Either way, Kevin, you get the "Quote of the Month" award in my book:
"Wesley and Kal want to continue to embrace the philosophy and deny objective reality - the reality being that treating terrorists as mere criminals allows them to use our civility as a weapon against us. It's a tactic they enthusiastically and willingly exploit."
What I simply don't understand is why they do so. Is it blindness, stupidity, or complicity? Will they be proud when they lay dying because they stuck to a principle that killed them?
I'm afraid I don't understand something here, folks. If Al Qaeda aren't criminals, then what are they? Which country should we attack? If this is WAR, as you say, then why aren't we attacking Pakistan? Did anyone even read the NIA link that I posted on here a while back and do you care?
"If Al Qaeda aren't criminals, then what are they?"
"Unlawful Combatants." Is there something wrong with your reading comprehension?
"If this is WAR, as you say, then why aren't we attacking Pakistan?"
Um, because their government is at least putting up appearances of cooperation, and they're a nuclear power that we'd rather not see controlled by radical Islamists?
So, am to understand that you are OK with the fact that we sent around 200 million dollars a year to tribal leaders, in the hopes of winning hearts and minds, that are also giving aid and comfort to unlawful combatants?
OK with giving Musharaf 2 billion in the last year so he could...negotiate a deal with the Taliban and Al Qaeda so they could continue to be supported by these same tribal leaders?
The country is about to be controlled by radical Islamists BECAUSE of these policies.
"I'm afraid I don't understand something here, folks."
Goddamn, you've finally admitted it. It's hard to imagine, but there it is, in black and white.
Al Qaeda are indeed "unlawful combatants".
Their goal in the near term is the destabilization of the gubmint of Iraq and Afghanistan, and in the long term is either the utter destruction of western civilization or the conversion of that civilization to Islamic rule. How do we know this? Because they have said so in plain language.
The method by which they attempt to accomplish those goals is to make war. Flying an airplane into a building is not a "crime", it is an act of war. Detonating a bomb alongside a U.S. destroyer is not a "crime", it is an act of war. Blowing up an embassy is not a "crime", it is an act of war. Attacking military forces with bombs, mines, rockets, and RPG's is not a "crime", it is an act of war. Trying to destabilize and bring down an elected gubmint of a country is not a "crime", it is an act of war. Trying to destroy about half the civilization of the world is not a "crime", it is an act of war.
Do you get it yet? They are not criminals because their acts are not crimes, rather they are unlawful combatants because they commit acts of war but not under the flag of nor in the uniform of the gubmint of any nation.
This war will go on for a long, long time. It won't be over when the gubmint of the defeated country gives up and surrenders, because there is no such gubmint to give up and surrender. As with an intruder into your home, it is over when the threat is gone, and the proper response to the intrusion is to keep firing until the threat is gone.
"Flying an airplane into a building is not a "crime", it is an act of war"
Yes, that is true. Care to explain to me why we didn't finish the job in Afghanistan and why we aren't attacking the tribal area of Pakistan?
"This war will go on for a long, long time."
Yes, it will. As long as we keep helping countries that create terrorists.
"It won't be over when the gubmint of the defeated country gives up and surrenders, because there is no such gubmint to give up and surrender."
Agreed.
"As with an intruder into your home, it is over when the threat is gone, and the proper response to the intrusion is to keep firing until the threat is gone."
So, is an intruder to your home an enemy combatant or a criminal?
Mark, you are either as dense as lead, or you are simply, yet again, committing argument for the sake of argument.
Here we go ...
Care to explain to me why we didn't finish the job in Afghanistan and why we aren't attacking the tribal area of Pakistan?
To ask "why we didn't finish" presupposes that we are done with the job and it wasn't finished. The truth is that the job in Afghanistan is still ongoing. Don't you read the papers?
As to Pakistan, Kevin explained it to you once, just above these comments. Your reading comprehension really is subpar, isn't it?
Well, here's some more to chew on.
The earlier gubmints of Afghanistan and Iraq opposed us, and so deposed those gubmints, with good reason and justification. The gubmint of Pakistan is helping us, and so there is no need or reason to depose or antagonize that gubmint. Therefore, we have not militarily invaded any part of Pakistan and likely will not.
Is that clear enough, or did I use a word that you don't undertand?
Yes, [this war will go on for a long, long time]. As long as we keep helping countries that create terrorists.
Yes, it will, as long as terrorists keep making war on us. Why do you have to have this explained to you?
So, is an intruder to your home an enemy combatant or a criminal?
It depends on the intruder. Most likely he would be a criminal. But if, for example, he were a member of al Qaeda and made his intrusion in furtherance of the war that al Qaeda is waging, then he would be an illegal enemy combatant.
My statement began with, "As with ..." It was a comparison between two similar situations to illustrate a point. Again, why do you have to have this explained to you? Are you really that dense?
Dude, if you really have to have these simple things explained to you before you can understand them, then you really aren't competent to discuss them intelligently. Otherwise, you are simply being irritating for the sake of being irritating. So, what is your MO? Why do you keep making a fool of yourself?
"The gubmint of Pakistan is helping us, and so there is no need or reason to depose or antagonize that gubmint. Therefore, we have not militarily invaded any part of Pakistan and likely will not."
No, they aren't helping us and thus we need to lean on them. Y'know, I'm surprised that in this situation I am more hawkish and you are more for the diplomatic route.
The way I see it is this: if you read the lates NIA report, you will see that Al Qaeda (in Pakistan) is now capable of carrying out an attack on our home soil. They, more than Al Qaeda in Iraq, are more capable of doing this. They have rebuilt their infrastructure thanks to the last few years of neglect, largely due to our folly in Iraq.
Now, according to what you and others have written on here we need to attack and destroy our enemy before they attack us. Do you you think that or not?
We tell Musharaf that we are going in. He can help us or stay out of the way. It would probably be in his best interest to help us. Our current policy has been largely ineffective and, to be quite frank, shows weakness.
"The way I see it is this: if you read the lates NIA report, you will see that Al Qaeda (in Pakistan) is now capable of carrying out an attack on our home soil."
If you remember, al Qaeda did attack us, on our home soil, on 09/11/01. Al Qaeda is people, not a gubmint, not a nation, and not a region. They can attack anywhere from anywhere.
"Now, according to what you and others have written on here we need to attack and destroy our enemy before they attack us. Do you you think that or not?"
Yup, I do, and I have said so. But I have not advocated that we simply invade (yes, that is the proper word, regardless of its scale) Pakistan to accomplish it.
Pakistan is trying to help (believe what you want, as you will anyway; it is your stock in trade). The gubmint of Pakistan walks a fine line in that effort. They are a secular Muslim nation that is trying to help infidels from another hemisphere find, attack, and defeat other Muslims within its borders. Invading that nation and telling its gubmint to either help or get out of the way would really further those efforts, and cause fine, desirable effects elsewhere in the Muslim world, now wouldn't it?
Dude, like it or not, this is a very delicate thing we are trying to accomplish, and diplomacy is most certainly the major part of it. As has been explained to you before, the economy and means of transportation of most of the world require petroleum, most of which lies under the soil of secular Islamic countries. The great difficulty is to defeat the Islamic terrorists before they do more harm, which requires military force, all the while convincing the gubmints and peaceful people of those countries that it is in their interests to allow us to do so and to help us to the extent they can.
You complain that we should not have attacked in Iraq, where the gubmint itself supported and paid for terrorist attacks, but you advocate that we should attack in Pakistan, where the gubmint is on our side. It gets harder and harder to take you seriously.
I complain because of the hypocrisy I hear everyday from leaders that are supposedly acting in our best interest. "If you harbor a terrorist, then you are a terrorist country"...what happened to that?
Iraq did not attack us on 9-11. Al Qaeda did. It's getting harder and harder to take you seriously when you can't see this simple fact.
"Iraq did not attack us on 9-11. Al Qaeda did. It's getting harder and harder to take you seriously when you can't see this simple fact."
I have always seen this simple fact, dude, and I've never said otherwise. Iraq, under Hussein, paid for and support terrorists and terrorist attacks other than 9/11.
It was the disloyal dimocrat disopposition (did I invent a new word here?) that accused President Bush of stating that Iraq was part of the 9/11 attack, even though he never did so state, in order to discredit him. It was yet another instance of The Big Lie in action, and you are still falling for it.
True, he never came right out and said it. But he effectively framed 9-11 around Iraq, instilling fear into the US public, justifying the invasion of Iraq. Listen to the words of Colonel Sam Gardner, 1 minute and 36 seconds into this clip
The fear was instilled into the public by 9/11. It was real and it was merited. But it doesn't serve the goals of the dimocrats, or of you, so the dimocrats, and you, discount it. Some of you do it for political reasons and the rest of you can't or won't think straight. BDS is like that.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2007/08/more-validation-from-left.html (15 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
I got linked by Jonah Goldberg tonight, but I value your link more, Kevin. Well said.
Really? A Goldberg link? That's excellent!
I appreciate the sentiment, but I'm hardly Jonah Goldberg.
Either way, Kevin, you get the "Quote of the Month" award in my book:
"Wesley and Kal want to continue to embrace the philosophy and deny objective reality - the reality being that treating terrorists as mere criminals allows them to use our civility as a weapon against us. It's a tactic they enthusiastically and willingly exploit."
What I simply don't understand is why they do so. Is it blindness, stupidity, or complicity? Will they be proud when they lay dying because they stuck to a principle that killed them?
I'm afraid I don't understand something here, folks. If Al Qaeda aren't criminals, then what are they? Which country should we attack? If this is WAR, as you say, then why aren't we attacking Pakistan? Did anyone even read the NIA link that I posted on here a while back and do you care?
"If Al Qaeda aren't criminals, then what are they?"
"Unlawful Combatants." Is there something wrong with your reading comprehension?
"If this is WAR, as you say, then why aren't we attacking Pakistan?"
Um, because their government is at least putting up appearances of cooperation, and they're a nuclear power that we'd rather not see controlled by radical Islamists?
Kevin did you read this? Pgs. 6 and 7
http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20070717_release.pdf
So, am to understand that you are OK with the fact that we sent around 200 million dollars a year to tribal leaders, in the hopes of winning hearts and minds, that are also giving aid and comfort to unlawful combatants?
OK with giving Musharaf 2 billion in the last year so he could...negotiate a deal with the Taliban and Al Qaeda so they could continue to be supported by these same tribal leaders?
The country is about to be controlled by radical Islamists BECAUSE of these policies.
"I'm afraid I don't understand something here, folks."
Goddamn, you've finally admitted it. It's hard to imagine, but there it is, in black and white.
Al Qaeda are indeed "unlawful combatants".
Their goal in the near term is the destabilization of the gubmint of Iraq and Afghanistan, and in the long term is either the utter destruction of western civilization or the conversion of that civilization to Islamic rule. How do we know this? Because they have said so in plain language.
The method by which they attempt to accomplish those goals is to make war. Flying an airplane into a building is not a "crime", it is an act of war. Detonating a bomb alongside a U.S. destroyer is not a "crime", it is an act of war. Blowing up an embassy is not a "crime", it is an act of war. Attacking military forces with bombs, mines, rockets, and RPG's is not a "crime", it is an act of war. Trying to destabilize and bring down an elected gubmint of a country is not a "crime", it is an act of war. Trying to destroy about half the civilization of the world is not a "crime", it is an act of war.
Do you get it yet? They are not criminals because their acts are not crimes, rather they are unlawful combatants because they commit acts of war but not under the flag of nor in the uniform of the gubmint of any nation.
This war will go on for a long, long time. It won't be over when the gubmint of the defeated country gives up and surrenders, because there is no such gubmint to give up and surrender. As with an intruder into your home, it is over when the threat is gone, and the proper response to the intrusion is to keep firing until the threat is gone.
"Flying an airplane into a building is not a "crime", it is an act of war"
Yes, that is true. Care to explain to me why we didn't finish the job in Afghanistan and why we aren't attacking the tribal area of Pakistan?
"This war will go on for a long, long time."
Yes, it will. As long as we keep helping countries that create terrorists.
"It won't be over when the gubmint of the defeated country gives up and surrenders, because there is no such gubmint to give up and surrender."
Agreed.
"As with an intruder into your home, it is over when the threat is gone, and the proper response to the intrusion is to keep firing until the threat is gone."
So, is an intruder to your home an enemy combatant or a criminal?
Mark, you are either as dense as lead, or you are simply, yet again, committing argument for the sake of argument.
Here we go ...
Care to explain to me why we didn't finish the job in Afghanistan and why we aren't attacking the tribal area of Pakistan?
To ask "why we didn't finish" presupposes that we are done with the job and it wasn't finished. The truth is that the job in Afghanistan is still ongoing. Don't you read the papers?
As to Pakistan, Kevin explained it to you once, just above these comments. Your reading comprehension really is subpar, isn't it?
Well, here's some more to chew on.
The earlier gubmints of Afghanistan and Iraq opposed us, and so deposed those gubmints, with good reason and justification. The gubmint of Pakistan is helping us, and so there is no need or reason to depose or antagonize that gubmint. Therefore, we have not militarily invaded any part of Pakistan and likely will not.
Is that clear enough, or did I use a word that you don't undertand?
Yes, [this war will go on for a long, long time]. As long as we keep helping countries that create terrorists.
Yes, it will, as long as terrorists keep making war on us. Why do you have to have this explained to you?
So, is an intruder to your home an enemy combatant or a criminal?
It depends on the intruder. Most likely he would be a criminal. But if, for example, he were a member of al Qaeda and made his intrusion in furtherance of the war that al Qaeda is waging, then he would be an illegal enemy combatant.
My statement began with, "As with ..." It was a comparison between two similar situations to illustrate a point. Again, why do you have to have this explained to you? Are you really that dense?
Dude, if you really have to have these simple things explained to you before you can understand them, then you really aren't competent to discuss them intelligently. Otherwise, you are simply being irritating for the sake of being irritating. So, what is your MO? Why do you keep making a fool of yourself?
"The gubmint of Pakistan is helping us, and so there is no need or reason to depose or antagonize that gubmint. Therefore, we have not militarily invaded any part of Pakistan and likely will not."
No, they aren't helping us and thus we need to lean on them. Y'know, I'm surprised that in this situation I am more hawkish and you are more for the diplomatic route.
The way I see it is this: if you read the lates NIA report, you will see that Al Qaeda (in Pakistan) is now capable of carrying out an attack on our home soil. They, more than Al Qaeda in Iraq, are more capable of doing this. They have rebuilt their infrastructure thanks to the last few years of neglect, largely due to our folly in Iraq.
Now, according to what you and others have written on here we need to attack and destroy our enemy before they attack us. Do you you think that or not?
We tell Musharaf that we are going in. He can help us or stay out of the way. It would probably be in his best interest to help us. Our current policy has been largely ineffective and, to be quite frank, shows weakness.
"The way I see it is this: if you read the lates NIA report, you will see that Al Qaeda (in Pakistan) is now capable of carrying out an attack on our home soil."
If you remember, al Qaeda did attack us, on our home soil, on 09/11/01. Al Qaeda is people, not a gubmint, not a nation, and not a region. They can attack anywhere from anywhere.
"Now, according to what you and others have written on here we need to attack and destroy our enemy before they attack us. Do you you think that or not?"
Yup, I do, and I have said so. But I have not advocated that we simply invade (yes, that is the proper word, regardless of its scale) Pakistan to accomplish it.
Pakistan is trying to help (believe what you want, as you will anyway; it is your stock in trade). The gubmint of Pakistan walks a fine line in that effort. They are a secular Muslim nation that is trying to help infidels from another hemisphere find, attack, and defeat other Muslims within its borders. Invading that nation and telling its gubmint to either help or get out of the way would really further those efforts, and cause fine, desirable effects elsewhere in the Muslim world, now wouldn't it?
Dude, like it or not, this is a very delicate thing we are trying to accomplish, and diplomacy is most certainly the major part of it. As has been explained to you before, the economy and means of transportation of most of the world require petroleum, most of which lies under the soil of secular Islamic countries. The great difficulty is to defeat the Islamic terrorists before they do more harm, which requires military force, all the while convincing the gubmints and peaceful people of those countries that it is in their interests to allow us to do so and to help us to the extent they can.
You complain that we should not have attacked in Iraq, where the gubmint itself supported and paid for terrorist attacks, but you advocate that we should attack in Pakistan, where the gubmint is on our side. It gets harder and harder to take you seriously.
I complain because of the hypocrisy I hear everyday from leaders that are supposedly acting in our best interest. "If you harbor a terrorist, then you are a terrorist country"...what happened to that?
Iraq did not attack us on 9-11. Al Qaeda did. It's getting harder and harder to take you seriously when you can't see this simple fact.
"Iraq did not attack us on 9-11. Al Qaeda did. It's getting harder and harder to take you seriously when you can't see this simple fact."
I have always seen this simple fact, dude, and I've never said otherwise. Iraq, under Hussein, paid for and support terrorists and terrorist attacks other than 9/11.
It was the disloyal dimocrat disopposition (did I invent a new word here?) that accused President Bush of stating that Iraq was part of the 9/11 attack, even though he never did so state, in order to discredit him. It was yet another instance of The Big Lie in action, and you are still falling for it.
True, he never came right out and said it. But he effectively framed 9-11 around Iraq, instilling fear into the US public, justifying the invasion of Iraq. Listen to the words of Colonel Sam Gardner, 1 minute and 36 seconds into this clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE7gIeiFnAI
... instilling fear into the US public, ...
The fear was instilled into the public by 9/11. It was real and it was merited. But it doesn't serve the goals of the dimocrats, or of you, so the dimocrats, and you, discount it. Some of you do it for political reasons and the rest of you can't or won't think straight. BDS is like that.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>