Why are the Muslims so angry? They threaten to kill all responsible for insulting Mahomet. Do you see yourselves threatening to kill an author of a drawing? Because he drew something? Do any Muslims among you think that this is a over reaction? I mean, it seems like they are extremely insecure. I mean, I think I understand Jews for being a little paranoic, because they are surrounded by mortal enemies. But Muslims? They're not endangered.
I think that it is deeply disturbing that there's a large group of people, whose understanding of their religion renders them willing to kill because of a drawing. It's medieval. Disgusting.
I do not judge all Muslims, only those who are responsible, but they seem to be vast in numbers nevertheless.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: Why are the Muslims so angry? They threaten to kill all responsible for insulting Mahomet. Do you see yourselves threatening to kill an author of a drawing? Because he drew something? Do any Muslims among you think that this is a over reaction? I mean, it seems like they are extremely insecure. I mean, I think I understand Jews for being a little paranoic, because they are surrounded by mortal enemies. But Muslims? They're not endangered.
I think that it is deeply disturbing that there's a large group of people, whose understanding of their religion renders them willing to kill because of a drawing. It's medieval. Disgusting.
I do not judge all Muslims, only those who are responsible, but they seem to be vast in numbers nevertheless.
It's not that I'm not aware that humans tend to be douche bags. But they're like children. Seriously.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Ssymon: You're painting all Islam with a broad brush. You need to limit the scope of your post, and tread more carefully.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: Why are the Muslims so angry?
quote: It's not that I'm not aware that humans tend to be douche bags. But they're like children. Seriously.
Dude, I don't know what they were angry about before, but I've got a pretty good idea why they'd be angry now.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Spoiler alert: It has so much less to do with islam as it has to do with toxic regional cultures, much to the chagrin of the muslims in the other countries that don't represent muslim-dom right now because they're not rioting and this doesn't tend to get the news.
It is very similar to how some gypsy tribes are just rotten and dysfunctional as is humanly possible (they're seriously terrible), and are so noxious and toxic a presence as to make a name for all roma-kind, whether or not your own roma band is even remotely like the ones that create YOUR stereotype.
But it is easier to freak out about "islam" as a single unifying violent element so people will do that so hey
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
52 dead, 407 injured in all major Muslim countries. Over a picture.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: 52 dead, 407 injured in all major Muslim countries. Over a picture.
Is this a conflation to the idea that there are deadly riots in EVERY Muslim country? Or, like?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee:
quote: Why are the Muslims so angry?
quote: It's not that I'm not aware that humans tend to be douche bags. But they're like children. Seriously.
Dude, I don't know what they were angry about before, but I've got a pretty good idea why they'd be angry now.
Why's that?
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Step 1) Imagine you're a Muslim.
Step 2) Read that juxtaposition again.
Now do you get it?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I got what you were implying the first time, but I don't see why it ought to follow.
I think Syzmon's statement was stupid for several reasons, but I see absolutely no reason to get angry about it. Muslim or not.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
So you weren't actually asking me a question. Glad we've cleared that up.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Well, I sort of was. Why would that statement be justification for getting angry?
I mean, he broadly insults everyone, but that's not sufficient reason to get angry. That's just a sort of unconscious deep pessimism about humanity. Not offensive, just dumb.
And then he betrays his own contempt for children by acting as though A) Children aren't human enough to be unique individuals and B) Being a children is such a horrible shameful thing that it's insulting for someone to be compared to one.
Both of those sentiments are deeply stupid, but again, neither one is an affront to Muslims. So, no reason to get angry.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: Why are the Muslims so angry? They threaten to kill all responsible for insulting Mahomet. Do you see yourselves threatening to kill an author of a drawing? Because he drew something? Do any Muslims among you think that this is a over reaction? I mean, it seems like they are extremely insecure. I mean, I think I understand Jews for being a little paranoic, because they are surrounded by mortal enemies. But Muslims? They're not endangered.
I think that it is deeply disturbing that there's a large group of people, whose understanding of their religion renders them willing to kill because of a drawing. It's medieval. Disgusting.
I do not judge all Muslims, only those who are responsible, but they seem to be vast in numbers nevertheless.
Because change is scary, and the fundamental underlying nature of their societies is being radically altered on a daily basis. Combine that with a siege mentality that's probably similar to what Israel feels, massive unemployment, increasing overpopulation and many other issues, and you can see why religion might be one of the few steadying forces in life, and why an assault on that religion would be taken especially unkindly.
Frankly, it's not surprising at all, and if I lived over there, I'd probably be pissed most of the time as well.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: 52 dead, 407 injured in all major Muslim countries. Over a picture.
Do you have a source for this?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
How many die in car accidents every year?
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: How many die in car accidents every year?
What do ACCIDENTS have to do with discussing this?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Is that Blayne's way of saying that 52 people isn't really that big a deal compared to the thousands who die in accidents?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I've said it before, I'll say it again:
It is NOT Muslims who are to blame for the violence, it is -extremists- (of any denomination).
Muslim (extremists) make up 6% of terrorist attack on US soil from 1980 to 2005, According to FBI Database. Source.
I'd say that your average Muslim feels about those who have done terrorist attacks in the name of Islam as Christians feel about the Klu Klux Klan. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Or to put it more succinctly:
The title of this thread might as well read:
quote:Why are human beings so angry?
because lumping all Muslims together and assuming their emotions are the same and that they are all angry is about as stupid as a screen door on a submarine or a reality TV show about Italian-American young people in New Jersey.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: I think that it is deeply disturbing that there's a large group of people, whose understanding of their religion renders them willing to kill because of a drawing.
If it makes you feel any better, I'd bet that those saying that they're willing to kill you over a drawing would also say that they're willing to kill you for a whole lot of other reasons.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Is that Blayne's way of saying that 52 people isn't really that big a deal compared to the thousands who die in accidents?
Yep.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
Ok, I know it sounded stupid. Let me say it this way- why are there SO MANY fundamentalists? And no matter what you say, it is them who act. They commit crimes. So it doesn't matter if they are a majority or a minority, because they're causing a lot of trouble. Why aren't they in prison? I saw a man on a TV who was shouting- "let's kill the man". This is a serious crime, shouting like that, why isn't he in jail?
And I said clearly, that I know that this is not all Muslims! I don't know what they're called, fundamentlists or whoever,5,10 or 15%. I never heard of buddhist or taoist fundamentalists wanting to kill anyone.
Why so angry?
And my source is wikipedia, you can probably find further links there.
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
Islamic culture in the Middle East was actually far more progressive than many other countries in the world up and until the fundamentalist resurgence in the 50's and 60's. When (on the whole) Christianity was getting vaguely more progressive, a large portion of middle eastern Islam was going the opposite direction.
It's not really the Islamic religion that's at issue, it's how some choose to use it. Same with Christianity. Westboro Baptist Church, sees and uses the Bible in a more literal sense, while most (American, and other) Christians look at it in a more abstract sense, and they ignore the Old Testament (When it's convenient.)
As an atheist, I personally don't really like any religion, but if they don't try to change my life (sadly that's not usually the case) I don't care which god/gods/prophet etc. they choose to believe in.
Let us not forget that this isn't anything new, many talking heads are blaming "current US foreign policy", saying it's weak, etc. This being their reasoning that we are having flare ups and anger directed at the US.
For anyone over the age of 30, who can at least remember the 80's should remember an author by the name of Salman Rushdie (Who just published a new book about his life, fyi) that caused outrage in the Middle East, and caused then President Reagan to release statements almost identical to current President Obama. Stating that Rushdie knew what he was getting into when publishing his 'despicable' works, and he (Reagan) does not approve of the violence related to it.
Also Anti-American hate isn't anything new.
I've talked with London Muslims on other forums that hate the United States, granted they're not out protesting. Although I have a feeling if there was an influential leader or a protest that started up in London, they'd probably join in.
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
accidental double post.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: I think that it is deeply disturbing that there's a large group of people, whose understanding of their religion renders them willing to kill because of a drawing.
If it makes you feel any better, I'd bet that those saying that they're willing to kill you over a drawing would also say that they're willing to kill you for a whole lot of other reasons.
This is more or less my point- people willing to kill for trivial things. And why some, however quite a lot of, that is to say, enough to kill tens of people Muslims tend to overreact like this.
On 9/11, this year, I watched a documentary on WTC. Two Americans, upper middle class judging by their clothes and briefcases and watches and stuff, were standing below two burning towers. And they said: we should attack and kill those responsible asap, today, now. I can understand incitement and hatred in this situation. In the topic title I ask why so angry, because it's so extremly irrational and yet widespread over something much... ah, whatever.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
It's the sign of cultural extremism and an uneducated populace. Period. If they were educated and had access to the internet, they'd be as passive as the rest of us. Or if they were third world and starving. Being ignorant and in the middle is dangerous.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Szymon, the anger isn't just about the film. You have to understand the context and that is deep and complicated and not "trivial". The film was one particular spark in a smoldering pile of hot, gasoline-soaked embers.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: ... On 9/11, this year, I watched a documentary on WTC. Two Americans, upper middle class judging by their clothes and briefcases and watches and stuff, were standing below two burning towers. And they said: we should attack and kill those responsible asap, today, now.
?
I'm not sure how one can simultaneously acknowledge that the US launched into wars after 9/11 that killed many people and are still on-going and also go "Oh noes! Why are people so angry at us?"
Reasonable people can disagree about whether civilians are reasonable targets, whether diplomats are reasonable targets, what level of retaliation the US should expect, etc. but to be completely "what gives?" I don't get that.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
Mucus, I am ashamed to admit, but I don't quite understand your post Sorry. If I understand correctly, though, you say that you're not sure how can a person acknowledge that the US launched into wars after 9/11 and ask a question why they are angry at us at the same time?
Well, the first part is a fact. The second has nothing to do with it. They weren't that angry when Americans killed Osama bin Laden. This outrage, I think, has little to do with these wars.
On the other hand though, kmbboots may be right, and it has everything to do with it. Maybe those fundamentalists hate America so much that any pretext is good enough to kill Americans. Really I never thought of that, and in fact am stupid. I know little about Islam. But I am not going to justify their actions.
quote:Originally posted by Aros: It's the sign of cultural extremism and an uneducated populace. Period. If they were educated and had access to the internet, they'd be as passive as the rest of us. Or if they were third world and starving. Being ignorant and in the middle is dangerous.
I like this thought, I agree. This part about being passive has two sides, though. Maybe we're so blase that we care so little about stuff. They too much, we too little.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Szymon:
On the other hand though, kmbboots may be right, and it has everything to do with it. Maybe those fundamentalists hate America so much that any pretext is good enough to kill Americans. Really I never thought of that, and in fact am stupid. I know little about Islam. But I am not going to justify their actions.
Yeah. You are kind of missing the point. The reasons that some extremist Muslims "hate America" are also deep and complex and non-trivial.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
kmbboots, it's impossible to make a sentence with no flaw in it, is it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Not really. Why?
What you seem to be failing to understand is that whether or not extremist Muslims or those Muslims who are sympathetic to extremist Muslims are right to hate us (and for the record, I don't believe they are) trivializing those reasons or pretending that their anger is arbitrary ("They hate us for our freedom") is, at the very least, counter-productive.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Islam is a young religion, only 1400 years old! Look at what Christianity was doing at that age!
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Making a picture of Mohammed is strictly forbidden in Sunni Islam, and historically was frowned upon in Shia Islam.
It's a big deal because it is the teaching of their religion, much like the graven idols/writing the name of God prohibitions in Judaism (and to a lesser extent in some denominations of Christianity). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad
And not only was this case a visual depiction of Mohammed, is was an extremely hostile depiction of Mohammed.
Add to that, as others have noted, mass unemployment and lack of education.
So why are you so outraged at the outrage again?
[ September 19, 2012, 07:52 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: Mucus, I am ashamed to admit, but I don't quite understand your post Sorry. If I understand correctly, though, you say that you're not sure how can a person acknowledge that the US launched into wars after 9/11 and ask a question why they are angry at us at the same time?
Well, the first part is a fact. The second has nothing to do with it. They weren't that angry when Americans killed Osama bin Laden. This outrage, I think, has little to do with these wars.
On the other hand though, kmbboots may be right, and it has everything to do with it. Maybe those fundamentalists hate America so much that any pretext is good enough to kill Americans. Really I never thought of that, and in fact am stupid. I know little about Islam. But I am not going to justify their actions.
quote:Originally posted by Aros: It's the sign of cultural extremism and an uneducated populace. Period. If they were educated and had access to the internet, they'd be as passive as the rest of us. Or if they were third world and starving. Being ignorant and in the middle is dangerous.
I like this thought, I agree. This part about being passive has two sides, though. Maybe we're so blase that we care so little about stuff. They too much, we too little.
Man, you really have no idea what you are talking about, do you?
Do you honestly think having your country invaded, homes searched, your friends and family killed as "collateral damage", your religion insulted and mocked, your buildings destroyed....all of that is no cause for anger?
I am NOT saying their violence is justified. But to say they aren't angry about the wars still is beyond ignorant.
Imagine if they did to us what we did to them, even if they were justified in doing it. I bet we would be pissed, and we would call the roadside bombs and snipers The Resistance rather than terrorism.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
What if Chinese and Russian troops occupied Texas while burning down Churches?
Vote Ron Paul 2012!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: ... This outrage, I think, has little to do with these wars.
Meanwhile, Al Qaeda flags being waved around and on top of burning American embassies were just the result of pressing the wrong button on ebay.com when ordering the flags from their supplier. You protest with the flags that you have, not the flags that you want or may want to have.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I think this has a lot to do with the violence in the region.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: How many die in car accidents every year?
You know, it is funny, I had the exact same thought. 45,000 a year according to the book Traffic.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Silly Muslims. You don't violently protest when someone makes a movie that is bent on humiliating and denigrating Mohammed.
You save violent protests for when someone says "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas".
On the other hand.
When a private citizen makes a terrible fake movie about Mohammed, the Islamic world riots against countries that had nothing to do with making, supporting, or agreeing with the movie. They even go so far as to demand that the world makes it an international crime to insult Mohammed.
When Muslim extremists working for the Taliban destroys 2000+ year old giant statues of Buddha, Buddhists complain peacefully and get the UN to condemn the act.
World says--Buddhist Win.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah I really don't think christians were out burning tires and killing people over the 'war on christmas' kerfluffle
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Yeah I really don't think christians were out burning tires and killing people over the 'war on christmas' kerfluffle
Not all, just Bill O'Reilly.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Not yet....not yet.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
First, Szymon may not appreciate this but before taking him to task for his diction it might be useful to remember that he's not a native English speaker and what you are reacting to might be primarily linguistic artifact. Or not, but I'd say some restraint in deconstructing his posts is warranted.
A couple of points:
- The anger was there before the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and it'll be there after. I think the wars act more as evidence within a broader narrative about US efforts to thwart regional self-determination in order to serve US interests, including protection of Israel. My sense is that the wars aren't so much direct causes of anger as they are seen as additional points in a moral calculus that stretches from the U.S.'s installation of the Shah, to its decades of support to Mubarak, to its drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan.
- I also think it's very difficult for those of us raised in a secularized Western culture to understand how much moral value is placed on respecting the sacredness of objects or leaders in most of the rest of the world. Jonathan Haidt talked compellingly about this in his book "The Righteous Mind", about how upon immersing himself in a particular culture (in his case rural India) he began seeing the sacred dimension to morality in a way that he had been blind to before. In Haidt's research, he found that in those cultures with a respect for these sacred rules and taboos, there was no ability to differentiate between harm done through physical violence and harm done by violation of sacred taboo. They felt, morally, just the same. He found further that educated, wealthy Americans are the extreme outliers in this case, and that we have a globally unique inability to understand harm done by violation of social standards based on reverence or sacralization.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Yeah I really don't think christians were out burning tires and killing people over the 'war on christmas' kerfluffle
Joking responses aside, this is seriously right.
Not even Bill O'Reilly. Not even Ann Coulter. And it's not "not yet..." it's "not any more."
The inability or unwillingness of some people to recognize these simple, substantive differences between Christianity (as it is largely practiced today) and Islam (as it is largely practiced today) has always baffled me. It's not a trivial thing.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Dan: They aren't Christians Dan, they don't have to forgive us.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Why are Muslims so angry?
Cuz they don't have a decent basketball team. The percentage of Muslims rioting about "disrespect toward Mohammed" is miniscule compared to the Detroiters who rioted when the Pistons won.
[ September 22, 2012, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I also think it's very difficult for those of us raised in a secularized Western culture to understand how much moral value is placed on respecting the sacredness of objects or leaders in most of the rest of the world. Jonathan Haidt talked compellingly about this in his book "The Righteous Mind", about how upon immersing himself in a particular culture (in his case rural India) he began seeing the sacred dimension to morality in a way that he had been blind to before. In Haidt's research, he found that in those cultures with a respect for these sacred rules and taboos, there was no ability to differentiate between harm done through physical violence and harm done by violation of sacred taboo. They felt, morally, just the same. He found further that educated, wealthy Americans are the extreme outliers in this case, and that we have a globally unique inability to understand harm done by violation of social standards based on reverence or sacralization.
Outliers or not, we're the ones whose values actually make sense.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Globally unique extreme outliers? Seriously?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Christians in poor oppressed societies have the same potential.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Russian pogroms actually come to mind.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:I also think it's very difficult for those of us raised in a secularized Western culture to understand how much moral value is placed on respecting the sacredness of objects or leaders in most of the rest of the world. Jonathan Haidt talked compellingly about this in his book "The Righteous Mind", about how upon immersing himself in a particular culture (in his case rural India) he began seeing the sacred dimension to morality in a way that he had been blind to before. In Haidt's research, he found that in those cultures with a respect for these sacred rules and taboos, there was no ability to differentiate between harm done through physical violence and harm done by violation of sacred taboo. They felt, morally, just the same. He found further that educated, wealthy Americans are the extreme outliers in this case, and that we have a globally unique inability to understand harm done by violation of social standards based on reverence or sacralization.
Outliers or not, we're the ones whose values actually make sense.
It makes some sense. We are the people in the world most likely to be invincible to this brand of harm. Thus we do not appreciate it as a real quantity.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think Destineer's point is that people oughtn't think it's a real quantity, or rather make it a real quantity. That nothing good is lost but in fact gained when people discard the idea that offensive words and ideas have to be silenced to protect people. Quite aside from all the lovely secular benefits we enjoy from that decision, the possibility of genuine faith in anything is inversely proportional to the risk and harm suffered by anyone who challenges it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's not a real quantity. There is no such thing as spiritual harm; there is no such thing as the spirit. Some people really, truly believe that these things exist, and are thus capable of whipping themselves into a froth over imaginary harm, but this is not actual harm.
It is actual insult, no matter what, and that is a harm -- but should you kill someone over an insult?
We've talked before about the Mormon practice of proxy baptism, and observed that there are some religions who'd feel that actual spiritual harm is being done in this scenario -- but, of course, Mormons do not share this belief. Mormons acknowledge that they are insulting the faiths of others when they perform proxy baptisms, though, but also believe that this actual insult is less problematic than the imagined spiritual harm of not having a baptism performed.
There are Muslims who believe, quite sincerely, that it is better to kill a blasphemer -- for the blasphemer and for the community -- to allow that person to live. That they are sincere in this belief does not mean for a minute that we need to accept that position as sensible; we simply need to be comfortable about saying, "Your sacred belief is absolute nonsense."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think it's a real enough quantity when people decide it is. I mean, if someone decides they're being literally hurt by something such that it actually causes them pain or distress, and then they actually do feel that pain or distress, it becomes a pretty academic point.
I wholeheartedly believe, though, that everyone is much better off abandoning the notion that if you're going to believe in the supernatural of any stripe, drop the junk idea that the supernatural part of you whatever that might be will suffer just because it encounters a taboo idea-whether you agree with it or not, whether you approve of it or not, but only by merely detecting it and holding the taboo idea in your mind, even without agreeing with it.
I think the proper response to this sort of thing isn't to say, "Your sacred belief is absolute nonsense," though of course it is. It's to say, "We are happy with whatever goes on between your ears that you wish, but leave us out of it."
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
What if whatever is going on between their ears demands that they not leave you out of it given certain conditions? What do you do then?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
What I find interesting is that their cultural base belief that Mohammed can not be insulted has run head long into our cultural base belief that people are free to say anything they wish.
The fact that they are demanding as just and right, that we censor our people against insulting Mohammed strikes us as corrupt, ignorant, and immoral at the same base cultural level as insulting Mohammed strikes them as corrupt, ignorant, and immoral.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: What if whatever is going on between their ears demands that they not leave you out of it given certain conditions? What do you do then?
In my opinion then the proper thing to do-because this is one of those areas where it really is perilous to give an inch, I think-is to express regret that an understanding can't be reached, if it can't, but a firm insistence that our own conviction that what goes on between their ears ought to stay there so far as we're concerned is *at least* as sacred to us as their belief that the given taboo idea is actually harmful to them, and is thus equally unthinkable to shift.
Then, over the course of time, win the war of ideas as will happen barring state or religious repression.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Imagine if they did to us what we did to them, even if they were justified in doing it. I bet we would be pissed, and we would call the roadside bombs and snipers The Resistance rather than terrorism.
Actually we don't call it terrorism, we call it insurgency. Terrorism is a term only applied when civilian targets are involved, or in cases where no attack is in anyway justified. (like the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon 30 years back)
I realize that using personal experience to give weight to an argument is a pretty cheap trick, but I'll preface what I'm about to say by stating I've had 2 friends and at least a dozen acquaintances killed by IEDs and another 3 wounded (including one of my best friends who had his leg blown off by a failed daisy-chain IED)... while those sort of attacks obviously make me very angry, I don't really have any beef morally with the people who do them. In this scenario, I'm not an innocent party, I'm there in their country doing my best to kill them. They have every right to try and kill me back using whatever means necessary. It's just a low-tech version of a cruise missile or airstrike.
I do have a big problem morally with them capturing and torturing/murdering journalists. Or killing the families of Afghan soldiers/government employees. Or going into U.S. friendly towns and killing everyone. Or bombing schools because they're run by Christians and/or educate girls. (That one actually happened while I was in the Philippines, but it was done by a Muslim group with Al-Qaeda ties) Or flying planes into buildings.
For that matter, I'm also strongly and vocally opposed to our current military policy of "acceptable civilian casualties" when using artillery or airstrikes. It's why I joined the Marines and why I'm a big proponent of sending in troops as opposed to bombing, even if it costs more money and greatly increases the number of casualties we suffer. A bomb can't tell the difference between a man with a weapon and a little girl. A human can.
So basically, does the Islamic world have a reason to be angry at us? Yes, absolutely. Mostly due to our (IMO) unethical and immoral military policy. Do they have any justification for killing innocent people? Hell no. And honestly, the depressing fact is that most of the innocent people being killed in these riots aren't Americans, they're their own countrymen.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
Dogbreath, actually, I don't think it's a cheap trick speaking out of you own expierience. I think it's most valuable, since all we do is talk and never see it and feel it how it really is and you do. What I say may sound cheap, but hey, I don't care.
It's great what you say about willing to endanger your own life rather than have those poor people bombed at random.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Actually we don't call it terrorism, we call it insurgency. Terrorism is a term only applied when civilian targets are involved, or in cases where no attack is in anyway justified. (like the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon 30 years back)
They haven't been very careful about that lately. People have gone to Guantanamo just for attacking the troops.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Are you sure it wasn't for other things as well? Because typically their "troops", when captured, are held locally and questioned for a month or so, and then turned over to the Afghan government. (where they're either imprisoned for a couple years, or more often, are ransomed back by their family/tribe) It's usually only the really high ranking ones that get sent to Gitmo.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
And I will also venture the opinion that the higher one goes in various Taliban and al Qaeda affiliated (even when only ideologically) groups, the likelihood of one being a straightforward insurgent simply fighting because we're there begins to drop. Their agenda doesn't end with Americans out of Iraq and Afghanistan, but starts there.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:It's usually only the really high ranking ones that get sent to Gitmo.
Did you seriously think this? Or by "usually," do you just mean something like more than 50%? Because there have been a lot of flunkies sent to that prison.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Depending on what exactly those flunkies did (and how we know it), I see no problem with that on moral grounds. Plenty of other problematic facts about the place, of course.
I would have more respect for the article you linked, Destineer, if it hadn't taken the plain stance that the insurgency in Iraq exists to fight the US, and is outraged by civilian casualties. Because, you know, horses*%t. That is certainly a motive for plenty of insurgents, and as a country we've a lot to answer for. But it's not *us* who target mosques and marketplaces and pilgrimages on holy days and tries to cut ties between neighboring communities. 'Spent seven years destroying that country' was rich, too. I suspect the writer has no appreciation for how very different things would look had we actually done that.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
For the sake of argument, I'll grant everything you just said. Do you think those guys committed an act of terrorism?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Those two? No. What do you think ought to have been done with them?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I think the solution to all of our problems is to reestablish the Caliphate under a female descendant of Mohammed with Israel as a semi-autonomous region and an Exclusive economic Zone like Hong Kong.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Here's one who went to Gitmo:
Tangential, but I was 13 years old when he was sent to Gitmo. I realize it's been a long war and a lot has changed since it started... as far as I've seen, though, Gitmo is reserved for people suspected of plotting/committing terrorism against the U.S. Our government doesn't have much interest in normal insurgent ground troops after they're captured, other than doing some interrogation and background checks to extract whatever intelligence can be gleaned and to make sure they're not related to anyone important. Afterwards they turn them over to the Afghan government - it's their country after all. I imagine things were a lot more dodgy back in 2002, and mistakes are often made. (You seem to have jumped on this point rather aggressively - are you assuming I'm in favor of the existence of the prison at Guantanamo Bay?)
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I think the solution to all of our problems is to reestablish the Caliphate under a female descendant of Mohammed with Israel as a semi-autonomous region and an Exclusive economic Zone like Hong Kong.
Trollin trollin trollin, Rawhide!
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
An earlier report analyzed unclassified government data (obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests) based on evidentiary summaries of 2004 military hearings on whether 517 detainees held at the time were "enemy combatants."
Most were non-belligerents. In fact, a shocking 95% were seized randomly by bounty hunters, then sold to US forces for $5,000 per claimed Taliban and $25,000 for supposed Al Qaeda members. At least 20 were children, some as young as 13.
In his first February 2006 report, profiling 517 detainees through analysis of Defense Department (DOD) data, Denbeaux found:
-- only 8% "were characterized as al Qaeda fighters;"
-- 55% committed no hostile act against US or coalition forces; and
-- of the remaining 37%, most had no connection to either Al Qaeda or Taliban forces, based on the Pentagon's assessment.
In his latest March 2011 report, Denbeaux headlined, "Rumsfeld Knew: DoD's 'Worst of the Worst' and Recidivism Claims Refuted by Recently Declassified Memo," explaining that:
Rumsfeld's memo showed he lied, calling into question whether anything he, or other Pentagon officials, said was true. In fact, Denbeaux's reports refute virtually everything from official and major media sources, exposing their deception in detail. They show the vast majority (perhaps all) Guantanamo prisoners were and still are innocent or "low-value" detainees, posing no terrorist threat to America or other nations.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Those two? No. What do you think ought to have been done with them?
Something other than what actually was done with them. They shouldn't be charged with terrorism, certainly. Seem like potential POWs to me.
But my only contention here is that in present-day America, 'terrorism' is no longer "a term only applied when civilian targets are involved, or in cases where no attack is in anyway justified." And that it's not correct to say that "It's usually only the really high ranking ones that get sent to Gitmo."
quote:(You seem to have jumped on this point rather aggressively - are you assuming I'm in favor of the existence of the prison at Guantanamo Bay?)
Nope, just trying to correct any misconceptions that may be out there.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
A couple things.
First, I said "it's the high ranking ones that get sent to Gitmo" - and by "ones" I mean, Afghan insurgents. (Iraqi too, probably) I never said "Gitmo is inhabited by high ranking insurgents." Gitmo is inhabited by people the U.S. government (often erroneously) believes to be involved in or connected to terrorism against the U.S. The cases you've linked to are at least half a decade old, but, for example, that boy was probably sent there because he's an Egyptian Canadian - which means he's probably a lot more valuable of a source and probably knows a lot more about the terrorist networks involved that some pissed off illiterate teenager who's given an AK-47 and told to shoot Americans.
I doubt our government gives two shits about what a goatherd from some mountain village knows - because he probably doesn't know anything. (and if he does, he probably doesn't know that he knows anything) The only insurgents they're interested in presently sending to Guantanamo are the higher ranking officers who would have information about Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, since they're the ones actually interacting with them. Again, this is current SOP.
Of course stupidity happens and Gitmo gets filled up with a bunch of random people, many of whom are useless humint sources. This isn't because we're sending every last insurgent to Guantanamo, it's because somewhere along the line someone (mistakenly or not) though they had important ties to a terrorist organization. And they get stuck there, because we don't really have any way of trying them/extraditing them. It's one of the reasons I'm incredibly against the prison there. But if you think every random 17 year old, or even 0.1% of the insurgents we arrest and bring in for questioning are sent to Gitmo, you're drastically underestimating the size of these wars.
As far as "present-day America", well, yes obviously. I'm not sure of Kwea's nationality, but I assumed I was addressing an American. If you reread my post you may find I was being a little more exclusive than you think in that "we."
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Here's one who went to Gitmo:
Tangential, but I was 13 years old when he was sent to Gitmo.
He was 15. He's still there. Worth thinking about.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Actually we don't call it terrorism, we call it insurgency. Terrorism is a term only applied when civilian targets are involved, or in cases where no attack is in anyway justified. (like the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon 30 years back)
They haven't been very careful about that lately. People have gone to Guantanamo just for attacking the troops.
Or being unlucky enough to have been picked up by ransom hunters and called a terrorist.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I doubt our government gives two shits about what a goatherd from some mountain village knows - because he probably doesn't know anything. (and if he does, he probably doesn't know that he knows anything) The only insurgents they're interested in presently sending to Guantanamo are the higher ranking officers who would have information about Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, since they're the ones actually interacting with them. Again, this is current SOP.
I'm sure that's correct. The thing is, I'm sure that was also the procedure in the early '00s, at least on paper.
quote:Of course stupidity happens and Gitmo gets filled up with a bunch of random people, many of whom are useless humint sources. This isn't because we're sending every last insurgent to Guantanamo,
No disagreement here, for sure.
quote:it's because somewhere along the line someone (mistakenly or not) though they had important ties to a terrorist organization.
In many cases that's probably correct, but in some cases, like Khadr, I find it pretty hard to believe.
Thesifer:
quote:They show the vast majority (perhaps all) Guantanamo prisoners were and still are innocent or "low-value" detainees, posing no terrorist threat to America or other nations.
Seems pretty implausible that they were all either innocent or low-value. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was clearly neither of those.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Yeah, IMO, the biggest problem with Guantanamo Bay isn't so much that we send people there (though that is a problem) than that we don't have a system in place to send them elsewhere when we're done with them. (i.e, to either prosecute and imprison/execute them, or to extradite them if they're clearly not terrorists) There should be a 6 month or maybe 1 year maximum turnaround time.
I guess what I'm trying to say with all this is the U.S. military doesn't have a policy of labeling local insurgents as terrorists or treating them as such - the ones that do end up in Gitmo are because of mistakes, or because of ties to terrorist organizations, not because of policy. The vast majority of the time they're treated like POWs - detained, treated for injury, questioned, and released to their government. (Who sometimes *do* charge them as terrorists, you know, for killing civilians or blowing up schools or whatever, but usually just release them for a bribe)
[ September 24, 2012, 11:18 PM: Message edited by: Dogbreath ]
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Tangential, but I was 13 years old when he was sent to Gitmo.
He was 15. He's still there. Worth thinking about.
I still don't understand how you can be convicted of murdering a soldier in a fire fight.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Imagine if they did to us what we did to them, even if they were justified in doing it. I bet we would be pissed, and we would call the roadside bombs and snipers The Resistance rather than terrorism.
Actually we don't call it terrorism, we call it insurgency. Terrorism is a term only applied when civilian targets are involved, or in cases where no attack is in anyway justified. (like the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon 30 years back)
I realize that using personal experience to give weight to an argument is a pretty cheap trick, but I'll preface what I'm about to say by stating I've had 2 friends and at least a dozen acquaintances killed by IEDs and another 3 wounded (including one of my best friends who had his leg blown off by a failed daisy-chain IED)... while those sort of attacks obviously make me very angry, I don't really have any beef morally with the people who do them. In this scenario, I'm not an innocent party, I'm there in their country doing my best to kill them. They have every right to try and kill me back using whatever means necessary. It's just a low-tech version of a cruise missile or airstrike.
I do have a big problem morally with them capturing and torturing/murdering journalists. Or killing the families of Afghan soldiers/government employees. Or going into U.S. friendly towns and killing everyone. Or bombing schools because they're run by Christians and/or educate girls. (That one actually happened while I was in the Philippines, but it was done by a Muslim group with Al-Qaeda ties) Or flying planes into buildings.
For that matter, I'm also strongly and vocally opposed to our current military policy of "acceptable civilian casualties" when using artillery or airstrikes. It's why I joined the Marines and why I'm a big proponent of sending in troops as opposed to bombing, even if it costs more money and greatly increases the number of casualties we suffer. A bomb can't tell the difference between a man with a weapon and a little girl. A human can.
So basically, does the Islamic world have a reason to be angry at us? Yes, absolutely. Mostly due to our (IMO) unethical and immoral military policy. Do they have any justification for killing innocent people? Hell no. And honestly, the depressing fact is that most of the innocent people being killed in these riots aren't Americans, they're their own countrymen.
Well, it depends on which side of the fence you are sitting on, I suppose. Which was my actual point.
For the record, I was not in Iraq, but I was in the Army, and I personally know 4 people seriously injured over there by the same tactics. My entire family has pretty much served in the armed forces over the past 50 years, and we have had family members die while serving.
A lot of the tactics of terrorism are similar, or the same, as the tactics we taught them to use against the Russians 30 years ago. They seem themselves as rebels, as freedom fighters. We don't.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Here's one who went to Gitmo:
Tangential, but I was 13 years old when he was sent to Gitmo.
He was 15. He's still there. Worth thinking about.
I still don't understand how you can be convicted of murdering a soldier in a fire fight.
So if someone starts shooting at American soldiers, ipso facto, that makes it a firefight?
When American revolutionaries ambushed the German Hessians in Trenton, was that an assault with a deadly weapon, 1st degree mass murder, followed by kidnapping?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I suspect BlackBlade (he can correct me if I'm wrong) takes 'firefight' to be more or less 'legitimate', even if begun from ambush but not, say, firefight to mean 'soldiers happen upon 'insurgents' in the process of massacring a village or congregation at a mosque and proceed to try and kill them'.
Of course all of this underlines just how badly we're in need of a serious, global redefinition of just what warfare is-or at least what it is to us, rather than the haphazard approach we seem to take, along with everyone else.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
That does highlight how, in my opinion, there are at least two broader problems in the Islamic world with regards to how it reacts to provocation. On the one hand, there are of course the many varied political and military problems, controversies, atrocities, provocations, so on and so forth that help to add fuel to any sort of fire anywhere in the world. That can't be underestimated.
But on the other hand, there is also another problem: the idea held by so much of the Islamic world in general, and the Arabic world in particular, that not only should freedom of expression be a right but that violence in response to it not just not so bad but sometimes appropriate. While there have been many Muslim religious and political leaders condemning violence in response to cartoons, books, or Youtube videos, the higher up the chain you go the harder it becomes to find someone expressing both severe condemnation without also hearing rumblings about how awful the initial 'provocation' was, and how just maybe freedom of speech needs to be used 'responsibly' and could we maybe consider enacting laws to that effect.
If you wanted to create an example of a group of people likely to be totally neutral to this whole video issue, a list would surely include Bangladeshi Buddhists. But someone somewhere, probably a local religious and political leader (pogroms rarely start without them) was able to sell a connection: there's an offense being given to Islam by America (or, well, a couple of total non-entities in America), so let's torch some Buddhist shops here.
Truthfully, much of that can probably be attributed to the first set of problems. After all, when a population is really agitated by those sorts of problems plus with a heaping helping of economic woes, mobs are never exactly hard to come by once local authorities decide to permit them-and sometimes even when they don't.
But where the second set of problems comes into focus, I feel, is in the aftermath, in the statements made about the violence. That's when the fundamental disdain or discomfort with freedom of expression really reveals itself. That is also when I'm reminded of how unusual our country and culture is with respect to freedom of expression.
Hell, even within our own borders it's not a right that is univerally well regarded. In all seriousness a coworker told me that one of the biggest problems humanity as a whole has is when people can make offensive statements (he was referring to African-Americans voicing racially-themed support for Obama, shocking) to another group, secure in the knowledge that they'll be able to say what they like. It leads, according to him, strife and we ought to, somehow, restrict people from making that sort of statement.
The idea that ideas should combat one another and not be rigged by government force, that there might be some difficulty in deciding just which ideas to restrict, so on and so forth, met with no success at all.
[ September 30, 2012, 08:55 PM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... If you wanted to create an example of a group of people likely to be totally neutral to this whole video issue, a list would surely include Bangladeshi Buddhists. But someone somewhere, probably a local religious and political leader (pogroms rarely start without them) was able to sell a connection: there's an offense being given to Islam by America (or, well, a couple of total non-entities in America), so let's torch some Buddhist shops here.
I'm not unsympathetic to the larger point, but I don't think that this (assuming you're talking about Bangladesh) is about the American anti-Islam video or has anything to do with America.
quote:Muslims had taken to the streets to protest against an internet photo they said defamed Islam. ... A young man accused of posting the photo was escorted to safety. At least 20 people were said to have been injured. Public gatherings had been temporarily banned, police said.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
How embarrassing. I'll have to reread it, it seems-the context of this thread made me completely read 'video', not photo.
Rereading, the story only mentioned a posted photo, so I think you're right. I was talking about more than just Bangladesh there (and most of the same things can be said of that region with its violence and unrest and economy and proximity to Myanmar, but I still thought it was about the video
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:I still don't understand how you can be convicted of murdering a soldier in a fire fight. [/QB]
He is a Canadian citizen.
Now, the whole issue of legitimacy is an interesting one - we've long argued the various insurgencies have no legitimacy and should be treated as criminals rather than combatants, but we haven't really acted as such. Afghan citizens fighting U.S. troops in Afghanistan are treated as POWs until they're returned to their government. On the other hand, a Canadian killing a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan is like an American killing a Canadian soldier in Afghanistan, if that helps at all. (I'm not trying to be insulting) He's not the responsibility of the Afghan government, and the U.S. has committed no acts of aggression against the Canadian government or people (in the last 200 years, I mean), giving him absolutely no legitimacy. Therefore it's just murder, plain and simple.
This is actually a problem we frequently encounter with fighters who hop the border from Pakistan. It's not their country. They're in another country illegally, killing citizens of that country and U.S. citizens as well. That makes them murderers, not freedom fighters. Of course, they don't see it that way...
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Right.
BB, I don't think your position is that it's impossible to murder US soldiers, right? Not all killings of our soldiers is warfare, is it?
Or for another example, was Hassan a murderer or a freedom fighter?
Another thought: In most cases of killing we care a little, but not much, about what's going on in the head of the killer. Occasionally exceptions get made for very understandable misconceptions, but generally we care a lot more about the objective facts of the killing.
So I don't have that much respect for the "Well, they don't see it that way..." line of thinking.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: So I don't have that much respect for the "Well, they don't see it that way..." line of thinking.
Yeah, I was being sarcastic.
You know, someone who blows up an abortion clinic and kills 5 people might truly believe that he was doing God's will, but if he's sane, we have no problem with charging him with murder. (and, with that one case in Florida, executing him) I don't see why blowing up schools because God doesn't like girls knowing how to read is any more defensible. Or murdering diplomats because God doesn't like having his Prophet mocked.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's not. But plenty of people forget just how much time and effort 'insurgents' spend trying to kill each other, not just the invading infidel army of Satan.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Right.
BB, I don't think your position is that it's impossible to murder US soldiers, right? Not all killings of our soldiers is warfare, is it?
If the dude snuck into the soldier's barracks, and shot him in the face, I guess I could go with murder.
Obviously I don't actually know the circumstances of this incident, but I would hope that if our guys are out on patrol, and get ambushed and win, they don't capture the wounded, ship them to the US, and try them for murder.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
BlackBlade, I feel as if you just skipped my entire explanation on why it was considered murder. He's a citizen of Canada and was a resident of Pakistan. He wasn't an Afghan insurgent, he was a terrorist and apprehended in a firefight trying to arrest the terrorists he associated with. (They (the Afghan soldiers, assisted by a Delta Force team) were searching buildings when they were attacked by small arms fire and grenades) Did you miss it, or are you just choosing to ignore what I said?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
So you have to be an Afghan citizen to count as fighting for the Afghanistan resistance?
Wouldn't the same reasoning make Hemingway and Orwell murderers, since they fought in the Spanish Civil War? (Assuming, of course, that they each killed some of the enemy.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It certainly helps to be an Afghani to be considered an...Afghani resistance fighter, that seems to follow, yes. But I wouldn't quite draw the line there myself. But if we link you to the bombing of a pilgrimage or say a utilities plant, then no, not a soldier anymore.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: So you have to be an Afghan citizen to count as fighting for the Afghanistan resistance?
The legality of it all is sketchy, but yes, or at least a resident. ("Afghanistan Resistance" is a misleading term there) As far as the charges, many of these Afghan citizens *are* charged as murderers - by their own government. On the other hand, a Pakistani militant who enters Afghanistan illegally and kills Americans will be held and tried by the US. Is there some part of this that doesn't make sense? I feel like I've repeated this several times.
Afghanistan is a sovereign nation and they deal with their own rebels as they see fit. This isn't an ethical statement, it's a legal one. It's also a statement of fact, not at all my argument of how things *should* be. Am I really that bad at communicating?
quote:Wouldn't the same reasoning make Hemingway and Orwell murderers, since they fought in the Spanish Civil War? (Assuming, of course, that they each killed some of the enemy.)
I don't know, would it? What was the policy of the Spanish government at the time? Again, this isn't "reasoning" (that I'm doing anyway), it's "this is how things are, as far as I know." I don't really get how you're not understanding that.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: BlackBlade, I feel as if you just skipped my entire explanation on why it was considered murder. He's a citizen of Canada and was a resident of Pakistan. He wasn't an Afghan insurgent, he was a terrorist and apprehended in a firefight trying to arrest the terrorists he associated with. (They (the Afghan soldiers, assisted by a Delta Force team) were searching buildings when they were attacked by small arms fire and grenades) Did you miss it, or are you just choosing to ignore what I said?
Missed more than skipped.
By that logic Lafayette and Von Steuben were terrorist cell leaders. Being foreigners assisting American rebels. Again it makes the Hessians terrorists too. I understand it's fuzzy, but the guy was clearly with enemy belligerents, and in a firefight with our soldiers. Afghans who infiltrate the army, and then commit a green on blue attack, that seems much more akin to murder.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
BB, if it helps: follow the relationships of the relevant governments.
In the modern day, that's the US, Canadian, and Afghani governments.
Back then, we can look at the British, French, and German governments.
In both cases, who was allied with whom? How might it have had an effect on how each government viewed foreign involvement in the conflict?
I mean, we don't even need to address the changes in international law, which wouldn't help your case. And we don't need to give any legitimacy to the fledgling Americans.
Even handing you all that (quite a lot, I think, since the difference between the American revolutionaries and Afghani rebels is pretty stark), the interactions are pretty clear, I think. No?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I not playing dumb, and I could just be tired. But I'm *not* seeing a whole lot of differences between American revolutionaries and Afghani rebels. At least insofar as their relationships to the British/UN troops.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
BlackBlade, I don't think you're dumb at all, but I really, really think you're completely missing the point of what we're saying. And that is frustrating, because it's an extremely simple point.
Let me try again.
The U.S. government doesn't charge Afghan rebels with murder because we don't have the authority to do so. (or rather we do, but choose not to exercise it) They do commit crimes against us, but they do so in their own country, and we allow their country's government to prosecute them. (And they often *are* charged with murder by the Afghan government)
The U.S. government *does* charge citizens of other countries (say Canada, or Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan) with murder when they commit said murder in Afghanistan, because it's a deliberate attack against the U.S. government in a country that is not their own. That makes it terrorism, not insurrection.* And we treat it as such. With Omar's extradition, we have now gone on to extradite all these terrorists of western origin back to their home countries. We're still holding on to several hundred from middle eastern and eastern countries, for various security and political reasons.
Again, I think you're getting confused by thinking I'm making an ethical argument. (which is why you're making the comparisons to the Revolutionary War, a war in which none of the participating countries had a comparable legal or intel situation) I'm not. I'm making a legal one, and interesting enough, describing the present legal situation as it's viewed by the Department of Defense. Thanks to my specific job field, I actually have quite a bit of first hand experience with this, and have a decent layman's understanding of how it actually works. Which isn't to say there's not something about it I'm misunderstanding, but you've given me several indications which make me believe you are at best skimming my posts. (or perhaps radically misunderstanding them)
If there's something that I'm saying that doesn't make sense, let me know and I'll try my best to explain it in a different way.
*And yes, if you want to apply today's geopolitical situation to the Revolutionary war, you might consider Lafayette a terrorist. Though I don't know if he blew up schools or killed women and children. *shrug* Legally, though, he had the full support and at least tacit approval of his government (right? I'm no history buff), and he could be seen more of a 3rd party belligerent than a Canadian who obviously had no support from his government in attacking Americans. By which I mean, if hostilities existed between the U.S. and Canada, and the Canadian government paid Omar to kill U.S. troops and approved of his actions, I sincerely doubt he'd be charged with murder.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I not playing dumb, and I could just be tired. But I'm *not* seeing a whole lot of differences between American revolutionaries and Afghani rebels. At least insofar as their relationships to the British/UN troops.
Dogbreath basically nailed it with this line:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Legally, though, he had the full support and at least tacit approval of his government (right? I'm no history buff), and he could be seen more of a 3rd party belligerent than a Canadian who obviously had no support from his government in attacking Americans. By which I mean, if hostilities existed between the U.S. and Canada, and the Canadian government paid Omar to kill U.S. troops and approved of his actions, I sincerely doubt he'd be charged with murder.
Look at the relationship between France and Britain back then, vs. the relationship between Canada and the US.
The French government backed the revolutionaries to stymie Britain. Canada isn't opposing us. They aren't sending troops into Afghanistan to work against us.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Obviously the law concerning all these things is royally F-ed up these days, so the legal argument isn't of much interest to me. What the US says is legal, in its prosecution of the GWOT, has almost no relationship with what ought to be legal.
quote:Look at the relationship between France and Britain back then, vs. the relationship between Canada and the US.
The French government backed the revolutionaries to stymie Britain. Canada isn't opposing us. They aren't sending troops into Afghanistan to work against us.
Dan, what would you say about the case of foreign nationals fighting in the Spanish Civil War?
quote:I don't know, would it? What was the policy of the Spanish government at the time? Again, this isn't "reasoning" (that I'm doing anyway), it's "this is how things are, as far as I know." I don't really get how you're not understanding that.
Well, apparently the way things are, the law says Khadr goes to prison for murder. No one is arguing that. The question is whether he should be labeled a murderer.
[ October 04, 2012, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: Destineer ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
To clarify, is the idea that the dividing line between murder and not-murder, government support?
i.e. If Omar Khadr was a Pakistani citizen send into Afghanistan with the support of the Pakistani government, that would be not murder. However, since he was a Canadian and acted of his own accord, that is murder?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Yeah, that's pretty much it.
Destineer: Sure. But then, if you're talking about the way things *should* be, you shouldn't be making broad statements of "this is the way things are." (which is why I entered this thread in the first place)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Dogbreath: Again, I just missed your post, then read it, wasn't convinced, replied, and went to bed. Since you are making a legal argument not an ethical one, I better get where you are coming from. I still think our framework for dividing terrorists from combat troops is scuffy.
Lafeyette actually did not have approval to go when he did, and in fact the king had to denounce his actions, though obviously no punitive measures were taken.
From where I'm standing a foreigner assisting the other side becomes a combatent, he runs the risk of bring killed by our military and so if captured is a prisoner, not a criminal.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
What should we do with those prisoners? The foreign fighters, I mean.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
[quote]From where I'm standing a foreigner assisting the other side becomes a combatent, he runs the risk of bring killed by our military and so if captured is a prisoner, not a criminal. [/quite]
Does the type of assistance factor into this evaluation? I think most of us would agree that at the very least, there is a case to be made for the idea that a Saudi Arabian who travels to Afghanistan and joins the opposition there, and then proceeds to ambush a military convoy or patrol, should be considered a soldier, a combatant.
All well and good. But what of the Saudi Arabian who travels to Afghanistan and joins a group of fighters who attempt to massacre a pilgrimage or purge a neighborhood on sectarian grounds? Who executes a local girl who tries to go to school, and then gets drawn into a firefight with America forces who respond to alarms about the would-be massacre?
Shall we treat him the same as the first Saudi Arabian? Both of these scenarios happen. Ethically, morally, should we treat these two any differently?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
In the case of the Canadian in question, he was assisting a local bombmaker (who had supplied the materials to blow up a mosque, iirc), and ambushed and killed soldiers who were questioning villagers about the location of the said bombmaker.
Again, what should we do with these foreign nationals? Right now we hold them at Guantanamo Bay for anywhere between 6 months to 10 years. Should we just extradite them immediately? In the case of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, they'd probably get an official wrist slap and an unofficial hero's welcome. In other countries, they would probably be executed. Should we kill them when we've finished interrogating them? Should we try them in U.S. Courts for murder? Or War Crimes? But how can we do that if we're not at war with their country? How exactly do we handle this process?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
What did we do with captured Cambodian fighters who crossed into Vietnam during that war? Seems like there must have been some.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Look at the relationship between France and Britain back then, vs. the relationship between Canada and the US.
The French government backed the revolutionaries to stymie Britain. Canada isn't opposing us. They aren't sending troops into Afghanistan to work against us.
Dan, what would you say about the case of foreign nationals fighting in the Spanish Civil War?
I'm not sure.
The factions don't map super well to modern-day Afganistan as far as I can tell, but I'm also not exactly up on my Spanish Civil War history. There were the revolutionaries and the loyalists, and revolutionaries got support from... Hitler? And I think the loyalists were supported by the Soviet Union.
So is your hypothetical, like: What if the loyalists found a citizen of, say, the USSR, who had left the Soviet Union to join the side of the revolutionaries and had killed loyalists and other Soviets? There's still a lot wrong with this... I think the USSR provided material support, not troops, and maybe he should have killed a Soviet ally, not actual Soviets...
Anyway, the hypothetical is already confusing me. Is he guilty of murder? He went to a foreign country and then killed his countrymen, right? Sounds like it might be murder.
If we swap it so he's a Nazi who joined the loyalists and killed, like... Italians (they were allies already, right?) then it might map a little closer. I think he might still be a murderer.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
This one isn't a hypothetical (for once in my life). There were many people of conscience from all over the world--US, UK, western Europe--who traveled to Spain to fight against the Spanish fascists who eventually won. Orwell, Hemingway and Auden all did this.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Ah, right, I think I knew that.
So, save me a trip to google: What was the US (or the UK) government's stance on the Spanish civil war?
Also, and this one I think I do know the answer to, what was the Spanish government's take on the civil war? Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Obviously the law concerning all these things is royally F-ed up these days, so the legal argument isn't of much interest to me. What the US says is legal, in its prosecution of the GWOT, has almost no relationship with what ought to be legal.
Oh yeah I missed this earlier.
Just wanted to add, on this note, that I'm still largely discussing things from a legalistic perspective, not a moral one.
Because, morally, I think the thing that makes people like Kadr murderers is the same thing that makes all of the Afghani "insurgents" into murderers: the tactics they condone and utilize, and the cause they fight for. It's pretty straightforward, morally.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: What did we do with captured Cambodian fighters who crossed into Vietnam during that war? Seems like there must have been some.
That's actually a really good question. I did a cursory search and couldn't find anything about it on Google, but my library has a large collection of history books about he Vietnam war. I'll try and look it up this weekend.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: What should we do with those prisoners? The foreign fighters, I mean.
If I understand where the conversation is going, if we're going to be treating these individuals as civilians committing crimes overseas, then treat them as just that.
If an American commits crimes against humanity in Germany without the support of the US, they're subject to German law. If the German state is unable or unwilling to prosecute, then the matter can be appealed to the International Criminal Court. I see no reason to do differently in Afghanistan and as I understand it the government in Afghanistan is if anything, better adhering to due process.
ex:
quote:Afghan officials and analysts have said the dispute is over a system of administration detention that allows extended no-trial internment for wartime prisoners. Although this is permitted under the international laws on war, some Afghan officials say it may not be legal under the Afghan constitution.
"There are concerns on the U.S. side about division in the Afghan government over internment and that it is not constitutional," said Rachel Reid, a senior policy adviser on Afghanistan for the Open Society Foundations. "The basic concern is that if they don't have internment, they will be released."
Edit to add: If you might recall at the beginning of the Bush administration, the argument on Bush's side was that a new category should be created for "unlawful enemy combatants" that was afforded neither the protections normally given to civilians (such as criminal charges and speedy trials) or the protections for prisoners of war (generally can't be prosecuted or executed except in the case of war crimes). The other side was basically, "you have to pick one."
If we're picking "treat them as civilians", I'm pretty satisfied with that.
[ October 04, 2012, 11:02 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I know I'm jumping into this discussion somewhat late, but I've always thought of this debacle in two ways.
The first is that this is a regional war. If you live in the desert and have pretty much nothing, you tend to get pretty angry about your life. That anger has to be aimed somewhere, doesn't it? You think, well geez, we don't have anything here, not even clean water, but those guys over there, they've got everything! Man, I hate those guys.
But you don't do anything about, not right away, because what's the point? You don't really have enough motivation behind you. But that's when some guy comes along and gives you that motivation. He says, those guys are infidels! They're blasphemous and evil and we have to kill them, just like it says right here in our religious book. You know, the one that was written a a thousand or so years before that country even existed. Yeah, we have to kill them dead. And you know what? If we do, our afterlives will be even better than their lives are now, and they'll be the ones suffering! Think about how awesome it will be! We'll even get cake! And by cake I mean women and stuff. And also cake!
The second perspective that I've heard a lot is that it actually is religious. The Jews and the Muslims have been at odds for thousands of years (supposedly dating back to when Abraham chose one son over the other, thereby separating their offspring and forever cursing them to war against one another. That's if you believe in that, of course). Well, then America went in and uprooted the Muslims from their land after WW2 and implanted the Jewish nation into it, which automatically made us responsible for what happened to them. This event (or chain of events) caused the Muslims in that region to slowly build up some animosity and anger at the awful people from across the lake who decided to send them out into the desert. The evil Americans, who kicked them out of their homeland and implanted their evil cousins, the Jews, deserve God's wrath, so somebody ought to give it to them. At least, that's what seems to be the thought process behind the extremists.
I've had the chance to meet a few Muslims since 9/11 (partially because of my time in the military), and most of them have been fairly civil and couldn't care less about this war going on half a world away. Why? Because they are just trying to stay afloat, and because that crap honestly doesn't affect their present day lives. Not every Muslim wants to kill you, but the ones that do have a specific reasoning behind that trigger finger, and it's a dangerous one. In their eyes, we are the Other, we are the people responsible for their suffering, even if that's not necessarily true (though, certainly, even that is debatable). In their eyes, we're the monsters, just like for a lot of Americans, so are they. Every united people have to have another group to demonize, because otherwise they turn on themselves. Peace will be impossible unless we can separate the fanatics from the people who just want to survive. Whether or not we can do that---that is the questionable part.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:That's actually a really good question. I did a cursory search and couldn't find anything about it on Google, but my library has a large collection of history books about he Vietnam war. I'll try and look it up this weekend.
Yeah, my search came up empty too. Very interested to hear anything you find out.
quote: So, save me a trip to google: What was the US (or the UK) government's stance on the Spanish civil war?
Both were technically neutral, but the UK at least was a de facto supporter of the fascists, because the Republican govt was perceived as too close to commie. But most of the British partisans were on the Republican side.
quote: Because, morally, I think the thing that makes people like Kadr murderers is the same thing that makes all of the Afghani "insurgents" into murderers: the tactics they condone and utilize, and the cause they fight for. It's pretty straightforward, morally.
I essentially agree, although I think by a real full-on moral standard, a lot of US soldiers have committed murder as well in recent years (due to not fighting for a just cause). But I don't think it would be just in the present environment for the law to reflect that sort of moral culpability on the part of soldiers. So I've been looking at the argument as one about what should be legal (as opposed to what is in fact legal, which during the last two US administrations has almost always been "whatever the POTUS declares to be legal.")
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: So I've been looking at the argument as one about what should be legal
Okay, I think I get what you mean. That's roughly what I'm doing too. Not too worried about technicalities, but I am concerning myself with things like international law, which I don't normally think have a bearing on morality.
So. If the US government was neutral on the conflict and had any kind of diplomatic relationship with Spain, am I right in assuming they had a relationship with the existing Spanish government? That's the Republican/loyalist side, right? Again, I'll admit that my knowledge of this conflict is not very detailed, so feel free to correct me where I screw up.
Assuming that's true, then I'd imagine that, pending official statement by the US government, any US soldier that went there and was welcomed as a soldier by the Spanish government (i.e. the loyalists) should be treated as a soldier. If the US government allowed them to do so, and the Spanish government considered them such, it seems clear-cut to me.
It'd be a little less clear cut if they sided with the revolutionaries/fascists, unless the US had neutral relations with both sides or something? Were both sides viewed as legitimate governments?
Oh, and did both sides follow the rules of war that existed at the time?
Seems like legally they'd be called foreign soldiers, not murderers, at this point. Just intuitively thinking this, not from a highly legalistic standpoint. That's what makes sense to me.
Also worth saying that it still seems pretty markedly different.
As far as I know, the Canadian government doesn't recognize Taliban insurgents as a legitimate government. The insurgents are fighting the group Canada does see as the government, right? And not following any rules of war or other UN-style international laws regarding warfare, right?
So, seems like all the hallmarks of a murderer.
If you go to Mexico and join a drug cartel and shoot up a bunch of Mexican citizens, are you a murderer or a soldier? The Mexican and America governments see you as a murderer, yeah?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
[Edit: This first paragraph is directed at Mucus, not Dan] Hopefully that's what happens, now that we're seeing some level of stability in government.
There is one point I mentioned several times that has been ignored so far, though. These foreign nationals are very, very frequently part of or sponsored by Al Qaeda and other international terrorist groups, and are often well educated and well connected young men, often college students. (this is as opposed to locals, who are usually rural agrarian, illiterate, and know little more than "I was given a gun and told to shoot") Our various intelligence agencies see them as being highly valuable intelligence sources, and in almost every single case where someone gets sent to Guantanamo, it's because they're mixed up in a whole lot more than just taking part is attacking U.S. forces.
To break it down for you (since the terms I use may be a little unfamiliar), these people, by virtue of being in Afghanistan, probably have a fairly strong working knowledge of a decent sized chunk of a terrorist organization. The names of the people he contacted, their logistics, where they convene, what aliases they use, where they sneaked over the border, what bank accounts they used to transfer funds, cell phone numbers (that one is a *HUGE* priority, since if you can track one cell phone, you can track *every* person in that group) etc. etc. etc. Whenever you read about so-and-so Al Qaeda leader being killed by a cruise missile or a SEAL team, where do you think they got that intelligence from?
Anyway, I've reached the point where I've gone as in-depth in my explanation as I feel comfortable going, for various reasons. I'll leave this discussion saying that this is a subject that I have a vast amount of personal experience with, and I've spent a good part of my career understanding both the big picture as well as the nuances of it. I have my own personal opinions on how things should work (which are quite different than the explanations I have given, and which I may post later), but as usually happens in discussions like this I'm getting pretty frustrated, mostly because it's a far more complicated and ambiguous situation than most people even begin to suspect, and because I have to use very general terms to describe what I'm talking about and always check my posts to make sure I'm not giving away any sensitive information, which is exhausting and also causes a lot of confusion, apparently.
I also realize that "if you knew what I knew, you would think this way too" is a totally ridiculous, unfair, bogus argument, which is why I can't honestly expect (or even desire) people to be convinced by it. I do urge any of you who are passionate about it to really research each of these cases we discussed and develop a stronger understanding of what happened, and why the government acted in the way it did. Even if you disagree with the government's actions (and I very, very frequently do, including everything in this thread), you need to understand what factors existed to cause these problems in the first place. For example, law isn't (or rather, shouldn't be) something to be conveniently ignored whenever a more moral or ethical choice could be made. There are a lot of people who think killing women for knowing how to read and write is a perfectly moral act.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: There is one point I mentioned several times that has been ignored so far, though ... in almost every single case where someone gets sent to Guantanamo, it's because they're mixed up in a whole lot more than just taking part is attacking U.S. forces.
I'm not exactly ignoring it, I'm just not sure it's relevant. If we're using Guantanamo as shorthand for torture, then I'm opposed to it period, for civilians or for prisoners of war. If we're using Guantanamo as shorthand for indefinite detention, then indefinite detention should only be applicable to prisoners of war and we've already decided that we're talking about treating these people as civilians. If there's some other aspect of Guantanamo you wish to highlight, then it escapes me right now.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Well, originally the issue came up because I was objecting to the fact that people got thrown into Guantanamo for things other than "terrorism," an in particular for attacking the troops.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Guantanamo Bay is essentially the human part of the U.S.'s failure to handle the complexities of this war. (Don't get me started on the billions of dollars wasted on mismanaged DoD contracts...)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Sorry. If I understand correctly, though, you say that you're not sure how can a person acknowledge that the US launched into wars after 9/11 and ask a question why they are angry at us at the same time?