overthrow of the PDPA government, which hung on for a few years after the Soviets quit the country. Soon the Taliban, backed by the United States, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, had returned Afghanistan once again firmly to the Middle Ages, after the country had taken a few determined steps toward modernity under the leadership of the PDPA. Significantly, it was the Bolsheviks in Soviet Central Asia, and the Marxist-Leninist-inspired PDPA in Afghanistan, that acted to improve the conditions of women, while the United States allied itself with religious zealots who enforced – and continue in Saudi Arabia to enforce – a barbaric patriarchal rule over women.

For Washington, profits stand above women’s rights. The communists, by contrasts, were inspired by the aims of liberating peasants from feudal backwardness and breaking the grip of traditional Islam on the lot of women. The latter acted as paladins of human progress and women’s rights; the former, as captives of the logic of imperialism. Liberation of women from the misogyny of the Taliban and Saudis will not come about through the agency of Washington. Anyone worried about the revival of the Taliban and the consequent loss of the few gains Afghan women have eked out under a puppet government backed by the Pentagon, ought to hope, instead, for the revival of the communists. They have a track record in the service of women’s liberation; Washington’s record, by contrast, is not one to inspire confidence.

gowans.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/women%E2%80%99s-rights-in-afghanistan/

By supporting them, the US was against freedom for a portion of women in the Middle East. I guess that is “Western values”.

I never called the Islamist “freedom-fighters”; Ronald Reagan did.

 

[francisca]

Hate Western values all that you want, but please don’t pretend that those who are fighting against the West are ‘freedom-fighters’ fighting for freedom. These people are fighting against freedom.

Any fighters who attack and murder unarmed civilians for their cause-- regardless whatever cause they fight-- are Terrorists. They may fight western influence or ruling party or their own government or any other groups. It doesn’t matter their cause/ believe whether they’re religious or secular. I hope we all agree with this definition, hence no issue here.

They are fighting for the right to oppress.

I agree.

On the other hand, to pass the law allowing civilians to be detained without trial is also-- as you put it-- “fighting for the right to oppress” too. And worse than blowing people’s head, the latter is to create a systematic way to oppress people. And it’s more terrible that it is being aimed at a certain religion only! And moreover, there’s repercussions to such law:

Eversince US passed this law, Nowadays, this law is potentially (or already effectively) used by many governments/ institutions around the world to silence their oppositions or anyone speaking against it. Hence an effective dictatorship tool.

Another example: the right for gov to “spy” people. This is an unethical practice and will hamper “freedom of speech aroung th world”. Not only that, it also causes degererated practices in all area of life. For example: we know that business steal information from one another. But it’s another matter that now there is a systematic way to do so!

To create a divice with “public spying capability in mind” is immoral and unethical and can cause harm and many immorality if not crime to happen, not only in gov, business but also in people’s personal life and personal safety not to mention childrens safety. Example Imagine a group of activists hate a specific poster. If they are computer savvy they can go against this person and do all kinds of things to him/ her without anyone knows it. It’s unecessary war for many people really.

People thinks its impossible to create a handphone/ computer with zero capability of spying. This is not true. The reason why we are hacked is because our device allow it to happen that way, for the sake of business (ex. advertisements-- google business) and on top of that, for gov to control us. The excess however are hacking by strangers, cyber bullying, immoral business practices, cyber crime, and even physical crime such as predators who come physically to the victims houses.

And the excuse being used to allow the above “spying” practice is: “against Terrorism”, "National Security"

Really?

There should be a law that protects our privacy from anyone including gov.** Spying / tapping should be allowed for police investigation only and should have evidence based of suspicion first. Otherwise it’s just another form of oppression/ dictatorship/ control** you name it.

Terrorism itself is a method. It has no effect on countries that are not democratic, because tyrannies are not led by people who have any need to care about the sensitivities of their people.
Terrorism is only effective against democracies, because it plays with the emotions of people, and thereby influences their governments, who have a need to care what they think.
As a method then, terrorism only works against freedom, and never for it.

Like I said before, it depends on what kind of victory we want.
We can bomb all the terrorists and proclaim “democracy win” if we want to.
Or we can re-think things over: whether uncoltrolled “military-way” can really give us “true democracy”, or somebody must “police them” somehow, otherwise “dictatorship of weapons win” anyway.

 

[St_Francis]

The Soviets and the PDPA were socially progressive. The Soviets were certainly not “overloads”; they didn’t own productive property in Afghanistan, but they just provided some technical and military advisers. They did not even orchestrate the Saur Revolution, nor did they want to initially send in their troops to help the PDPA against the Islamist insurgency. The insurgency was funded by the CIA before the so-called “invasion of Afghanistan”.

gowans.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/women%E2%80%99s-rights-in-afghanistan/

By supporting them, the US was against freedom for a portion of women in the Middle East. I guess that is “Western values”.

I never called the Islamist “freedom-fighters”; Ronald Reagan did.

You bring up two different points. I do not have the resources to discuss the USSR in Afghanistan with you, but I do agree that the US’s foreign policy tends to be more talk than walk when it comes to oppression.

Reagan called the mujahadeen freedom fighters because they were fighting against a Soviet invasion against military targets. When Al Qaeda started attacking non-invaders’ civilian populations, they became terrorists.

Here’s an article on socialism in action.

 

[Latias]

You bring up two different points. I do not have the resources to discuss the USSR in Afghanistan with you, but I do agree that the US’s foreign policy tends to be more talk than walk when it comes to oppression.

Reagan called the mujahadeen freedom fighters because they were fighting against a Soviet invasion against military targets. When Al Qaeda started attacking non-invaders’ civilian populations, they became terrorists.

Here’s an article on socialism in action.

The Mujahadeen were fundamentally reactionaries against the progressive regime of the PDPA.

You do not know about the conditions in other capitalist countries, especially in other Central and Latin American, so there would be bias against socialism by selectively reporting the privations of their citizens versus the ones experienced in capitalist countries.

There was no such thing as a “Soviet Invasion”: that is just a phantasm of anti-communist propaganda. The Afghan government entreated the Soviet Union to intervene to fight to jihadists, nor did the Soviet Union interfered in Afghani affairs before the Saur Revolution. The US was simply apprehensive about the loss of Iran, and did not want an increase in Soviet influence due to a fortuitous set of circumstances that lead to the Saur Revolution as opposed to the machinations of KGB.

Here’s a influential factor motivating the Mujahideen:

Reform with a socialist bent was the new government’s ambition: land reform (while still retaining private property), controls on prices and profits, and strengthening of the public sector, as well as separation of church and state, eradication of illiteracy, legalization of trade unions, and the emancipation of women in a land almost entirely Muslim.
…
The Afghan government was trying to drag the country into the 20th century. In May 1979, British political scientist Fred Halliday observed that “probably more has changed in the countryside over the last year than in the two centuries since the state was established.” Peasant debts to landlords had been canceled, the system of usury (by which peasants, who were forced to borrow money against future crops, were left in perpetual debt to money-lenders) was abolished, and hundreds of schools and medical clinics were being built in the countryside.
…
The argument of the Moujahedeen (“holy warriors”) rebels that the “communist” government would curtail their religious freedom was never borne out in practice. A year and a half after the change in government, the conservative British magazine The Economist reported that “no restrictions had been imposed on religious practice”. Earlier, the New York Times stated that the religious issue “is being used by some Afghans who actually object more to President Taraki’s plans for land reforms and other changes in this feudal society.” Many of the Muslim clergy were in fact rich landowners. The rebels, concluded a BBC reporter who spent four months with them, are “fighting to retain their feudal system and stop the Kabul government’s left-wing reforms which [are] considered anti-Islamic”.

williamblum.org/chapters/killing-hope/afghanistan

They may not be James Madison in the sense that they are fighting for a government that would private property for the interest bourgeoisie, but they are reactionaries trying uphold their privilege in a feudal system. They should not be regarded as paladins fighting for freedom and liberty against the “oppressive” Soviets, but saw their interests in defending their parochial privileges without possessing an alternative path for modernization…

Here is something from a Bashar al-Assad interview.

Question 10: When you say militants, who do you mean?

President Assad: Some of them are terrorists, some of them are people who were implicated by the events for different reasons, so, whoever carries a gun and tries to destroy the public infrastructure or attack the people or cause any harm or breach the law in Syria. That’s the militant.
…
Question 64: It’s one thing to say to say there’s military opposition. It’s another thing to call them terrorists.

President Assad: Military opposition is terrorism. Whenever you hold a gun, a machine gun, and you try to destroy and kill and threaten, this is terrorism, by every definition in the world. It’s not my definition. Whenever you want to make opposition, it’s going to be political opposition, like your country, you have the same criteria, we don’t have different criteria from the one you have in the United States or in Europe or anywhere else.

Question 65: If there’s a negotiation, would you accept as part of the negotiation and share power in Syria with anyone who is in opposition to you now, whether they are moderates, whether they are terrorists, but if in fact they lay down their arms and say we want to be part of a future government, a transitional government, in Syria?

President Assad: Whenever they lay down their arms, they’re not terrorists anymore.

informationclearinghouse.info/article41423.htm

So the Afghani Mujahideen were certainly terrorists since they obviously attacked the infrastructure of the state (and probably committed some massacres), so were the Contras.

 

[St_Francis]

The Mujahadeen were fundamentally reactionaries against the progressive regime of the PDPA.

When they were fighting against the Soviets, no. Then they were fighting an invader. Insofar as they fought against the Afghan government–tricky, because if how they got in there by overthrowing the king–it would be considered a civil action (which would depend on the level of fighting).

You do not know about the conditions in other capitalist countries, especially in other Central and Latin American, so there would be bias against socialism by selectively reporting the privations of their citizens versus the ones experienced in capitalist countries.

First, you have no idea how much I know about “conditions in other capitalist countries.”

Second, it seems like you might know very little about Venzuela.

There was no such thing as a “Soviet Invasion”: that is just a phantasm of anti-communist propaganda. The Afghan government entreated the Soviet Union to intervene to fight to jihadists, nor did the Soviet Union interfered in Afghani affairs before the Saur Revolution. The US was simply apprehensive about the loss of Iran, and did not want an increase in Soviet influence due to a fortuitous set of circumstances that lead to the Saur Revolution as opposed to the machinations of KGB.

One might suggest that the Soviet’s killing the guy who “took over” from the guy who entreated the Soviets to come and help him turned it into an invasion.

Here’s a influential factor motivating the Mujahideen:

williamblum.org/chapters/killing-hope/afghanistan

They may not be James Madison in the sense that they are fighting for a government that would private property for the interest bourgeoisie, but they are reactionaries trying uphold their privilege in a feudal system. They should not be regarded as paladins fighting for freedom and liberty against the “oppressive” Soviets, but saw their interests in defending their parochial privileges without possessing an alternative path for modernization…

Whether is it moral or not, I do not know, but using an already internal force to fight against one’s enemy is not always a bad idea.

Here is something from a Bashar al-Assad interview.

informationclearinghouse.info/article41423.htm

So the Afghani Mujahideen were certainly terrorists since they obviously attacked the infrastructure of the state (and probably committed some massacres), so were the Contras.

We do not have a good, solid definition of terrorist. Personally, I do jot agree with Assad’s

 

[Latias]

When they were fighting against the Soviets, no. Then they were fighting an invader. Insofar as they fought against the Afghan government–tricky, because if how they got in there by overthrowing the king–it would be considered a civil action (which would depend on the level of fighting).

I guess the Taliban in Afghanistan are also not “terrorists” then since they are fighting to drive out a foreign occupier. much like how the Mujahideen perceived the Soviets.

Whether is it moral or not, I do not know, but using an already internal force to fight against one’s enemy is not always a bad idea.

If the enemy is the government, then it is terrorism, especially if they attack government personnel or public property. They are no different from groups such as FARC, Red Army Faction, and the Weather Underground. Note that the Weather Underground primarily did not target civilians.

We do not have a good, solid definition of terrorist. Personally, I do jot agree with Assad’s

Assad’s conception of terrorism is reasonable. Perhaps you disagree with it because too many groups that you support would be classified as “terrorists”, which may include the so-called “moderate” Syrian “rebels”. Naturally, the definition is biased because it favors the government in power, and naturally they would have an interest in opposing terrorism.

 

[francisca]

Yes, it is ironic to consider imposing democracy on another nation by force.

This comes about because of a philosophical error, imo. Shortly after 9/11, Bush said that everyone really yearns for freedom… I do not agree with him. *We *yearn for freedom because that is what we have been taught [Total aside: however, the meaning of the freedom we are taught to yearn for has changed…], but in other cultures, people are taught to yearn for different things.

I do think that people do yearns for freedom. But a nation need to find it’s own freedom their own way. If freedom is by force, in the end they still learn dictatorship by weapons instead. Even if their own leader use weapon too, they will learn in time to free themselves from such dictatorship, after they improve their education, progress economically. and stability.

OTOH, we really have a fear of tyrants and despots because we see them as intrisically evil and capable of pretty much anything. We always think of the appeasement of Hitler and think we must do something about the evil before it gets out of hand. Even in our domestic politics, this is a fear.

If a superpower military is so fearful, then imagine the rest of the world.

I understand better what you are getting at, but the practicality is still a huge problem.

Police are able to be neutral because they are dealing with a defined area and a defined set of laws. Even within the US, it is hard for the police to deal with large interstate gangs. The FBI has to deal with them, but it does end up causing problems of overlapping jurisdictions, etc. So dealing with multi-national “gangs” on a police level is very, very difficult.

I agree that ISIS in Iraq and Syria is more than regular terrorism. They are waging a serious war, and may be too difficult for regular police approach.

I guess I lost my trust in miliatry approach because of 911 and Iraq war.

I think ISIS learned their way from Islam, not from us. Sayyid Qutb seems to have been cery influential in this area.

Yes they’re moslems. They also were farmers, teachers, children. All religions can potentially become extremists if provoked. I do think that the quran do write suggestive violence. But in the case of ISIS they do share the same anger towards the the destruction of their homeland and the humiliation of their religion. I don’t think people attracted to them merely because of their websites/ social media. They do share a reasonable fear which need to be addressed.

no matter how religious a people can be, they wont become terrorist until somebody supply them with weapons and teach them how to use them to fight their own fellow men.

By theory it’s impossible that US army lose war to ISIS. In the bible, everytime King David asked God first before he attacked an enemy. The bible also write that God do listen to people’s outcry for injustice. The most worrisome part is: if you attack your enemy, and your enemy-- in defending their territory-- they gain more territory because of it, then that territory will become rightfully theirs according to international law.

If we ever win war against ISIS, will there be any changes in the law that will guarantee “911 and Iraq” will never happen again? Will we continue to declare that weapons are the ones to give humanity its freedom?

 

[St_Francis]

I guess the Taliban in Afghanistan are also not “terrorists” then since they are fighting to drive out a foreign occupier. much like how the Mujahideen perceived the Soviets.

We wouldn’t be there if 1. Al Quaeda hadn’t attacked us, and 2. the Taliban had done something about AQ or allowed us to do so.

If the enemy is the government, then it is terrorism, especially if they attack government personnel or public property. They are no different from groups such as FARC, Red Army Faction, and the Weather Underground. Note that the Weather Underground primarily did not target civilians.

Civilians are non-military non-combatants under international law, so the WUO did indeed target civilian spaces altho they did try to avoid harming people.

Assad’s conception of terrorism is reasonable. Perhaps you disagree with it because too many groups that you support would be classified as “terrorists”, which may include the so-called “moderate” Syrian “rebels”. Naturally, the definition is biased because it favors the government in power, and naturally they would have an interest in opposing terrorism.

No, I am against his definition because I think that words ought not have their meanings diluted.

TBH, there is a lot about US government action which I at least do not understand, and believe if I understood better that I would disagree with.

 

[Darryl1958]

The Soviets and the PDPA were socially progressive. The Soviets were certainly not “overloads”; they didn’t own productive property in Afghanistan, but they just provided some technical and military advisers. They did not even orchestrate the Saur Revolution, nor did they want to initially send in their troops to help the PDPA against the Islamist insurgency. The insurgency was funded by the CIA before the so-called “invasion of Afghanistan”.

gowans.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/women%E2%80%99s-rights-in-afghanistan/

By supporting them, the US was against freedom for a portion of women in the Middle East. I guess that is “Western values”.

I never called the Islamist “freedom-fighters”; Ronald Reagan did.

Well, if your point is that Soviets offered a free society, then your idea of freedom is very different than the one that I hold.
What you essentially asked was why were those fighting against the West not called freedom fighters, if those fighting against Soviets were.

And that is what I have already answered. The Soviet system does not constitute freedom in any meaningful sense, and Reagan and Jphn Paul II did well by bringing it down.

 

[francisca]

I guess I see Al Qaeda as having the same goals as ISIS but being smaller. I do not think our involvement in the ME is a direct cause of ISIS. Al Qaeda, ISIS, and numerous other groups have their own actual goals unrelated to us. They want to fulfill what they consider to be the mandate of Islam: to conquer the entire world for Islam.

Many ISIS people are former Saddam military. They are the ones train the rest of them how to use war equipments. I watched the documentary. I think it was RT documentary.

 

[Darryl1958]

Any fighters who attack and murder unarmed civilians for their cause-- regardless whatever cause they fight-- are Terrorists. They may fight western influence or ruling party or their own government or any other groups. It doesn’t matter their cause/ believe whether they’re religious or secular. I hope we all agree with this definition, hence no issue here.

I agree.

On the other hand, to pass the law allowing civilians to be detained without trial is also-- as you put it-- “fighting for the right to oppress” too. And worse than blowing people’s head, the latter is to create a systematic way to oppress people. And it’s more terrible that it is being aimed at a certain religion only! And moreover, there’s repercussions to such law:

Eversince US passed this law, Nowadays, this law is potentially (or already effectively) used by many governments/ institutions around the world to silence their oppositions or anyone speaking against it. Hence an effective dictatorship tool.

Another example: the right for gov to “spy” people. This is an unethical practice and will hamper “freedom of speech aroung th world”. Not only that, it also causes degererated practices in all area of life. For example: we know that business steal information from one another. But it’s another matter that now there is a systematic way to do so!

To create a divice with “public spying capability in mind” is immoral and unethical and can cause harm and many immorality if not crime to happen, not only in gov, business but also in people’s personal life and personal safety not to mention childrens safety. Example Imagine a group of activists hate a specific poster. If they are computer savvy they can go against this person and do all kinds of things to him/ her without anyone knows it. It’s unecessary war for many people really.

People thinks its impossible to create a handphone/ computer with zero capability of spying. This is not true. The reason why we are hacked is because our device allow it to happen that way, for the sake of business (ex. advertisements-- google business) and on top of that, for gov to control us. The excess however are hacking by strangers, cyber bullying, immoral business practices, cyber crime, and even physical crime such as predators who come physically to the victims houses.

And the excuse being used to allow the above “spying” practice is: “against Terrorism”, "National Security"

Really?

There should be a law that protects our privacy from anyone including gov.** Spying / tapping should be allowed for police investigation** only and should have evidence based of suspicion first. Otherwise it’s just another form of oppression/ dictatorship/ control you name it.

Like I said before, it depends on what kind of victory we want.
We can bomb all the terrorists and proclaim “democracy win” if we want to.
Or we can re-think things over: whether uncoltrolled “military-way” can really give us “true democracy”, or somebody must “police them” somehow, otherwise “dictatorship of weapons win” anyway.

It is a bad idea to release people captured in battle doing military or terrorists acts against America overseas onto the streets of America through the criminal process.
American criminal law does not extend to those captured fighting America in a theatre of war, nor do the courtesies of those who fight under the treaties afforded to recognized nations extend to them, since they have chosen to fight outside of the rules that constrain nations.

I am as concerned about the way that they are ‘oppressed’ as I am about the oppression of rats on a sinking ship.

 

[St_Francis]

Many ISIS people are former Saddam military. They are the ones train the rest of them how to use war equipments. I watched the documentary. I think it was RT documentary.

Well, first of all, it is very difficult for me to comment on something with such a vague description (I think it was an RT documentary…). Secondly, I don’t understand your point here.

ETA: Also, thirdly, Americans tend not to trust Russian media as we recall that the KGB was a master of propaganda.

In fact, when the Soviets were still around, I used to regularly read some of their publications for the US. Very propagandistic.

Putin was a member of the KGB–I am sure he is familiar with their techniques.

 

[St_Francis]

No. He didn’t declare war.

The quote from Lumen Gentium in my last post, it quotes:

“From the earliest times, then, some Christians have been called upon—and some will always be called upon—to give the supreme testimony of this love to all men, but especially to persecutors. The Church, then, considers martyrdom as an exceptional gift and as the fullest proof of love.”( Lumen Gentium, chapter V 42 (230) )

When I watched in youtube one of the wife of these martyrs said “I am at peace, I pray for his murderers that they become christians one day”-- I’m sure she didn’t read Lumen Gentium-- she said that because the holyspirit gave that peace and love towards her husband’s murderers.
This is a sign that God is present, and He is working. So we must work with Him too, trusting Him, instead of relying on human strength. Rather, we try to fight this war with righteousness, because ISIS is claiming the righteousness and using God’s name to kill people. The church teaches God love even ISIS and His Love is through these martyrs. He allow this to happen in order to stop more killings in the future.

I am not saying we just let them all die as martyrs. Sure effort for rescue operation is a must.

In addition, if protecting the potential victims requires the use of force, force must be used.

It is one thing to suffer oneself, it is a different thing to allow another to suffer on the grounds that it is good for them *when one has the ability to alleviate the suffering. *

I have been thinking long hard about how do I formulate my thoughts about this matter. And I have come out with the main reasons why “war approach” less preferable.

Please consider these factors:

1. US troops vs ISIS =equals= Armed-Soldiers vs Armed-Civilians =equals= unfair battle

Then maybe armed civilians shouldn’t start wars or military events? It is absurd to think that just because the side who aggresses is somehow weaker than the other side that the other side does not have a right to fight back *to the point necessary to stop the aggression. *We must do what is right regardless of what others think or how they twist the action for propaganda purposes.

1. US military/ politics have **THICK agenda in the area. **

We have done our best to minimize our national agenda in these military actions. Did we occupy Iran and take its oil? No. In fact, the oil work was let out for bidding and it was not a US company which got the contract.

These two factors alone indicate the harder you try to defeat them, the more unfair it looks, and the less sincere/ credible your presence there, according to the point of view of ALL moslems around the world. The third factor however is the most heavy:

Again, what can we do? (aside from your plan to use police forces…). If for the sake of argument right here we say that military action is the only way to go, well, letting all the civilians die or allowing a nation to build up arms is more endangering of people than to go in and do something. The fact that the enemy says bad things about us is par for the course: throughout history, enemies have said bad things about each other! That’s just part of war.

1. Moslems solidarity based on fear of God. The less sincere your motivation in their eyes, the more likely they believe ISIS is God’s holy hand against your unsincere motivation, for example you attacked Irak-- against UN experts recommendation-- but couldn’t find any weapon of mass-destruction.

We thought that Saddam Hussein had WMDs because of what had been sold to him. *Every nation thought he had WMDs. *And there were 4 months between the time it looked like we would go in and the time we went in, perhaps he shipped some of the weapons out–as some of his military personnel have said? And perhaps a certain amount of WMD stock was found and ignored?

You detained many innocent people without trial.

Sorry, no. We detained combatants who were fighting in violation of international law.

**continued below **