FBOWF Jan 19
meg.ma...@gmail.com
for a story about Deanna's mom having Alzheimer's? The whole thing
about how she's been acting less like herself seems suspicious...?
bllbickel
Have we SEEN any indication of her acting less like herself? What we'd
been shown is Deanna's mom acting ENTIRELY in character.
Bill Bickel
http://www.comicsidontunderstand.com
http://www.crimepundit.com
http://mysterybooks.allinfoabout.com
Paige
out ... she's overbearing ... etc.
Looks like family counseling is in order.
Maybe Lynn should add another character ... a therapist.
paige
Peter B. Steiger
> Maybe Lynn should add another character ... a therapist.
Lucy Van Pelt, at your service.
--
Peter B. Steiger
Cheyenne, WY
If you must reply by email, you can reach me by placing zeroes
where you see stars: wypbs_**3 at bornagain.com.
Paige
Five cents, please. Oh! I love the sound of money!
paige
ronniecat
<see...@for.email.address> promised to tell the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth but instead wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 12:52:47 -0800, Paige sez:
>> Maybe Lynn should add another character ... a therapist.
>
>Lucy Van Pelt, at your service.
Nickel shrink?
Paging ruth...
ronnie
--
"The very deaf, as I am, hear the most astounding things all
'round them, which have not, in fact, been said." - Henry Green
<<remove mycollar to respond by email>>
www.hearingloss.blogspot.com - a blog about deafness
Karina
>It seems more like a marriage issue with her parents. Hubby tunes her
>out ... she's overbearing ... etc.
Unfortunately (as much as I truly despise Deanna), today's strip
stopped me cold and pretty much turned me around 180 in regards to the
Mira situation.
See, my mom has always been....difficult, not quite to Mira's extent,
but similar. And, she's always (as long as I've known her) had memory
issues and as she has gotten older (70s), particularly in the last 6
months, her orneriness has increased and her short-term memory lasts
between 2-5 minutes. My step-father is in desparate denial and either
tries to ignore her or make excuses because if he acknowledges the
situation, his lifestyle would have to change a whole heck of a lot.
My sister and I are looking into options because we see the situation
degenerating to the point of no return within the next year.
Suddenly, I feel for Deanna...in this particular instance. It's very
familiar and real.
/k
Alexander D. Mitchell IV
> Unfortunately (as much as I truly despise Deanna), today's strip
> stopped me cold and pretty much turned me around 180 in regards to the
> Mira situation.
>
> See, my mom has always been....difficult, not quite to Mira's extent,
> but similar. And, she's always (as long as I've known her) had memory
> issues and as she has gotten older (70s), particularly in the last 6
> months, her orneriness has increased and her short-term memory lasts
> between 2-5 minutes. My step-father is in desparate denial and either
> tries to ignore her or make excuses because if he acknowledges the
> situation, his lifestyle would have to change a whole heck of a lot.
> My sister and I are looking into options because we see the situation
> degenerating to the point of no return within the next year.
>
> Suddenly, I feel for Deanna...in this particular instance. It's very
> familiar and real.
>
from under us................ by Mrs. Johnston, no less.
I suppose the next step is to show Kourtney as the one piloting the drone
that shot the missile that killed a bunch of "innocent Iraqi
civilians".............. [OT warning: Surprising how all the condemnation
of the Bush administration dissipated completely after it was revealed that,
to the best of our ability to tell, we--I mean, Kourtney managed to kill at
least one, and maybe as many as five, top al-Qaeda officials with that
attack.]
nickelshrink
"ronniecat" <ronn...@mycollar.ronniecat.com> wrote in message news:c9g0t11f1m79tn97e...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 16:58:07 -0700, "Peter B. Steiger"
> <see...@for.email.address> promised to tell the truth, the whole
> truth and nothing but the truth but instead wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 12:52:47 -0800, Paige sez:
>>> Maybe Lynn should add another character ... a therapist.
>>
>>Lucy Van Pelt, at your service.
>
> Nickel shrink?
>
> Paging ruth...
>
> ronnie
Ah how i love the sound of that cold hard cash! 8~)
Mira was bossy and overbearing before, but out-of-control
emotions are a facet of Alzheimer's, i understand. Depending
on the part of the brain that's affected. Also, in today's, we hear
about her lack of physical activity, lack of concern for her
appearance. Red flags.
Today's (1-20) had Mike and Dee, still in their late 20's, feeling
like they're entering the Caretaker phase with their own parents.
Who are presumably still, in their 50's (!!). *Wait*, I'm in my
50's, and those are supposed to be *my* lines, about having
parents in their 70's! But Alzheimer's can show up in the 50's,
so these 2 "kids" (to me) actually could be dealing with
parenting their parents. Bummer!
--
pax
ruth
--
Save trees AND money! Buy used books!
http://stores.ebay.com/Noir-and-More-Books-and-Trains
(remove fspam to reply)
Jim Strain
Hmmmm. Orneriness, inability to focus, highly selective memory, a
tendency to make inappropriate remarks. Have you had a checkup lately?
. . . jim strain in san diego.
Alexander D. Mitchell IV
> Hmmmm. Orneriness, inability to focus, highly selective memory, a
> tendency to make inappropriate remarks. Have you had a checkup lately?
> . . . jim strain in san diego.
>
Naah, but I'm willing to submit for examination about half of the members of
Congress.......... as well as, lessee, Fidel Castro, Kim Jung Il, Pat
Robertson...............
[/OT mode]
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
Mira and Wilf could be in their mid- to late-sixties. Deanna is almost
30 and she does have an older sister. Since Mira and WIlf are
immigrents, it is possible that they put off having children until they
settled into their new country. It's not unreasonable to assume that
Deanna's older sister wasn't born until her parent's were into their
30's.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Alexander D. Mitchell IV <LNER447...@bcpl.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>I suppose the next step is to show Kourtney as the one piloting the drone
>that shot the missile that killed a bunch of "innocent Iraqi
>civilians".............. [OT warning: Surprising how all the condemnation
>of the Bush administration dissipated completely after it was revealed that,
>to the best of our ability to tell, we--I mean, Kourtney managed to kill at
>least one, and maybe as many as five, top al-Qaeda officials with that
>attack.]
>
>
Um, Pakastani civilians, right?
Ted
racs...@gmail.com
No! Don't you watch the news? They were Al Qaeda leaders! And they were
just about to start firing their machine guns right at our brave lads
on the Maddox and the Turner Joy when the air strike stopped them!
Winston Smith
Glens Falls NY
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Yes, there were some AQ there, and I believe the strike was justified. I don't
want to debate that; my point was simply that it took place in Pakistan,
not Iraq as Alexander's post seemed to suggest.
Ted
Alexander D. Mitchell IV
>>I suppose the next step is to show Kourtney as the one piloting the drone
>>that shot the missile that killed a bunch of "innocent Iraqi
>>civilians".............. [OT warning: Surprising how all the
>>condemnation
>>of the Bush administration dissipated completely after it was revealed
>>that,
>>to the best of our ability to tell, we--I mean, Kourtney managed to kill
>>at
>>least one, and maybe as many as five, top al-Qaeda officials with that
>>attack.]
>>
>>
>
> Um, Pakastani civilians, right?
>
couldn't tell the difference ranting in almost exactly those words. Never
let the facts get in the way of a good anti-Bush rant, after all. All I was
interested in, at my friend's recommendation, was how all the anti-Bush
rants (at least the ones on the left-leaning sites) stopped cold instantly
as soon as it was announced that said missile attack did indeed kill (again,
with the disclaimer that this is to the best of American and Pakistani
intelligence) not just one, but three top al-Qaeda leaders/operatives, just
not intended target al-Zawahri--and that the protests reported in
Afghanistan and Pakistan were against al-Qaeda and the Taliban as well as
America.............
Sherwood Harrington
>>>I suppose the next step is to show Kourtney as the one piloting the drone
>>>that shot the missile that killed a bunch of "innocent Iraqi
>>>civilians" [...]
>> Um, Pakastani civilians, right?
>>
> *Actually, I'm sure I saw quite a few bloggers/commenters/posters that
> couldn't tell the difference ranting in almost exactly those words. Never
> let the facts get in the way of a good anti-Bush rant, after all. All I was
> interested in, at my friend's recommendation, was how all the anti-Bush
> rants (at least the ones on the left-leaning sites) stopped cold instantly
> as soon as it was announced that said missile attack did indeed kill (again,
> with the disclaimer that this is to the best of American and Pakistani
> intelligence) not just one, but three top al-Qaeda leaders/operatives, just
> not intended target al-Zawahri--and that the protests reported in
> Afghanistan and Pakistan were against al-Qaeda and the Taliban as well as
> America.............
I *am* going to have to stop reading your posts, entertaining though they
may be. They make my eyeballs roll too far up, and that's a strain.
Those evil, ranting, anti-Bush, liberal bloggers/commenters/posters insist
on describing some of those killed as "Pakistani civilians" just because
they happened to be in Pakistan? They don't realize that they *must* be
Iraquis because that's, well, that's just clear? How boneheaded of them.
--
Sherwood Harrington
Boulder Creek, California
hubcap
>No! Don't you watch the news? They were Al Qaeda leaders! And they were
>just about to start firing their machine guns right at our brave lads
>on the Maddox and the Turner Joy when the air strike stopped them!
They don't work that way. They hide bombs near where our brave lads
must tread and blow them up unawares. Or they hide bombs on kids
from their neighborhoods and send the kids near our brave lads to explode.
Don't you read the Drudge Report?
-Mike
Alexander D. Mitchell IV
> on describing some of those killed as "Pakistani civilians" just because
> they happened to be in Pakistan? They don't realize that they *must* be
> Iraquis because that's, well, that's just clear? How boneheaded of them.
>
boneheaded to pay attention, got confused, jumped to conclusions, and/or
somehow had some evidence that the people killed were Iraqi civilians in
Pakistan. To a credit, I will say that someone in one of these blogs did
correct the one poster to their error.
I'm not about to go searching my browser's history for those particular
blogs, and given the inability of certain r.a.c.s. posters' web browsers to
work properly (see what happened with "numbers, not rates...... numbers.
Not rates." in a previous Candorville thread), they probably wouldn't be
able to see the blog posts in question even if I *did* find these idiots and
post a link.
Sherwood Harrington
> I'm not about to go searching my browser's history for those particular
> blogs,
Of course you're not.
> given the inability of certain r.a.c.s. posters' web browsers to
> work properly (see what happened with "numbers, not rates...... numbers.
> Not rates." in a previous Candorville thread),
I understand completely. It's like that r.a.c.s. poster who demanded --
repeatedly -- that Mike Peterson apologize for something someone else
posted, right? (Granted, it was the demander's brain, not browser, that
wasn't working properly, but they're connected.[*]) Citing the source
didn't do any good in that case, so it probably would be a waste of your
time in this one.
[*] That they're connected is a benevolent assumption in some cases.
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, pete...@SPAMnelliebly.org
<racs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No! Don't you watch the news? They were Al Qaeda leaders! And they
> were just about to start firing their machine guns right at our
> brave lads on the Maddox and the Turner Joy when the air strike
> stopped them!
Seriously, man, this is a bit much, even for you.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone disagrees with any statement I make, I
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |am quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / bal...@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it. -T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
racs...@gmail.com
J.D. Baldwin wrote:
> In the previous article, pete...@SPAMnelliebly.org
> <racs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > No! Don't you watch the news? They were Al Qaeda leaders! And they
> > were just about to start firing their machine guns right at our
> > brave lads on the Maddox and the Turner Joy when the air strike
> > stopped them!
>
> Seriously, man, this is a bit much, even for you.
You don't think you're being spun?
Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
He was on the verge of developing nuclear weapons.
We will be greeted as liberators.
The major combat is over.
Pat Tillman died a heroic death at enemy hands.
There are no holy cities in Iraq.
"Bring it on."
Seriously, man, compared to that, the Gulf of Tonkin Incident was God's
own truth.
Mike Peterson
Glens Falls NY
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, pete...@SPAMnelliebly.org
<racs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Seriously, man, this is a bit much, even for you.
>
> You don't think you're being spun?
Not on this one, no. I see no good reason whatever to doubt the story
the way it's developed. The only reason to express cynicism over this
is that one's desire to see any Bush exploit fail is so far gone into
sickness that one has actually begun rooting for American missiles to
miss terrorists and plow into family gatherings.
Trust me on this: it's possible to think war in Iraq was a bad, bad
idea, and still believe it's happy news when the guy who trained the
USS Cole bombers is himself blasted into a fine mist. And Osama's
truce offer is the cheeriest thing I've heard since Abu Abbas snuffed
it.
ameijers
"J.D. Baldwin" <INVALID...@example.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:dqs8dd$3p4$1...@reader2.panix.com...
>
> In the previous article, pete...@SPAMnelliebly.org
> <racs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Seriously, man, this is a bit much, even for you.
> >
> > You don't think you're being spun?
>
> Not on this one, no. I see no good reason whatever to doubt the story
> the way it's developed. The only reason to express cynicism over this
> is that one's desire to see any Bush exploit fail is so far gone into
> sickness that one has actually begun rooting for American missiles to
> miss terrorists and plow into family gatherings.
>
> Trust me on this: it's possible to think war in Iraq was a bad, bad
> idea, and still believe it's happy news when the guy who trained the
> USS Cole bombers is himself blasted into a fine mist. And Osama's
> truce offer is the cheeriest thing I've heard since Abu Abbas snuffed
> it.
of the innocent bystanders caught in the strike zone. Innocent bystanders
are innocent, no matter where they happen to live.
aem sends...
Alexander D. Mitchell IV
"Sherwood Harrington" <sherw...@SPAMrahul.net> wrote in message
news:dqrg4m$j82$1...@blue.rahul.net...
> Alexander D. Mitchell IV <LNER447...@bcpl.net> wrote:
>
>> I'm not about to go searching my browser's history for those particular
>> blogs,
>
> Of course you're not.
>
and
2) Would you believe me if I *did* post said links, or would you say I
created the whole blog out of thin air?
In other words, I can't win, so why bother?
Alexander D. Mitchell IV
> damage
> of the innocent bystanders caught in the strike zone. Innocent bystanders
> are innocent, no matter where they happen to live.
>
are. Yes, a child that happens to be on the scene because of his/her
parents is presumed totally innocent by age alone (just as we should say the
same of those two twin girls that are making news by singing white
supremacist songs). Ditto a wife forced by religious custom to be near her
husband no matter what he may be up to.
But, y'know, a year-end tally of murders in my home city revealed that a
good 80-85% of the city's homicide victims had not just criminal records,
but in most cases quite lengthy rap sheets. As a result, I choose not to
hang around people with these lengthy criminal records, or patronize them,
or go to businesses where they associate. It seems the prudent thing to do
in the name of self-preservation.
Ever get the feeling that maybe, just maybe, after a few more such
"neutralizations" some people might not want to hang around these Taliban
and terror supporters? Maybe even disinvite them from town?
Sherwood Harrington
> "Sherwood Harrington" <sherw...@SPAMrahul.net> wrote in message
> news:dqrg4m$j82$1...@blue.rahul.net...
See? You *can* figure out how to attribute posts to which you're
responding. *Good* for you.
>> Alexander D. Mitchell IV <LNER447...@bcpl.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not about to go searching my browser's history for those particular
>>> blogs,
>>
>> Of course you're not.
>>
> 1) I'm too busy with work and volunteer work this weekend,
Good for you again. Those of us who spend our working lives trying to
level the societal playing field appreciate whatever scraps of your
time you can spare.
> and
> 2) Would you believe me if I *did* post said links, or would you say I
> created the whole blog out of thin air?
One or the other, probably. Depends on what happens in the real world,
not your hypotheticals.
> In other words, I can't win, so why bother?
"Win"?
racs...@gmail.com
Alexander D. Mitchell IV wrote:
Not everyone would be willing to pitch in and help you.
<http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Obit_Thompson.html>
HS WRand Om
> In the previous article, pete...@SPAMnelliebly.org
> <racs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Seriously, man, this is a bit much, even for you.
>> You don't think you're being spun?
>
> Not on this one, no. I see no good reason whatever to doubt the story
> the way it's developed. The only reason to express cynicism over this
> is that one's desire to see any Bush exploit fail is so far gone into
> sickness that one has actually begun rooting for American missiles to
> miss terrorists and plow into family gatherings.
The ONLY reason? You don't think it's prudent to check and verify a
story from a source that has lied to you several times before?
George W Harris
:Alexander D. Mitchell IV wrote:
:> Ever get the feeling that maybe, just maybe, after a few more such
:> "neutralizations" some people might not want to hang around these Taliban
:> and terror supporters? Maybe even disinvite them from town?
You have embraced the terrorist mindset.
--
"It is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a
democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of
patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every
country."
-Hermann Goering
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.
Sherwood Harrington
> :
> :Alexander D. Mitchell IV wrote:
> :> Ever get the feeling that maybe, just maybe, after a few more such
> :> "neutralizations" some people might not want to hang around these Taliban
> :> and terror supporters? Maybe even disinvite them from town?
> You have embraced the terrorist mindset.
And don't you wish he were the only one to do so. Or, at least, that
those who do so were limited to those with his utter lack of influence.
Carl Fink
> Ever get the feeling that maybe, just maybe, after a few more such
> "neutralizations" some people might not want to hang around these Taliban
> and terror supporters? Maybe even disinvite them from town?
You just advocated terrorism. Literally, you advocate the use of fear of
U.S. violence to force people to do our will.
--
Carl Fink ca...@fink.to
"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your
government when it deserves it."
- Mark Twain
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Carl Fink <ca...@dm.net> wrote:
> > Ever get the feeling that maybe, just maybe, after a few more such
> > "neutralizations" some people might not want to hang around these
> > Taliban and terror supporters? Maybe even disinvite them from town?
>
> You just advocated terrorism. Literally, you advocate the use of
> fear of U.S. violence to force people to do our will.
By that standard, FDR was a terrorist. Every cop who ever shouted
"freeze" at a suspect is a terrorist. Actually, every government in
the history of man is composed of terrorists. That might be a little
broad, even as measured against the standards of the current
administration.
I think there might be something missing from your definition.
Alexander D. Mitchell IV
"Sherwood Harrington" <sherw...@SPAMrahul.net> wrote in message
As to whether I have embraced the "terrorist" mindset, I would argue not. I
am NOT advocating hitting random, innocent people to terrorize them as does
al-Qaeda/Hamas/FARC/etc., and frankly (AND THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT) *neither
is our government*. We are targeting *very specific* individuals that have
openly declared jihad or war against not only America but "Western"
principles and civilization. If you seriously have a better way to
"neutralize" these individuals that doesn't involve 1) ANY civilian
casualties and 2) MASSIVE risk, if not casualties, to American/Allied
forces, I'm all for it, let me hear it. Better to lose a few "innocent" (as
I implied before, har-har, innocent my a**) "civilians" than lose, oh, I
dunno, several fighter planes, a couple choppers full of troops to and from
ground attack, etc.--and a ground attack would probably kill just as many,
if not more, civilians. And as far as I can tell, we apologize for truly
innocent civilian losses, instead of jumping for joy as some did after a
certain quartet of hijacked planes. This is a no-win situation; these scum
are hiding behind civilians and leading attacks against not only our
military but our civilians. All we can do is attack with a compromise
between pinpoint precision and minimum risk to our troops--and if you have a
better plan THAT ACTUALLY KILLS THE BASTARDS rather than coddles them or
tries to negotiate with them, let's hear it. Now. [I'll turn up my
hearing aid for the crickets.]
Nobody with an iota of sense is suggesting (as did one poster indirectly
with his odious comparison by posting the obit of someone at My Lai) that we
are, or should be, sweeping into villages and machine-gunning down entire
town populations, or releasing mustard gas and exterminating towns (hmmm,
but apparently that was a technique employed by someone who has "nothing to
do with al-Qaeda" that we now have in custody--and people still say what he
did didn't warrant our actions).
In my home city, we have had a bunch of punks that made a widely-distributed
street video called (and I'm not making this up, search the Baltimore Sun at
www.baltimoresun.com) "Stop Snitching". In it, a bunch of lowlife thugs are
seen, rap video and "documentary" style, literally threatening the lives of
those who "snitch" against their criminal activities of drug dealing, car
theft, burglary, etc.
The mentality of those who suggest I am "falling into a terrorist mindset"
would also say that those whose houses get confiscated or get scared because
SWAT teams sweep into a house in pursuit of these same murderers and rapists
(that they have willingly harbored and worked with, not because they were at
the murderer's gunpoint) are also being "terrorized".
I have a far simpler solution, which I practice: I don't fraternize with
criminals. And the sooner that the people who support al-Qaeda figure out
that staying alive and keeping their distance might be a better deal than
the promise of 72 virgins, the better off we'll all be.
Last dispatch for a while--meeting, then road trip.
Carl Fink
>
> In the previous article, Carl Fink <ca...@dm.net> wrote:
>> > Ever get the feeling that maybe, just maybe, after a few more such
>> > "neutralizations" some people might not want to hang around these
>> > Taliban and terror supporters? Maybe even disinvite them from town?
>>
>> You just advocated terrorism. Literally, you advocate the use of
>> fear of U.S. violence to force people to do our will.
>
> By that standard, FDR was a terrorist. Every cop who ever shouted
> "freeze" at a suspect is a terrorist. Actually, every government in
> the history of man is composed of terrorists. That might be a little
> broad, even as measured against the standards of the current
> administration.
>
> I think there might be something missing from your definition.
Alex Mitchell advocates murdering civilians to force the survivors to act as
informants.
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, ameijers <aeme...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > Trust me on this: it's possible to think war in Iraq was a bad, bad
> > idea, and still believe it's happy news when the guy who trained the
> > USS Cole bombers is himself blasted into a fine mist. And Osama's
> > truce offer is the cheeriest thing I've heard since Abu Abbas
> > snuffed it.
>
> Don't disagree, but it is also okay to feel bad about the collateral
> damage of the innocent bystanders caught in the strike
> zone. Innocent bystanders are innocent, no matter where they happen
> to live.
That was hardly the sentiment that provoked my reaction. I don't have
a problem with expressions of horror over "collateral" casualties.
But, yeah, people *should* be afraid to give aid and comfort to these
guys.
Dann
news:slrndt4ijf...@panix2.panix.com on 21 Jan 2006:
> On 2006-01-21, J.D. Baldwin <INVALID...@example.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>>
>> In the previous article, Carl Fink <ca...@dm.net> wrote:
>>> > Ever get the feeling that maybe, just maybe, after a few more such
>>> > "neutralizations" some people might not want to hang around these
>>> > Taliban and terror supporters? Maybe even disinvite them from
>>> > town?
>>>
>>> You just advocated terrorism. Literally, you advocate the use of
>>> fear of U.S. violence to force people to do our will.
>>
>> By that standard, FDR was a terrorist. Every cop who ever shouted
>> "freeze" at a suspect is a terrorist. Actually, every government in
>> the history of man is composed of terrorists. That might be a little
>> broad, even as measured against the standards of the current
>> administration.
>>
>> I think there might be something missing from your definition.
>
> Alex Mitchell advocates murdering civilians to force the survivors to
> act as informants.
The only problem is that isn't what he said. Not even close.
--
Regards,
Dann deto...@hotmail.com
Blogging at: http://www.modempool.com/nucleardann/blogspace/blog.htm
A feather is Erotic. A whole chicken?? Now that's my kind of girl!
Tom Betz
> And Osama's
> truce offer is the cheeriest thing I've heard since Abu Abbas
> snuffed it.
Osama's truce offer (if indeed it did come from Osama, which
remains open to some question) seems to be merely a formality
peculiar to the Islamic culture, according to those who have made
a particular study of bin Laden -- for example, "Imperial Hubris"
author Michael Scheuer*.
* <http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/iblog/C168863457/E20060119205838/index.html>
--
| "There's no telling what new harm Bush might |
| do if he ever gets back up off the mat. |
| You have to keep your knee on his windpipe |
| until the danger is past." -- Garry Trudeau |
| IMPEACH <http://gug.in/ywkyg> IMPEACH |
racs...@gmail.com
Dann wrote:
> The brain droppings of Carl Fink were posted in
> news:slrndt4ijf...@panix2.panix.com on 21 Jan 2006:
>
> > On 2006-01-21, J.D. Baldwin <INVALID...@example.com.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> In the previous article, Carl Fink <ca...@dm.net> wrote:
> >>> > Ever get the feeling that maybe, just maybe, after a few more such
> >>> > "neutralizations" some people might not want to hang around these
> >>> > Taliban and terror supporters? Maybe even disinvite them from
> >>> > town?
> >>>
> >>> You just advocated terrorism. Literally, you advocate the use of
> >>> fear of U.S. violence to force people to do our will.
> >>
> >> By that standard, FDR was a terrorist. Every cop who ever shouted
> >> "freeze" at a suspect is a terrorist. Actually, every government in
> >> the history of man is composed of terrorists. That might be a little
> >> broad, even as measured against the standards of the current
> >> administration.
> >>
> >> I think there might be something missing from your definition.
> >
> > Alex Mitchell advocates murdering civilians to force the survivors to
> > act as informants.
>
> The only problem is that isn't what he said. Not even close.
It was reasonably close. He expressed the opinion that the deaths of
neighbors near the (alleged) al Qaida meetinghouse might have the
positive outcome of making civilians stop sheltering, or tolerating the
presence of, "terrorists."
The book -- not the abomination of a movie -- "When Heaven and Earth
Changed Places" did a nice job of expressing the POV of the common
Vietnamese rural person. And it's not far from the POV of the poor
Catholics in the ghettoes of Northern Ireland. The more the authorities
come down on the communities, the more they tighten up the circle --
it's like a cop walking into the middle of a domestic dispute and
finding that the fight has instantly shifted and is now about the fact
that a cop just walked into the room and started pushing people around.
And the family that was screaming at each other and throwing lamps is
now united against him.
I suspect it's also a large factor on the West Bank -- the more the
Israelis tear down houses, the more the people unite around Hamas and
other groups that they might otherwise disprove.
I don't think IV was actively promoting reprisals, BTW -- those are
clearly counterproductive (see Ireland in the 1920s). But you can do a
lot of harm without reaching that level, because people who feel they
are in targeted groups don't require a lot of rough handling in order
to get their hackles up.
It's tough to walk into those situations without engendering that
reaction -- but cops have, indeed, learned how to defuse domestic
disputes more effectively, and the British, once they got rid of
Thatcher, figured out how to interact positively with the working class
neighborhoods of Northern Ireland and thereby end support of the hard
men. It could happen in Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan, too.
Alexander D. Mitchell IV
>> >>> > Ever get the feeling that maybe, just maybe, after a few more such
>> >>> > "neutralizations" some people might not want to hang around these
>> >>> > Taliban and terror supporters? Maybe even disinvite them from
>> >>> > town?
>> >>>
>> >>> You just advocated terrorism. Literally, you advocate the use of
>> >>> fear of U.S. violence to force people to do our will.
>> >>
>> >> By that standard, FDR was a terrorist. Every cop who ever shouted
>> >> "freeze" at a suspect is a terrorist. Actually, every government in
>> >> the history of man is composed of terrorists. That might be a little
>> >> broad, even as measured against the standards of the current
>> >> administration.
>> >>
>> >> I think there might be something missing from your definition.
>> >
>> > Alex Mitchell advocates murdering civilians to force the survivors to
>> > act as informants.
>>
>> The only problem is that isn't what he said. Not even close.
>
> It was reasonably close. He expressed the opinion that the deaths of
> neighbors near the (alleged) al Qaida meetinghouse might have the
> positive outcome of making civilians stop sheltering, or tolerating the
> presence of, "terrorists."
*Since some bozos who persist in reading unstated messages/meanings into my
sarcasm-laden posts are indeed stating that I advocate murdering innocent
people, let me clarify my position precisely:
I advocate, as an act of war against those who have decided to carry out a
"jihad" terrorism campaign--let's be honest and call it war--against my
country/economic system/liberty, the deaths of those cowardly guerilla
leaders who refuse to come forward voluntarily and confront us militarily
via the Geneva Convention. If the deaths of civilians on American and
European soil are good enough for them, then they shall be considered marked
men.
Therefore, it shall be potentially hazardous to the health, safety, and
well-being of anyone who chooses *voluntarily* to associate, work with/for,
or in any way whatsoever to be in the presence of said individuals. They
may choose to do so at their own risk--it's no secret that these men are
targeted. I do not desire thedeaths of "innocent" confederates, but they
have to presume that at any second an American bomb/missile/bullet will hit
the intended target, and if they're too close, well, tough luck. (There's
not a great deal I can do about those who don't know that a terrorist leader
is in the house next door to them, I agree; I believe that it is fallacious
to think that the residents of neighborhoods/villages where these cretins
hide out and operate are not aware of the presence and motives of these
individuals.)
I choose not to hang out with people that are likely to be gunned down as
part of a drug turf battle or bad debt. Same reason.
We are NOT carrying out a "scorched earth" policy against these bastards and
the countryside in which they operate. We haven't carpet-bombed Baghdad or
Kabul; we haven't gassed or incinerated entire mountainsides in Pakistan;
and we haven't used flamethrowers in caves that I know of. Frankly
speaking, given the circumstances in which we're operating--a shady group of
warmongers operating in disguise as private civilians and mingling with
presumed non-combatants--one really can't ask for more precision an attack
than that Hellfire missile fired from a drone. Unless, say, you're
volunteering to parachute down and slit throats for us. Or, more in keeping
with the pacifist and apologist mentality many here seem to have, perhaps
you'd instead like to go down and see if they'll tell you why they "hate us"
and offer to negotiate the terms of their proposed truce?
A. Mayuzumi
Iraqi insurgency managed to come to the US,
infiltrate some office cocktail party which Rumsfeld
was attending, and blow himself up, taking out not
only Rumsfeld but also his wife, perhaps a kid (does
Rumsfeld even have kids?) and a whole lot of your average
DoD office drone types in attendance, not to mention
the catering staff.
I'd imagine their relatives would be upset. I'd
imagine the people of DC would be screaming
loudly.
Comments to the effect of "well, the 30-something
sysadmins who do the tape backups every night
shoulda known better than to work in an office with
those people, didn't they know they're marked?"
or "Well, that's what you get working catering
in Washington, I mean, geeze, who do they think
attends those parties, anyway?" wouldn't go
over all that well.
--
A. Mayuzumi
Alexander D. Mitchell IV
that the fury would be directed first at the insurgency, and second at the
failed security (as in, how in hell did an Iraqi insurgent manage to get
THAT far into the "inner circle"?)--NOT at Rumsfeld and the DoD, although in
this era of "blame everything on someone else, and especially the
government" anything's possible, and those that would "hold Rumsfeld
personally responsible" are guaranteed TV air time, just as those who blamed
the Bush 43 administration for the deaths of miners in West Va. were.
2) Rumsfeld, etc. are government figures, no matter what you may think of
the validity of the current administration. There is no way to present
al-Qaeda as anything other than a criminal mob, a bunch of terrorists, a
gang of thugs. They have no more actual validity in a legal political sense
than, say, George Soros, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore, or Pat Robertson.
2) The hypothetical is presented by someone who obviously hasn't been in
Washington D.C. of late. It's the very possibility of something like this
that keeps the city in a form of "lockdown" and continues the much-lampooned
color codes. (And I have to go down into the thick of it on Wednesday.)
I was involved in planning and covering a railroad event connected to the
Army-Navy Game in Philadelphia in December (search Snopes.com; there's a
reference to it there, believe it or not). As part of the process, I was
sworn to secrecy before the big event by those in charge (the railroad end,
not any military or police end). I was told afterwards that the reason for
the secrecy was that the Department of Defense had uncovered evidence of
planning by insurgents to go after American military elements in civilian
settings--as in "if we can't kill you in the Middle East, we'll get you at
home". That's a vague version of a much more specific threat I was told; I
won't go into detail here unless the military goes public with it. It
doesn't matter how preposterous the claim made by the DoD sounded; we were
forced to take it seriously, as we're not in a position to disprove it.
So, as much as you might present the scenario above as a "hypothetical",
take my personal word for it that our government is planning as if that's an
inevitable escalation. And they're doing it quietly, subtlely, and as
Draconian a manner as they can while still allowing the public the freedom
to live, work, play, and live their daily lives.
A. Mayuzumi
>that the fury would be directed first at the insurgency, and second at the
>failed security (as in, how in hell did an Iraqi insurgent manage to get
>THAT far into the "inner circle"?)--NOT at Rumsfeld and the DoD, although in
>this era of "blame everything on someone else, and especially the
>government" anything's possible, and those that would "hold Rumsfeld
>personally responsible" are guaranteed TV air time, just as those who blamed
>the Bush 43 administration for the deaths of miners in West Va. were.
Precisely. The enemy side (i.e the insurgents) would be blamed.
Why you think things would be any different in Pakistan eludes me.
Arguing that the collateral damage is acceptable is one thing, but
the expressed disbelief about "how could those people be so upset,
after all, there were some Bad Guys (from the US P.O.V.) around"
strikes me as hilarious naivete.
--
A. Mayuzumi
Alexander D. Mitchell IV
> Precisely. The enemy side (i.e the insurgents) would be blamed.
>
> Why you think things would be any different in Pakistan eludes me.
>
> Arguing that the collateral damage is acceptable is one thing, but
> the expressed disbelief about "how could those people be so upset,
> after all, there were some Bad Guys (from the US P.O.V.) around"
> strikes me as hilarious naivete.
>
*We are not going to convince those that openly support the insurgency--for
whatever reason, they have already decided to support or shelter known
rogues. (Let us hope they don't support al-Qaeda members because they're at
the wrong end of a pointed gun.) Their options at this point are to
renounce the error of their ways (i.e. "Islamic fundamentalism is better
than freedom", "this guy's fighting for our freedom", etc.), die defending
their ways, or learn to accept a compromise ("I'll live my way, and let
others live their ways").
The mission should be to force rats like Osama into caves, to not gain
popular support. There's not much I can do about those that reduce every
equation to "foreigner kill native person; foreigner is bad". What I can
hope to do is convince those with a wide enough vision to accept the message
that "their" philosophy is worse than our stated goals. Contrary to popular
depiction, not everyone in the Middle East supports Islamic
fascism/theocracy, and those that don't deserve a chance to advocate an
alternative--an alternative not offered under the Taliban or warlords, for
example.
It would be a much better world if, for example, Saddam Hussein had been
killed off in an Iraqi revolution, or Osama and other al-Qaeda members were
targeted for extinction by Pakistani or Afghanistani natives. Unfortunately
for us, those that want that goal are in need of a little physical and moral
support.
In a neighborhood really close to mine, we have a problem with crackheads
squatting in vacant houses. We have had several fires over the past two
months ostensibly started by these people setting fires to keep warm, and
the fires spreading (although one fire was seen as an attack upon a
particular person). Innocent people have been rendered homeless by some of
these fires. Given this situation, if a person starts breaking into a
vacant house a couple doors down from me, should I have compassion on my
fellow man and let him seek shelter, or should I call the police? (Keep in
mind we're talking rowhouses here.)
Pat O'Neill
Alexander D. Mitchell IV wrote:
> "jihad" terrorism campaign--let's be honest and call it war--against my
> country/economic system/liberty, the deaths of those cowardly guerilla
> leaders who refuse to come forward voluntarily and confront us militarily
> via the Geneva Convention. If the deaths of civilians on American and
> European soil are good enough for them, then they shall be considered marked
> men.
I've asked this before, I know, and possibly even of you specifically,
but--you DO realize that, had the Geneva Conventions existed in
1775-83, a large percentage (perhaps even a majority) of the American
revolutionary army would have been considered in violation thereof? (No
uniform, no rank insignia, no national affiliation [prior to July '76
and even after that, not one that most of the world's nations
recnognized as legitimate]). Armies of rebellion and resistance rarely
meet the Geneva Standards. For that matter, I'm pretty sure the Abraham
Lincoln Brigade in the Spanish Civil War was in violation of the Geneva
Accords, and possibly even the Flying Tigers in China.
> Therefore, it shall be potentially hazardous to the health, safety, and
> well-being of anyone who chooses *voluntarily* to associate, work with/for,
> or in any way whatsoever to be in the presence of said individuals. They
> may choose to do so at their own risk--it's no secret that these men are
> targeted. I do not desire thedeaths of "innocent" confederates, but they
> have to presume that at any second an American bomb/missile/bullet will hit
> the intended target, and if they're too close, well, tough luck. (There's
> not a great deal I can do about those who don't know that a terrorist leader
> is in the house next door to them, I agree; I believe that it is fallacious
> to think that the residents of neighborhoods/villages where these cretins
> hide out and operate are not aware of the presence and motives of these
> individuals.)
I'm innocently walking down the street in front of the offender's home
(or a home he is surreptitiously using) when the bombs drop. I should
know he's a target when I don't even know he's there? Were the people
who worked next door to British Government offices legitimate targets
of the Blitz?
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Pat O'Neill <patdo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> I've asked this before, I know, and possibly even of you
> specifically, but--you DO realize that, had the Geneva Conventions
> existed in 1775-83, a large percentage (perhaps even a majority) of
> the American revolutionary army would have been considered in
> violation thereof? (No uniform, no rank insignia, no national
> affiliation [prior to July '76 and even after that, not one that
> most of the world's nations recnognized as legitimate]).
All the Geneva Conventions did was codify a very old standard of what
is and isn't acceptable in wartime. You can't bear arms against a
power while pretending to be a civilian, or use civilians to shield
yourself against retaliation, that kind of thing. Spies and
"insurgents" get no real protection.
The tactics and behavior of the Continental Army were not in any way
comparable to al-Qaeda and to suggest otherwise is simply moronic.
Just as a f'rinstance, it's true the Continental Army couldn't afford
uniforms in the beginning, but when Washington took command he made
sure they wore a badge of rank recognizable at a distance, as required
by the customs of war. More importantly, they didn't sneak around
pretending to be civilians and striking from hiding. *Most*
importantly, they didn't target civilians.
> Armies of rebellion and resistance rarely meet the Geneva
> Standards. For that matter, I'm pretty sure the Abraham Lincoln
> Brigade in the Spanish Civil War was in violation of the Geneva
> Accords, and possibly even the Flying Tigers in China.
There's no question that the Republicans in Spain committed horrific
atrocities and acts of terrorism. I don't know to what degree the ALB
were involved in any of them.
The Flying Tigers bore arms openly and their aircraft were clearly
marked. They also avoided civilian targets. What more do you think
is required?
> I'm innocently walking down the street in front of the offender's
> home (or a home he is surreptitiously using) when the bombs drop. I
> should know he's a target when I don't even know he's there? Were
> the people who worked next door to British Government offices
> legitimate targets of the Blitz?
"Legitima[cy]" in Law of Armed Conflict matters is a balancing act.
The target's military value must justify the risk to nearby civilian
targets. Dropping a bomb on a torpedo factory that's located next to
a school, and which only operates while school is in session, is
probably easily enough justified. Ramming airplanes into office
buildings is probably not. Kidnapping journalists and cutting off
their heads is probably not. Targeting a missile against someone who
spends his days planning the latter activities while he is hiding out
among family and friends is somewhere between the two obvious
extremes.
A. Mayuzumi
Alexander D. Mitchell IV wrote:
> *We are not going to convince those that openly support the insurgency--for
> whatever reason, they have already decided to support or shelter known
> rogues. (Let us hope they don't support al-Qaeda members because they're at
> the wrong end of a pointed gun.) Their options at this point are to
> renounce the error of their ways (i.e. "Islamic fundamentalism is better
> than freedom", "this guy's fighting for our freedom", etc.), die defending
> their ways, or learn to accept a compromise ("I'll live my way, and let
> others live their ways").
Again, I can understand why some might argue that it was an
appropriate military decision to make the bombing.
What I laugh at are the comments I hear in the news where people
in the US are responding with shock and amazement that the families of
those who were killed by accident are angry. As if, they should nod
wisely
and just say, well, okay, we took one for team. We should have left our
families, we should have moved out of the village, you know.
THAT is the part I find ridiculous. If you're going to play with
fire, there
is going to be blowback. The US better hope that said blowback doesn't
involve the overthrow of Musharraf (after all, he openly collaborates
with
the evil Americans), at this point.
However, again, if an insurgent, i.e. someone on the other team,
decided to
blow up a party to get Rumsfeld, you've got pretty much the same
situation.
I really doubt the relatives of all the ones killed in such an event
would say
"well, you know, they took one for the team, really, what choice did
the
enemy have, Rumsfeld was there, biggest military target there IS. They
really should have protested the war. The mission must be to get the
current administration out of power."
> In a neighborhood really close to mine, we have a problem with crackheads
> squatting in vacant houses. We have had several fires over the past two
> months ostensibly started by these people setting fires to keep warm, and
> the fires spreading (although one fire was seen as an attack upon a
> particular person). Innocent people have been rendered homeless by some of
> these fires. Given this situation, if a person starts breaking into a
> vacant house a couple doors down from me, should I have compassion on my
> fellow man and let him seek shelter, or should I call the police? (Keep in
> mind we're talking rowhouses here.)
The police are not the army, yet. The police exist to protect you
and your
neighbor. A better analogy is, you don't throw those people out or
call the police,
and so the army of a foreign country comes in, and blows up your house.
You
won't be mad? Let's say they're making meth for export.
The part I quibble with is the idea that it's somehow amazing that
any of the
relatives of the blown up people just might have a problem with the
fact that
the US army blew up their town and killed their relatives. They're
people
just like Americans are, and they might view the relative worth of the
jihad
differently on top of it - of course they'll be mad. You have to
figure that IN.
--
A. Mayuzumi
Alexander D. Mitchell IV
> but--you DO realize that, had the Geneva Conventions existed in
> 1775-83, a large percentage (perhaps even a majority) of the American
> revolutionary army would have been considered in violation thereof? (No
> uniform, no rank insignia, no national affiliation [prior to July '76
> and even after that, not one that most of the world's nations
> recnognized as legitimate]). Armies of rebellion and resistance rarely
> meet the Geneva Standards. For that matter, I'm pretty sure the Abraham
> Lincoln Brigade in the Spanish Civil War was in violation of the Geneva
> Accords, and possibly even the Flying Tigers in China.
*As J.D. Baldwin pointed out, 1) that changed very quickly. Ask military
historians and re-enactors. There may have been ragtag uniforms at first,
but they DID abide for the most part by the current military
conventions--marching, confronting the enemy in formation, obeying their
military officers, etc. Yes, there were occasional mercenaries that were
snipers with Pennsylvania rifles or disguised as Indians to attack soldiers
one on one, but they were by far the exception.
2) Al-Qaeda is NOT an "army of rebellion." They are terrorists working
without the overt and formal support of a proper government, attacking not
just a government and its peoples in another land it opposes but an entire
economic system and standard of liberty and freedom.
Line up al-Qaeda as a military system with formal uniforms and chain of
command, and let them buy military equipment on the open market and agree to
confront us in open combat. (And any countries that supply them with money
free weapons will be subject to a war declaration on our part, mind you.)
THEN
>
>> Therefore, it shall be potentially hazardous to the health, safety, and
>> well-being of anyone who chooses *voluntarily* to associate, work
>> with/for,
>> or in any way whatsoever to be in the presence of said individuals. They
>> may choose to do so at their own risk--it's no secret that these men are
>> targeted. I do not desire thedeaths of "innocent" confederates, but they
>> have to presume that at any second an American bomb/missile/bullet will
>> hit
>> the intended target, and if they're too close, well, tough luck.
>> (There's
>> not a great deal I can do about those who don't know that a terrorist
>> leader
>> is in the house next door to them, I agree; I believe that it is
>> fallacious
>> to think that the residents of neighborhoods/villages where these cretins
>> hide out and operate are not aware of the presence and motives of these
>> individuals.)
>
> I'm innocently walking down the street in front of the offender's home
> (or a home he is surreptitiously using) when the bombs drop. I should
> know he's a target when I don't even know he's there? Were the people
> who worked next door to British Government offices legitimate targets
> of the Blitz?
>
*See the definition of "collateral damage". Please. And to answer your
specious last question, yes. (The Blitz, however, was less an attack on
British government offices than a Nazi terror technique.)
One last time: Our military does not INTENTIONALLY target "innocent" people
for death, unlike al-Qaeda, Saddam Hussein, and other dictators. What we
are doing is the best available technique to attack this specific enemy,
given the circumstances that the enemy leaders are handing us. If you have
a better way to carry out this war THAT ACTUALLY HAS A CHANCE OF WORKING
(meaning premature capitulation and indiscriminate mass murder are both
excluded as options), I'm open to suggestions.
JGM
Alexander D. Mitchell IV wrote:
>All we can do is attack with a compromise
> between pinpoint precision and minimum risk to our troops--and if you have a
> better plan THAT ACTUALLY KILLS THE BASTARDS rather than coddles them
> The mentality of those who suggest I am "falling into a terrorist mindset"
> would also say that those whose houses get confiscated or get scared because
> SWAT teams sweep into a house in pursuit of these same murderers and rapists
> (that they have willingly harbored and worked with, not because they were at
> the murderer's gunpoint) are also being "terrorized".
This is actually a great point of comparison. Raiding crack houses
and other thug dens is pretty dangerous work for the police, you know.
I wonder, would you support *dropping bombs* on houses in your
neighborhood that are reported to contain one or more of these thugs?
Even if there are children and other "innocents" present also? Because
the collateral dead (and there's still quite reasonable doubt about the
actual ratio here) in Pakistan were quite a bit more than "scared".
As to "compromise between pinpoint precision and minimum risk to
troops", well, hasn't this become an elastic line, and isn't it
something how every situation now looks like a nail to our smart-bomb
hammer-wielders. It's funny how much more reasonable this kind of
trade-off sounds when it's happening a few thousand miles away to
people who look and talk differently than we do. And, if your response
is that the situation is different, please provide details about just
*when* you'd support dropping bombs on a full house in your
neighborhood -- to "get" a mass murderer who killed as many as died on
the Cole, perhaps? -- and how many innocent collateral casualties would
be acceptable to you in this situation. And oh, by the way, how would
your feelings change if it wasn't the local authorities but *another
country* that decided it had the right to make these decisions?
JGM
Peter Trei
> In the previous article, Pat O'Neill <patdo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>I've asked this before, I know, and possibly even of you
>>specifically, but--you DO realize that, had the Geneva Conventions
>>existed in 1775-83, a large percentage (perhaps even a majority) of
>>the American revolutionary army would have been considered in
>>violation thereof? (No uniform, no rank insignia, no national
>>affiliation [prior to July '76 and even after that, not one that
>>most of the world's nations recnognized as legitimate]).
>
>
> All the Geneva Conventions did was codify a very old standard of what
> is and isn't acceptable in wartime. You can't bear arms against a
> power while pretending to be a civilian, or use civilians to shield
> yourself against retaliation, that kind of thing. Spies and
> "insurgents" get no real protection.
>
> The tactics and behavior of the Continental Army were not in any way
> comparable to al-Qaeda and to suggest otherwise is simply moronic.
> Just as a f'rinstance, it's true the Continental Army couldn't afford
> uniforms in the beginning, but when Washington took command he made
> sure they wore a badge of rank recognizable at a distance, as required
> by the customs of war. More importantly, they didn't sneak around
> pretending to be civilians and striking from hiding. *Most*
> importantly, they didn't target civilians.
"More importantly, they didn't sneak around
pretending to be civilians and striking from hiding."
Ask General Gage that one, with reference to the
Minutemen during his retreat from Concord to Lexington.
>>Armies of rebellion and resistance rarely meet the Geneva
>>Standards.
It's pretty clear that the Geneva Conventions and
the current "Law of War" apply poorly to the kinds of
conflict we're seeing today. They were designed for a
different kind of war, where unitary nation-states went
toe-to-toe.
We probably need something to replace them. At the moment,
our forces in the field try valiantly, and usually
successfully, to behave with restraint. However, neither
our foes nor our civil leadership seem to see rules as
anything but an obstacle to be ignored, talked away, or
applied only to the behaviour of the other side.
I'm not sure what those new rules could be, but I'd
suggest that they start with "Don't deliberately
target civilians." OTOH, rules such as "Its illegal to
fight while posing as a civilian" are also unworkable;
no insurgent group would accept a rule which works so
much to their disadvantage. Yes, those two ideas tend
to work against each other, but
I suspect that any workable LoW which would be acceptable
to both sides will still result in a much nastier sort
of conflict than that envisaged by the Western nation-states
which drew up the current LoW and the GCs.
Of course, those rules were ignored by Western nation-states
whenever they became impractical - look at the development
of submarine warfare during WWI - at the start, the sub
would surface, and let the crew and passengers get off
before capturing or sinking non-military
enemy ships. This didn't work well (no room for prisoners),
and we wound up with the Lusitania.
Peter Trei
Peter Trei
> Alexander D. Mitchell IV wrote:
>
>
>>All we can do is attack with a compromise
>>between pinpoint precision and minimum risk to our troops--and if you have a
>>better plan THAT ACTUALLY KILLS THE BASTARDS rather than coddles them
>
>
>>The mentality of those who suggest I am "falling into a terrorist mindset"
>>would also say that those whose houses get confiscated or get scared because
>>SWAT teams sweep into a house in pursuit of these same murderers and rapists
>>(that they have willingly harbored and worked with, not because they were at
>>the murderer's gunpoint) are also being "terrorized".
>
>
> This is actually a great point of comparison. Raiding crack houses
> and other thug dens is pretty dangerous work for the police, you know.
> I wonder, would you support *dropping bombs* on houses in your
> neighborhood that are reported to contain one or more of these thugs?
> Even if there are children and other "innocents" present also? Because
> the collateral dead (and there's still quite reasonable doubt about the
> actual ratio here) in Pakistan were quite a bit more than "scared".
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/MOVE-Phihladelphia-BombNYT14may85.htm
"Sometimes, the most subversive thing you can do is to have a
good memory."
- someone I forget :-)
Peter Trei
Alexander D. Mitchell IV
> and other thug dens is pretty dangerous work for the police, you know.
> I wonder, would you support *dropping bombs* on houses in your
> neighborhood that are reported to contain one or more of these thugs?
> Even if there are children and other "innocents" present also? Because
> the collateral dead (and there's still quite reasonable doubt about the
> actual ratio here) in Pakistan were quite a bit more than "scared".
*Totally invalid comparison. If a drug dealer were in an American city
house and presumed to be surrounded by explosives, bazookas, Stinger
missiles, machine guns, etc. and people willing to use them against those
that oppose them, then certainly I believe that American civilian forces
WOULD bomb said houses at the risk of innocent lives and property.
Look up a little thing called the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Texas.
Look up MOVE in Philadelphia in 1985. (And I believe the record will show
that drugs were a part of the equation in both cases.)
Now, granted, we can debate whether or not the actions taken in both cases
were, in the long run, appropriate. But I would ask those who condemned ATF
in Waco to find a volunteer amongst them that would walk up to the door of
the house, knock, serve the arrest warrant, and ask David Koresh to come
along quietly. Ditto for the MOVE compound in Philly. (The explosive
dropped from the helicopter to neutralize the rooftop bunker ignited
flammable stuff, and the fire spread because firefighters feared the bullets
that were supposedly flying at them as the inferno flared.)
>
> As to "compromise between pinpoint precision and minimum risk to
> troops", well, hasn't this become an elastic line, and isn't it
> something how every situation now looks like a nail to our smart-bomb
> hammer-wielders. It's funny how much more reasonable this kind of
> trade-off sounds when it's happening a few thousand miles away to
> people who look and talk differently than we do. And, if your response
> is that the situation is different, please provide details about just
> *when* you'd support dropping bombs on a full house in your
> neighborhood -- to "get" a mass murderer who killed as many as died on
> the Cole, perhaps? -- and how many innocent collateral casualties would
> be acceptable to you in this situation. And oh, by the way, how would
> your feelings change if it wasn't the local authorities but *another
> country* that decided it had the right to make these decisions?
>
Before we get into such specious discussions, may I remind you that we are
in Afghanistan and Iraq--and even Pakistan--with the full support of the
legitimate governments involved. Your "another country" would only be valid
if, say, a bunch of Palestinian-Americans were operating a branch of Hamas
in said house and plotting more attacks against Israel, not just
fundraising.
(Hell, I picketed an "Irish" bar that once hosted a fundraiser dinner
featuring Gerry Adams of Sinn Fein, and that place had a heavy police
presence to protect the bastard. The bar's owner came out and talked with
me. I told him "I don't want to interfere with his speech, I just want
folks to realize their money is going to support a neo-Marxist political
wing of a terrorist group.")
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Peter Trei <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "More importantly, they didn't sneak around
> pretending to be civilians and striking from hiding."
>
> Ask General Gage that one, with reference to the
> Minutemen during his retreat from Concord to Lexington.
First off, the Minutemen weren't regulars of the Continental Army,
which is what was mentioned and what I was describing. Even at that,
they bore their arms openly and did not attempt to use the civilian
populace as a shield.
And if you really want to put it into terms recognizable by modern
LOAC jurisprudence, there are provisions covering the spontaneous
taking up of arms in response to an invading force. The Minutemen
might well be covered under that. (Maybe not, since they were acting
in concert with a regular army.)
> It's pretty clear that the Geneva Conventions and
> the current "Law of War" apply poorly to the kinds of
> conflict we're seeing today. They were designed for a
> different kind of war, where unitary nation-states went
> toe-to-toe.
Well ... sort of. Even a superficial reading of the Geneva
Conventions will make it pretty clear that they were trying to cover
all the bases. I think they work pretty well at making useful
distinctions between who is and who isn't a protected combatant.
> I'm not sure what those new rules could be, but I'd
> suggest that they start with "Don't deliberately
> target civilians." OTOH, rules such as "Its illegal to
> fight while posing as a civilian" are also unworkable;
> no insurgent group would accept a rule which works so
> much to their disadvantage.
They don't have to accept it. It's well-settled international law and
it serves an obvious, important purpose. You want to slip in and out
of the civilian populace, wreaking havoc? Fine, but you ought to know
you are operating outside the protection of the law.
> Of course, those rules were ignored by Western nation-states
> whenever they became impractical -
That's a little broad and unfair, especially since practicality itself
is a justification for actions under LOAC.
> look at the development of submarine warfare during WWI - at the
> start, the sub would surface, and let the crew and passengers get
> off before capturing or sinking non-military enemy ships. This
> didn't work well (no room for prisoners), and we wound up with the
> Lusitania.
There was never any specific LOAC prohibition against "unrestricted
submarine warfare." It simply has to pass the tests of
proportionality and necessity, like any other operation whose legality
is in question. Just about all shipping sunk during WW II -- and for
that matter Lusitania herself -- were perfectly legitimate military
targets.
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Alexander D. Mitchell IV
<LNER447...@bcpl.net> wrote:
> Look up a little thing called the Branch Davidian compound near
> Waco, Texas. Look up MOVE in Philadelphia in 1985. (And I believe
> the record will show that drugs were a part of the equation in both
> cases.)
In the former case, governmental lies about a nonexistent "drug
nexus."
> Now, granted, we can debate whether or not the actions taken in both
> cases were, in the long run, appropriate. But I would ask those who
> condemned ATF in Waco to find a volunteer amongst them that would
> walk up to the door of the house, knock, serve the arrest warrant,
> and ask David Koresh to come along quietly.
I would have, without hesitation, and so would the local sheriff and
his deputies. Everyone who ever dealt with the man agrees -- and the
record unambiguously shows -- that Koresh had a history of quiet,
cheerful cooperation with law enforcement. He often left his house
alone to jog into town. It would have been trivial to pick him up on
one of those outings, but that wouldn't have had the effect of a
spectacular show for the invited media.
In the end, I can't put it any better than my pal Bill Schenley
(card-carrying bleeding-heart lib'rul):
What makes the ATF or the FBI any better than any
other group of lawbreakers? You're cryin' because four
BATF agents were killed ... I'm cryin' because forty
weren't killed.
Peter Trei
> In the previous article, Peter Trei <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>"More importantly, they didn't sneak around
>>pretending to be civilians and striking from hiding."
>>Ask General Gage that one, with reference to the
>>Minutemen during his retreat from Concord to Lexington.
> First off, the Minutemen weren't regulars of the Continental Army,
> which is what was mentioned and what I was describing. Even at that,
> they bore their arms openly and did not attempt to use the civilian
> populace as a shield.
> And if you really want to put it into terms recognizable by modern
> LOAC jurisprudence, there are provisions covering the spontaneous
> taking up of arms in response to an invading force. The Minutemen
> might well be covered under that. (Maybe not, since they were acting
> in concert with a regular army.)
JD: just to play the Devil's advocate:
Would those rules apply to Afghans defending themselves against
invasion in 1979?
Would they apply to Afghans defending themselves against
invasion in 2001?
How about Iraqis defending themselves against invaders?
...and if those rules apply, where do we get this 'illegal
combatant' idea?
[For the record, I think the elimination of the AQ supporting
regime in Afghanistan was justified. The invasion of Iraq was
not, for all that Sadaam is a loathsome murderer. Nonetheless,
all those captured in both conflicts merit POW status. Even if
they don't deserve it, it would protect our own forces]
Peter Trei
racs...@gmail.com
Alexander D. Mitchell IV wrote:
>
> (Hell, I picketed an "Irish" bar that once hosted a fundraiser dinner
> featuring Gerry Adams of Sinn Fein, and that place had a heavy police
> presence to protect the bastard. The bar's owner came out and talked with
> me. I told him "I don't want to interfere with his speech, I just want
> folks to realize their money is going to support a neo-Marxist political
> wing of a terrorist group.")
Thank god -- I thought my point was totally being ignored. So, if you
are an armed militant, you are a bastard, and if you are, instead,
attempting to pursue legitimate political power on behalf of the same
people, you are also a bastard.
Fair enough.
But even so, the bottom line, as I said, is that screwing with the
nationalist neighborhoods turned neutral people against the government.
They were thrilled when the British Army came in, because they felt
they would finally have protection against the corrupt, violent local
police. At that point, Britain had the chance to build peace and
justice with the cooperation of the people.
Instead, the dumb jackasses played hard-ass and managed in fairly short
order to make the local people hate their guts, mostly by the same
attitude you evidence here. And you can feel all big and important and
smart and great-glanded over taking that kind of stance -- God knows
Maggie did.
But the result, as I said before, is that you lose the chance to win
over the people and turn them against the violent people in their
midst.
But, hell, who cares? They're just a bunch of Taig bastards, and if
they all die, well, that'll teach them, won't it?
Alexander D. Mitchell IV
>> (Hell, I picketed an "Irish" bar that once hosted a fundraiser dinner
>> featuring Gerry Adams of Sinn Fein, and that place had a heavy police
>> presence to protect the bastard. The bar's owner came out and talked
>> with
>> me. I told him "I don't want to interfere with his speech, I just want
>> folks to realize their money is going to support a neo-Marxist political
>> wing of a terrorist group.")
>
> Thank god -- I thought my point was totally being ignored. So, if you
> are an armed militant, you are a bastard, and if you are, instead,
> attempting to pursue legitimate political power on behalf of the same
> people, you are also a bastard.
>
had not surrendered its weaponry. (We've since had some of the latter,
although incomplete, and the IRA and Sinn Fein have both formally and
publicly renounced violence.) The group that was hosting him at that
function was a local arm of a group that had, in the past, financially
supported the activities of the Irish Republican Army (we peace-loving Celts
refer to them as "Buy a bullet for the IRA"). The two event attendees that
bothered to speak to me (thanks to the police keeping me and others at a
distance) were self-admitted, avowed, unrepentant Marxists/anarchists that
said they supported violence.
Sinn Fein will gain a whale of a lot more credibility if/when they replace
the current leadership with people that want to work towards the same goals
(a united Marxist Ireland) without coming from the violent past of the Irish
Republican Army.
Heather Fieldhouse
Peter Trei <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/MOVE-Phihladelphia-BombNYT14may85.htm
And what a popular decision that was, too. Especially with the
neighbors.
Heather
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Peter Trei <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
> JD: just to play the Devil's advocate:
>
> Would those rules apply to Afghans defending themselves against
> invasion in 1979?
>
> Would they apply to Afghans defending themselves against
> invasion in 2001?
>
> How about Iraqis defending themselves against invaders?
Yes, yes, and yes. But they have to live up to the guidelines
specified in the relevant Convention. Their resistance has to be
spontaneous, and they have to bear arms openly. (There is no
requirement for uniforms, insignia or a chain of command.)
Also, note that once the territory is "occupied," that "resisting
invasion" clause becomes null and void. So you can't go skulking
around cutting people's heads off and setting bombs and then when
you're caught say, "Hey, I was just spontaneously resisting the
invasion of my country!" It doesn't work that way.
> ...and if those rules apply, where do we get this 'illegal
> combatant' idea?
It's complicated. I know that everyone taken as an "unlawful
combatant" had a supporting affidavit filed by the capturing unit's
commanding officer to certify the circumstances of his capture. The
only cases I know details of (from first-hand accounts) were guys who
were found carrying concealed weapons or even bombs, trying to blend
in as civilians. That earns you a ticket to Gitmo or even summary
execution in the field, and there's not a goddam thing the LOAC will
do for you. And as far as I'm concerned, the LOAC has it 100% right
on this point.
That's not to say that none of the people captured in any of these
places deserve POW status. Some might. I haven't heard any specifics
that lead me to conclude that about any given case, but I don't claim
direct familiarity with more than a very few.
> [For the record, I think the elimination of the AQ supporting
> regime in Afghanistan was justified. The invasion of Iraq was
> not, for all that Sadaam is a loathsome murderer.
I agree 100%, though my opinion on Iraq is becoming mixed these days.
> Nonetheless, all those captured in both conflicts merit POW
> status.
"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of
coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from
them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who
refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed
to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."
Sorry, but: fuck *that*. al-Qaeda simply doesn't deserve that
protection, nor can we afford it. (As a practical matter, we are
getting a huge amount of intel from our detainees; I don't think any
informed source would deny it.) I don't advocate torture, mental or
physical, even for people who decapitate journalists on video ... but
I have no problem whatever giving extra rations or privileges, up to
and including release, for those who cooperate with our interrogations.
Likewise, I have no problem creating "unpleasant" conditions for those
who do not. If Rumsfeld, or any other SecDef, gave that up without
good reason, I'd be screaming for his boss's impeachment. And I'd
expect to get it.
There is a whole list of things you can't do to legitimate POWs that
simply does not and should not apply to these people; the above is
simply the most glaringly obvious of the lot. Probably fewer than 1%
of the "Let's designate them as POWs" crowd appreciates the actual
consequences implied by such a move. Fortunately, the Michael Moore
Brigade isn't running the country just now.
(There are of course many things that *anyone*, even an accused war
criminal, deserves, at least up until the moment you string a noose
around his neck. Basic medical care, food and water, clothing, etc.
I consider these uncontroversial, but believe me, the list of what
Geneva requires for POWs doesn't end there.)
> Even if they don't deserve it, it would protect our own forces]
I'm not sure how. These guys kidnap and decapitate people who
*aren't* opposing them by force of arms. (Not to mention the ones
they blow up just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.) I
doubt they'd change their practice just because we start being nice
(nice-*er*, really) guys.
Carl Fink
> The tactics and behavior of the Continental Army were not in any way
> comparable to al-Qaeda and to suggest otherwise is simply moronic.
Both sides of the Revolutionary War committed war crimes, of course, but
they weren't policy for either side.
I'm most horrified by the Brits who murdered a pregnant woman, cut her fetus
out, and wrote "Thou shalt birth no more rebels" on the wall with the blood.
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Carl Fink <ca...@dm.net> wrote:
> > The tactics and behavior of the Continental Army were not in any way
> > comparable to al-Qaeda and to suggest otherwise is simply moronic.
>
> Both sides of the Revolutionary War committed war crimes, of course,
> but they weren't policy for either side.
I would modify that slightly to note that the rebel side knowingly
tolerated conduct that, then and now, constituted war crimes. Ethan
Allen & crew, for example. (Not to mention that overpriced furniture
thing, which is a different kind of crime.) But the Continental Army
was a pretty well-behaved outfit once Washington got control of them.
And no one back then targeted civilians on a large scale.
> I'm most horrified by the Brits who murdered a pregnant woman, cut
> her fetus out, and wrote "Thou shalt birth no more rebels" on the
> wall with the blood.
?!? Never heard that story ... what happened to the perps?
JGM
Alexander D. Mitchell IV wrote:
> Look up a little thing called the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Texas.
> Look up MOVE in Philadelphia in 1985. (And I believe the record will show
> that drugs were a part of the equation in both cases.)
But I didn't ask if it had ever been done, I asked whether you'd
condone it in your neighborhood, with knowledge that casualties among
non-targets were probable, to get at the thugs and drug dealers.
> Now, granted, we can debate whether or not the actions taken in both cases
> were, in the long run, appropriate. But I would ask those who condemned ATF
> in Waco to find a volunteer amongst them that would walk up to the door of
> the house, knock, serve the arrest warrant, and ask David Koresh to come
> along quietly. Ditto for the MOVE compound in Philly.
Others have pointed out that these weren't exactly model police
actions. The question remains, though: how many innocents are you
willing to sacrifice to reduce the possiblity of a law enforcement
agent getting killed? Clearly there has to be a line somewhere, or
we'd be bombing every presumed-dangerous criminal's neighborhood from
police helicopters.
> > As to "compromise between pinpoint precision and minimum risk to
> > troops", well, hasn't this become an elastic line, and isn't it
> > something how every situation now looks like a nail to our smart-bomb
> > hammer-wielders. It's funny how much more reasonable this kind of
> > trade-off sounds when it's happening a few thousand miles away to
> > people who look and talk differently than we do. And, if your response
> > is that the situation is different, please provide details about just
> > *when* you'd support dropping bombs on a full house in your
> > neighborhood -- to "get" a mass murderer who killed as many as died on
> > the Cole, perhaps? -- and how many innocent collateral casualties would
> > be acceptable to you in this situation. And oh, by the way, how would
> > your feelings change if it wasn't the local authorities but *another
> > country* that decided it had the right to make these decisions?
> >
> Before we get into such specious discussions,
Oh, are we going to get into them? It seems to me you've avoided the
questions.
> may I remind you that we are
> in Afghanistan and Iraq--and even Pakistan--with the full support of the
> legitimate governments involved.
Heh. The 500-pound gorilla is kidding itself if it thinks the natives
actually *want* to bring it bananas every day.
JGM
Dann
news:1137988660....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com on 22 Jan
2006:
> Dann wrote:
>> The brain droppings of Carl Fink were posted in
>> news:slrndt4ijf...@panix2.panix.com on 21 Jan 2006:
<snip>
>> > Alex Mitchell advocates murdering civilians to force the survivors
>> > to act as informants.
>>
>> The only problem is that isn't what he said. Not even close.
>
> It was reasonably close. He expressed the opinion that the deaths of
> neighbors near the (alleged) al Qaida meetinghouse might have the
> positive outcome of making civilians stop sheltering, or tolerating
> the presence of, "terrorists."
I disagree that what was said and what are claimed are "close". Your
graph above isn't even close to what was alleged to have been said.
>
> The book -- not the abomination of a movie -- "When Heaven and Earth
> Changed Places" did a nice job of expressing the POV of the common
> Vietnamese rural person. And it's not far from the POV of the poor
> Catholics in the ghettoes of Northern Ireland. The more the
> authorities come down on the communities, the more they tighten up the
> circle -- it's like a cop walking into the middle of a domestic
> dispute and finding that the fight has instantly shifted and is now
> about the fact that a cop just walked into the room and started
> pushing people around. And the family that was screaming at each other
> and throwing lamps is now united against him.
>
> I suspect it's also a large factor on the West Bank -- the more the
> Israelis tear down houses, the more the people unite around Hamas and
> other groups that they might otherwise disprove.
>
> I don't think IV was actively promoting reprisals, BTW -- those are
> clearly counterproductive (see Ireland in the 1920s). But you can do a
> lot of harm without reaching that level, because people who feel they
> are in targeted groups don't require a lot of rough handling in order
> to get their hackles up.
>
> It's tough to walk into those situations without engendering that
> reaction -- but cops have, indeed, learned how to defuse domestic
> disputes more effectively, and the British, once they got rid of
> Thatcher, figured out how to interact positively with the working
> class neighborhoods of Northern Ireland and thereby end support of the
> hard men. It could happen in Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan, too.
I am fascinated every time I read something like this from you.
And no I'm not being sarcastic.
Clearly you've spent a considerable amount of time looking at the Irish
"troubles". Your thoughts on the subject are interesting and may have
some bearing on the native Iraqi insurgency.
I think with respect to Israel/Palestine and Al
Qa'ida/Pakistan/Afghanistan your commentary may not quite fit. We aren't
talking about a horse of another color, we're talking about a completely
different four legged critter altogether. Camel vs. equine. No pun
intended.
In the case of the IRA, one of their primary objectives was to expel the
British from Ireland. They weren't interested in mandating attendance to
a Riverdance performance on a global basis.
In the case of the Israeli conflict, the terrorists' objective is the
destruction of Israel. They aren't defending anything. They are trying
to take as much Israeli land as they can. Sort of makes it hard to
negotiate when the question at hand is the legitimacy of a nation.
In the case of Al Qa'ida [and the backwaters of Pakistan and
Afghanistan], we are talking about terrorists with the objective of
spreading their narrow brand of a major religion across as large a
portion of the globe as they can manage.
The backwaters of Pakistan [and to a lesser extent Afghanistan] support
Al Qa'ida's state objectives. So much so that it is near impossible for
the Pakistani government to extend even modest control into the
northeastern portion of that nation. It isn't a case of our forcing non-
combatants to the other side, they are pretty much their of their own
volition.
My point [such as it is] is that the chances of finding a solution with
terrorists that have a limited range of objectives is far greater than
those that have an expansionist set of objectives.
--
Regards,
Dann deto...@hotmail.com
Blogging at: http://www.modempool.com/nucleardann/blogspace/blog.htm
5 out of 4 people have trouble with fractions.
Dann
news:1138068933....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com on 23 Jan
2006:
> Alexander D. Mitchell IV wrote:
>
>> Look up a little thing called the Branch Davidian compound near Waco,
>> Texas. Look up MOVE in Philadelphia in 1985. (And I believe the
>> record will show that drugs were a part of the equation in both
>> cases.)
>
> But I didn't ask if it had ever been done, I asked whether you'd
> condone it in your neighborhood, with knowledge that casualties among
> non-targets were probable, to get at the thugs and drug dealers.
The one, unaccounted point of consideration is the presence of other
options.
In the case of Waco [and Ruby Ridge...I am unfamiliar with MOVE] there
were other viable options available to the government that would have
resulted in less confrontation and far fewer [if any] deaths.
In the case of the latest bombing in Pakistan there were two other
options.
1. Let them go.
2. Send in ground forces to kill/arrest the men in question. Given that
the people in more remote areas of Pakistan generally support Al Qa'ida
[at least the grown men do....women and children haven't much choice], it
is reasonable to assume that they would have taken up arms in defense of
these particular individuals. Such has been the case in the past. As a
result, either too few soldiers are sent in at the risk of losing the
targets or a much larger force is sent in and widespread mayhem [so
called "collateral damage" inclusive] ensues.
To use the poor analogy of police on a drug raid, if they immediately use
tactical vehicles to storm the barricades when less lethal options exist,
then the public is right to be outraged. When they use the minimum force
to achieve the desire result, about the only people that will complain
are those that assert that "My baby's innocent!! He don't deal no
drugs!!". Ain't anybody gonna make that lady happy except the one that
sets her baby free from the pokey.
--
Regards,
Dann deto...@hotmail.com
Blogging at: http://www.modempool.com/nucleardann/blogspace/blog.htm
"Sir, if you were my husband, I would poison your drink." --Lady Astor to
Winston Churchill
"Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it." --His reply
Pat O'Neill
J.D. Baldwin wrote:
> The tactics and behavior of the Continental Army were not in any way
> comparable to al-Qaeda and to suggest otherwise is simply moronic.
> Just as a f'rinstance, it's true the Continental Army couldn't afford
> uniforms in the beginning, but when Washington took command he made
> sure they wore a badge of rank recognizable at a distance, as required
> by the customs of war. More importantly, they didn't sneak around
> pretending to be civilians and striking from hiding. *Most*
> importantly, they didn't target civilians.
>
I think if you asked the commanders of British troops in the colonies
during the Revolution you'd get a very different opinion.
> There's no question that the Republicans in Spain committed horrific
> atrocities and acts of terrorism. I don't know to what degree the ALB
> were involved in any of them.
>
> The Flying Tigers bore arms openly and their aircraft were clearly
> marked. They also avoided civilian targets. What more do you think
> is required?
>
Both groups had no national affiliation. They were independent of any
government. On that basis, they violated the Geneva Accords.
> > I'm innocently walking down the street in front of the offender's
> > home (or a home he is surreptitiously using) when the bombs drop. I
> > should know he's a target when I don't even know he's there? Were
> > the people who worked next door to British Government offices
> > legitimate targets of the Blitz?
>
> "Legitima[cy]" in Law of Armed Conflict matters is a balancing act.
> The target's military value must justify the risk to nearby civilian
> targets. Dropping a bomb on a torpedo factory that's located next to
> a school, and which only operates while school is in session, is
> probably easily enough justified.
No, it's not. The torpedo factory needn't be in operation to be
effectively destroyed. A bombed-out empty building is just as incapable
of producing weapons as a bombed-out building with people working in
it.
> Ramming airplanes into office
> buildings is probably not. Kidnapping journalists and cutting off
> their heads is probably not. Targeting a missile against someone who
> spends his days planning the latter activities while he is hiding out
> among family and friends is somewhere between the two obvious
> extremes.
> --
I think if your argument is that everyone of those office workers is an
enemy of your crusade--just by the very nature of their working for a
western, capitalist society--then using planes as missiles is very
little different from using missiles as missiles. The concept of the
journalist as a neutral observer and not an employee/agent of his
government is an entirely western one and not one that is widely
recognized in other cultures, where newspapers and broadcasts are
largely controlled by the government. I think it's pretty easy to see
why, under those circumstances, journalists are targets in this
conflict.
Where's the evidence that these were the AQ operatives "family and
firends"? Isn't it just as possible they were human shields being held
against their will? Do you dismiss the possibility that the AQ
operatives took over these families' homes at gunpoint?
Carl Fink
>
> In the previous article, Carl Fink <ca...@dm.net> wrote:
>> I'm most horrified by the Brits who murdered a pregnant woman, cut
>> her fetus out, and wrote "Thou shalt birth no more rebels" on the
>> wall with the blood.
>
> ?!? Never heard that story ... what happened to the perps?
Seen in Barbara Tuchman, THE FIRST SALUTE. She doesn't mention the Redcoats
ever being identified, much less punished.
Pat O'Neill
Alexander D. Mitchell IV wrote:
> Before we get into such specious discussions, may I remind you that we are
> in Afghanistan and Iraq--and even Pakistan--with the full support of the
> legitimate governments involved. Your "another country" would only be valid
> if, say, a bunch of Palestinian-Americans were operating a branch of Hamas
> in said house and plotting more attacks against Israel, not just
> fundraising.
>
WE say those governments are legitimate. The people opposing think
otherwise. This is the very crux of the conflict in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
> (Hell, I picketed an "Irish" bar that once hosted a fundraiser dinner
> featuring Gerry Adams of Sinn Fein, and that place had a heavy police
> presence to protect the bastard. The bar's owner came out and talked with
> me. I told him "I don't want to interfere with his speech, I just want
> folks to realize their money is going to support a neo-Marxist political
> wing of a terrorist group.")
The people of Iraq are entitled to choose their own government
(including political parties that support Islamic theocracy), but the
people of Northern Ireland can't choose a "neo-Marxist" to represent
themselves?
Carl Fink
> In the case of the Israeli conflict, the terrorists' objective is the
> destruction of Israel. They aren't defending anything. They are trying
> to take as much Israeli land as they can. Sort of makes it hard to
> negotiate when the question at hand is the legitimacy of a nation.
No. They're trying to take back their OWN ancestral lands, just like the
Irish. No difference except the time period of occupation is longer in
Ireland.
Note that the Israelis are FAR more careful about killing bystanders than
the CIA was in Pakistan. (In general the CIA is also careful. I think this
was an accident, an abberation.)
Peter Trei
> In the previous article, Peter Trei <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>JD: just to play the Devil's advocate:
>>
>>Would those rules apply to Afghans defending themselves against
>>invasion in 1979?
>>
>>Would they apply to Afghans defending themselves against
>>invasion in 2001?
>>
>>How about Iraqis defending themselves against invaders?
>
>
> Yes, yes, and yes. But they have to live up to the guidelines
> specified in the relevant Convention. Their resistance has to be
> spontaneous, and they have to bear arms openly. (There is no
> requirement for uniforms, insignia or a chain of command.)
>
> Also, note that once the territory is "occupied," that "resisting
> invasion" clause becomes null and void. So you can't go skulking
> around cutting people's heads off and setting bombs and then when
> you're caught say, "Hey, I was just spontaneously resisting the
> invasion of my country!" It doesn't work that way.
So, how does it actually work? It sounds like one of the goals
of the LOAC is to justify and shore up legal status of the victor.
"I declare victory! Stop fighting, and accept your beaten status!"
Let me get this straight - once your land has been violently but
successfully occupied, violent acts to get it back are *always*
illegal?
So, the Resistance movements during WW2 in occupied Europe
were criminal under the LOAC?
How about actual wars of liberation? How about our own
American Revolution, which threw out not an occupying power,
but the power formerly universally regardrd as the legitimate
sovereign? Are you saying the Founding Fathers were criminals
under the LOAC?
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably
the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute
despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such
government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
- Thomas Jefferson
Tom, clearly, didn't think sending polite letters to George III
was the only legitimate option.
Are you saying that there are no circumstances under which
a non-sovereign group can legitimately take up arms?
Peter Trei
Pat O'Neill
J.D. Baldwin wrote:
> Also, note that once the territory is "occupied," that "resisting
> invasion" clause becomes null and void. So you can't go skulking
> around cutting people's heads off and setting bombs and then when
> you're caught say, "Hey, I was just spontaneously resisting the
> invasion of my country!" It doesn't work that way.
Who declares when it ceases to be an invasion and becomes an
occupation? Oh, that's right--the invaders/occupiers. Seems like a
rather one-sided affair to me.
If I read you correctly, then, the French resistance in WW2 was no
different from the current insurgency in Iraq, right? Both were
clandestine operations killing people and setting bombs in opposition
to an "occupation," right? Not "spontaneously resisting an invasion"?
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
>
>
>
>Are you saying that there are no circumstances under which
>a non-sovereign group can legitimately take up arms?
>
>Peter Trei
>
I think you are talking "moral legitimacy" while JD is specifically addressing
what is covered by the GC. The Nazis were within their Geneva rights to
summarily execute French resistance fighters. That doesn't mean that the
French resistance was "wrong".
Ted
Pat O'Neill
J.D. Baldwin wrote:
> And if you really want to put it into terms recognizable by modern
> LOAC jurisprudence, there are provisions covering the spontaneous
> taking up of arms in response to an invading force. The Minutemen
> might well be covered under that. (Maybe not, since they were acting
> in concert with a regular army.)
>
And the insurgents operating in Iraq are not a "spontaneous taking up
of arms in response to an invading force"?
Alexander D. Mitchell IV
"JGM" <jgmc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138068933....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Alexander D. Mitchell IV wrote:
>
>> Look up a little thing called the Branch Davidian compound near Waco,
>> Texas.
>> Look up MOVE in Philadelphia in 1985. (And I believe the record will
>> show
>> that drugs were a part of the equation in both cases.)
>
> But I didn't ask if it had ever been done, I asked whether you'd
> condone it in your neighborhood, with knowledge that casualties among
> non-targets were probable, to get at the thugs and drug dealers.
*IF the actions of the criminals in question were dangerous enough that my
life were in jeopardy, I would move aside while the police took him out. Or
I'd just move away. Or I could even see myself taking matters into my own
hands, if need be.
Funny, that sounds exactly like what I said I'd like to see happen around
al-Qaeda insurgents.
>
>> Now, granted, we can debate whether or not the actions taken in both
>> cases
>> were, in the long run, appropriate. But I would ask those who condemned
>> ATF
>> in Waco to find a volunteer amongst them that would walk up to the door
>> of
>> the house, knock, serve the arrest warrant, and ask David Koresh to come
>> along quietly. Ditto for the MOVE compound in Philly.
>
> Others have pointed out that these weren't exactly model police
> actions. The question remains, though: how many innocents are you
> willing to sacrifice to reduce the possiblity of a law enforcement
> agent getting killed? Clearly there has to be a line somewhere, or
> we'd be bombing every presumed-dangerous criminal's neighborhood from
> police helicopters.
*The mission in Philly in 1985 was mishandled, that I will fully
concede--partially because MOVE stashed flammable fuel in the bunker and the
explosive used (in error) had a far higher explosive temperature than the
one that was supposed to have been used. But unlike "bleeding-heart"
sobbers, I'm going to hold MOVE culpable and responsible first. And please,
if you're unfamiliar with the case in question, be sure to read just what a
living Hell they made of the neighborhood before the police moved in.
Again, if you can tell me of a better alternative in the situation in
question given the particular set of circumstances, I'm listening. (Yeah
equip the firefighters with bulletproof vests and send them closer faster, I
agree, but aside from that...........)
Ditto Koresh. If you really, really think that Koresh would have come along
quietly, I'll be sure to call you the next time the authorities have to deal
with someone who has collected a massive arsenal of weapons and was reported
for attempting to purchase a functioning tank. And you can deliver the
warrant.
>
> > > As to "compromise between pinpoint precision and minimum risk to
>> > troops", well, hasn't this become an elastic line, and isn't it
>> > something how every situation now looks like a nail to our smart-bomb
>> > hammer-wielders. It's funny how much more reasonable this kind of
>> > trade-off sounds when it's happening a few thousand miles away to
>> > people who look and talk differently than we do. And, if your response
>> > is that the situation is different, please provide details about just
>> > *when* you'd support dropping bombs on a full house in your
>> > neighborhood -- to "get" a mass murderer who killed as many as died on
>> > the Cole, perhaps? -- and how many innocent collateral casualties would
>> > be acceptable to you in this situation. And oh, by the way, how would
>> > your feelings change if it wasn't the local authorities but *another
>> > country* that decided it had the right to make these decisions?
>> >
>> Before we get into such specious discussions,
>
> Oh, are we going to get into them? It seems to me you've avoided the
> questions.
*Okay, be that way. I'll fully support a military operation by ANY country
to neutralize an international terrorist force operating in my neighborhood,
even to the extent of bombs or explosives, provided:
1) said individuals are proven to be actively engaged in terror attacks on
civilians in another country;
2) the case against said terrorist group is made quite publicly and
internationally;
3) the authorities (let's say, in this case, Interpol and the local
police/FBI) go around the area/region and make it well known that these
particular individuals are dangerous and considered marked men (got a deck
of playing cards?);
4) said individuals are offered the opportunity to surrender peacefully and
refuse again and again over several months/years;
5) it's pretty well proven that said persons are most likely to be armed and
dangerous, and take out as many civilians with them as they can if they go
out in a blaze of glory;
6) said foreign country uses the best effort possible to minimize collateral
damage/casualties (in other words, the equivalent of snipers or smart bombs,
not an atomic bomb, poison gas, or firebombing square miles of city
property).
This hypothetical situation is considerably different from, oh, just to make
up an example, North Korea launching an atomic-tipped missile against a
Korean dissident operating an anti-Kim-Jung-Il website in San Francisco. Or
Venezuela targeting Pat Robertson. (Though I literally would refuse to be
on the same block as Robertson myself--just because I find him personally
repulsive and possibly psychotic, not because I believe he will be shot at
by those he has condemned.)
I called your discussions specious because we literally do not have, to my
knowledge, *any* individual in the United States that would warrant such
action. Not Robertson, not Colombian druglords, not accused Nazi
concentration camp guards (assuming they did what they're accused of), not
even those in Florida hoping to overthrow Castro have risen anywhere
remotely *near* the level of atrocities committed by al-Qaeda. We would
have to come up with something as far-out as Pat Robertson and his followers
personally funding a terror campaign against Cuba or Venezuela, or George
Soros and Michael Moore personally funding a mortar and missile attack
against 10 Downing Street or the Japanese government with weaponry purchased
from Libya or North Korea. Even if you believe that Bush 43 rises to this
level of "evil", one would have to find a formal sitting government willing
to declare war against the United States before "taking out the White House"
would be an appropriate response. Therefore, there is no chance that the
situation you ask about will occur. There still IS a chance, however, of
another al-Qaeda attack--and will be until al-Qaeda's violent activities are
sufficiently neutralized.
>
>> may I remind you that we are
>> in Afghanistan and Iraq--and even Pakistan--with the full support of the
>> legitimate governments involved.
>
> Heh. The 500-pound gorilla is kidding itself if it thinks the natives
> actually *want* to bring it bananas every day.
>
*The 500-pound gorilla plans to leave after it confirms that there are no
more tigers left waiting to attack it and its family--and killing for sport,
not for food. The antelopes, gazelles, meerkats, giraffes, etc. can just
stay out of the way and let the gorilla feed itself, and hope the tigers
don't turn on them first. Now, if they *want* to bring bananas to the
gorilla (as some seem to) or want to point out the tigers sneaking up behind
the gorilla, hey.......................
Peter Trei
>>Peter Trei
I think you are correct.
Peter Trei
Alexander D. Mitchell IV
>otherwise. This is the very crux of the conflict in Iraq and
>Afghanistan.
*A few million voters in both countries seem to agree with the Bush 43
administration and our military (I was going to say "us", but then
remembered we have a small number of quite obnoxious people that persist in
saying the last two U.S. elections were "stolen"). The ones that oppose us
had their chance to get elected in charge--and failed, or refused to
participate in the process.
>> (Hell, I picketed an "Irish" bar that once hosted a fundraiser dinner
>> featuring Gerry Adams of Sinn Fein, and that place had a heavy police
>> presence to protect the bastard. The bar's owner came out and talked
>> with
>> me. I told him "I don't want to interfere with his speech, I just want
>> folks to realize their money is going to support a neo-Marxist political
>> wing of a terrorist group.")
>
> The people of Iraq are entitled to choose their own government
> (including political parties that support Islamic theocracy), but the
> people of Northern Ireland can't choose a "neo-Marxist" to represent
> themselves?
>
*They can, and a couple such fools have--Sinn Fein has a couple token seats
in that mess of a joint Irish/Northern Irish government. But the charter of
the IRA and Sinn Fein advocates a unified Marxist Ireland--in other words,
communism. It is my feeling that any political group that wants to rob its
fellow citizens of their democratic participation in government--in other
words, get elected and then ban anyone from voting them out--is to be
rejected on that basis.
Furthermore, IRA supporters operating in the United States (such as the
group that sponsored the appearance of Adams mentioned above) are/were, in
effect, attempting to influence the political operations of another country,
*in part* through violence and terrorism. And that is wrong--no different
from my hypothetical example of Pat Robertson trying to hire a hit man to
take out Chavez in Venezuela. Now, I will grant you, the situation in
Ireland in 2006 is vastly different from that of the 1920s, the 1960s, or
the 1970s, in part because the IRA has largely decommissioned in the face of
a lack of public support and the accomplishment of part of their goals
through the political process. But as long as there is a Marxist agenda to
Sinn Fein, in my opinion their participation in the democratic process
should be subject to restriction. Further, it was my experience with "IRA
supporters" in the States I interacted with that very few of them whatsoever
applied any critical thinking to the ramifications of their actions other
than emotionally charged "Brits Out!" sloganeering.
Rich Carreiro
> If I read you correctly, then, the French resistance in WW2 was no
> different from the current insurgency in Iraq, right? Both were
> clandestine operations killing people and setting bombs in opposition
> to an "occupation," right? Not "spontaneously resisting an invasion"?
Under the Geneva Conventions they are the same. If the occupying
power follows the GCs rules, then the resistance can certainly
be illegal. The GC doesn't judge the "goodness" of the occupier
or the resistance.
So consider that the next time you're tempted to fetishize the GCs.
--
Rich Carreiro rlc...@animato.arlington.ma.us
racs...@gmail.com
Dann wrote:
> Clearly you've spent a considerable amount of time looking at the Irish
> "troubles". Your thoughts on the subject are interesting and may have
> some bearing on the native Iraqi insurgency.
>
> I think with respect to Israel/Palestine and Al
> Qa'ida/Pakistan/Afghanistan your commentary may not quite fit. We aren't
> talking about a horse of another color, we're talking about a completely
> different four legged critter altogether. Camel vs. equine. No pun
> intended.
>
> In the case of the IRA, one of their primary objectives was to expel the
> British from Ireland. They weren't interested in mandating attendance to
> a Riverdance performance on a global basis.
>
> In the case of the Israeli conflict, the terrorists' objective is the
> destruction of Israel. They aren't defending anything. They are trying
> to take as much Israeli land as they can. Sort of makes it hard to
> negotiate when the question at hand is the legitimacy of a nation.
>
> In the case of Al Qa'ida [and the backwaters of Pakistan and
> Afghanistan], we are talking about terrorists with the objective of
> spreading their narrow brand of a major religion across as large a
> portion of the globe as they can manage.
(Leaving much unsnipped because it was worthy of being kept in
context!)
Here's the logical connection -- In any of these conflicts, you need a
population that provides a shelter for the "irregulars"
(terrorists/insurgents/freedomfighters/whatyouwill).These groups cannot
operate without the support or at least tolerance of the communities in
which they live.
Whether it is the Irish Catholic ghettoes, the West Bank or rural
Vietnam, the common thread is a general sense of being "oppressed" or
maybe just "picked on." For the West Bank, the central conflict came
within living memory, but I don't think those people felt particularly
powerful even when they lived on their own land. For the others, the
sense that someone else has the power over you has gone on for so many
generations that, on a day to day basis, it isn't a crisis.
And as long as it is a dull irritant rather than a crisis, they
generally aren't willing to shelter people who create problems for
them. There are always members of the community who want to stir things
up, but the real crazies don't have any traction in normal times.
The Ulster Example: There were civil rights people in the North of
Ireland who wanted rights for Catholics, with the flashpoint being a
case where a single, Protestant secretary was jumped to the head of
queue for a public apartment ahead of a number of Catholic families who
had been wait-listed.
They protested, and that's the sort of thing that you expect to have
happen periodically in these communities. And they were right, and most
observers realized they were right, and so there was a great deal of
sympathy for them and probably a lot of people joined the marches and
protests who would otherwise have sat back and watched. But it was
entirely nonviolent, until they were attacked by the police, unionist
quasi-security forces and outright thugs.
At that point, the moribund IRA -- sneeringly called "I Ran Away" by
the very same community up to that point -- suddenly appeared on street
corners and began to patrol the neighborhoods, just as the Black
Panthers did in Oakland in the 1960s. And the people felt they needed
some kind of protection, and so they weren't sneering at them anymore.
It would be very, very wrong to say that they supported the IRA's
longterm scheme to set up a workers paradise -- many of them realized
that simply uniting Ireland, even under a sane government, was a bit of
a pipedream, though not one they wanted to give up on entirely. But
they certainly did not believe in the notion of a united Marxist
Ireland and that was not on the table in the early days anyway -- what
they wanted was to avoid being burned out of their houses, and the IRA
promised to keep that from happening. Which, of course, it couldn't,
and so things quickly degenerated into reprisals and mob scenes.
As I said, when the British Army first came, they were welcomed in the
Catholic ghettoes as a buffer between the emergent IRA and the thugs in
power at Stormont. You have to realize that the police forces in Ulster
were very much in the Orange camp, much more than the cozy relationship
that sometimes obtained between the Klan and some sherriff's
departments in the US South -- that was sporadic and hidden, this was
all but official and universal. The Army was sent in to replace the
corrupt police and to provide law and order, and the people wanted
that.
And it could have been cool, but they started dragging off "suspected
terrorists" and locking them up without trials, without habeas corpus,
without the right to see the evidence against them. And they started
treating the people on the street as suspects rather than clients. And,
on Bloody Sunday, they fired into a crowd. And in rural areas, people
sometimes died without a great deal of official inquiry. And that
damned fool Thatcher made martyrs of Bobby Sands and the other hunger
strikers, an absolutely idiotic political gaffe.
All of which provided the type of crisis in which the people turned
against the authorities and embraced "the devil that we know."
This is NOT about the goals of those devils. Whether it is the IRA in
Ireland, the VC in Vietnam, Hamas on the West Bank or the Warriors in
the Mohawk community, they are seen as "us" in a moment in which "they"
become frightening, infuriating and threatening.
In the case of Northern Ireland, once the Iron Lady was turned out and
sensible policy prevailed, the IRA lost its backing in the communities.
(The burgeoning economy, of course, was also a major factor. People
with jobs don't riot and don't support those who do.)
So the point is not what the particular hard-men are supporting. It's
about who is supporting them, and why. And my contention is that, in
Iraq or in Afghanistan/Pakistan, the people can be turned against the
insurgents by sensible, humane policy (not huggy-kissy, but just and
fair), but they readily can be turned towards the insurgents if they
feel they are being oppressed by the outsiders, and identify with the
insurgents to a greater degree than they identify with the authorities.
>
> The backwaters of Pakistan [and to a lesser extent Afghanistan] support
> Al Qa'ida's state objectives. So much so that it is near impossible for
> the Pakistani government to extend even modest control into the
> northeastern portion of that nation. It isn't a case of our forcing non-
> combatants to the other side, they are pretty much their of their own
> volition.
Many, if not most, of them live there, and have for generations. (I
temper that because there are still a number of displaced Afghans
wandering about -- but considering they are refugees from the Taliban,
I'd hardly expect them to be sympathetic to al Qaeda.) It's not
ideology or politics -- it's about neighborhoods and clans and
loyalties. There's no choice being made.
>
> My point [such as it is] is that the chances of finding a solution with
> terrorists that have a limited range of objectives is far greater than
> those that have an expansionist set of objectives.
And my point is that I wasn't talking about the terrorists -- rather,
about the communities that shelter them. And that factor is not
dependent on the goals of the particular organizations being sheltered.
Alexander D. Mitchell IV
"Pat O'Neill" <patdo...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1138074596.7...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
American-led forces in Iraq, yes. Since the insurgents are fighting off a
force that the current government wants in place for the time being, no.
HS WRand Om
>
> working without the overt and formal support of a proper government,
> attacking not just a government and its peoples in another land it
> opposes but an entire economic system and standard of liberty and
> freedom. Line up al-Qaeda as a military system with formal uniforms
> and chain of command, and let them buy military equipment on the open
> market and agree to confront us in open combat. (And any countries
> that supply them with money free weapons will be subject to a war
> declaration on our part, mind you.) THEN
That's a very western-centric point-of-view. Really, from what I've read
about al Qaeda, their goal is not to battle freedom, liberty and
capitalism (well, not directly but as a consequence) but to overthrow
governments in the Middle East and Central Asia and establish Islamic
nations ... or one big Islamic state. Part of achieving that goal is to
get the United States out of the region. If we misunderstand our enemies
and their goals then we make our job that much tougher.
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Pat O'Neill <patdo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Who declares when it ceases to be an invasion and becomes an
> occupation? Oh, that's right--the invaders/occupiers. Seems like a
> rather one-sided affair to me.
Well, no, that's not how international law works. There are
conventions on occupations just as there are on how to conduct wars.
It's usually pretty clear when an area is "occupied."
> If I read you correctly, then, the French resistance in WW2 was no
> different from the current insurgency in Iraq, right? Both were
> clandestine operations killing people and setting bombs in
> opposition to an "occupation," right? Not "spontaneously resisting
> an invasion"?
If those are the only factors you care about, then, sure, La
Résistance was no different from al-Qaeda. From the standpoint of
legality under LOAC, both were outlaws. Note that the allies declined
to prosecute Nazis after the war for having hanged captured Résistance
partisans.
Dann
2006:
<snip good stuff>
> This is NOT about the goals of those devils. Whether it is the IRA in
> Ireland, the VC in Vietnam, Hamas on the West Bank or the Warriors in
> the Mohawk community, they are seen as "us" in a moment in which
> "they" become frightening, infuriating and threatening.
>
<snip>
>
> So the point is not what the particular hard-men are supporting. It's
> about who is supporting them, and why. And my contention is that, in
> Iraq or in Afghanistan/Pakistan, the people can be turned against the
> insurgents by sensible, humane policy (not huggy-kissy, but just and
> fair), but they readily can be turned towards the insurgents if they
> feel they are being oppressed by the outsiders, and identify with the
> insurgents to a greater degree than they identify with the
> authorities.
I understand your point and even agree with it to some extent.
The exceptions, IMO, are Al Qa'ida in Afghanistan/Pakistan and the VC.
The remote areas of Pakistan [primarily] are barely under the national
government's control. Independent of the issue of supporting Usama, they
have never been particularly supportive of their national government.
Those areas are the least modernized as well. They have never been
exposed to any options beyond the men that run their local village/tribe.
Upon further reflection, I may have been too hasty in placing the
Palestinians in the same category as the above.
<snip>
>
>>
>> My point [such as it is] is that the chances of finding a solution
>> with terrorists that have a limited range of objectives is far
>> greater than those that have an expansionist set of objectives.
>
> And my point is that I wasn't talking about the terrorists -- rather,
> about the communities that shelter them. And that factor is not
> dependent on the goals of the particular organizations being
> sheltered.
I think you have a point where we are talking about communities that are
reasonably neutral being pushed one way or the other. I think you also
have a point where we are talking about communities that were formerly in
the opposing camp and are now more supportive of negotiated solutions.
[Thus my comment above regarding the Palestinians.]
IMO, the remote areas of Pakistan fall under the category of supporting
the opposing camp of their own volition and thus are a different nut to
crack.
That doesn't mean that we ought to be dropping bombs willy-nilly on them.
But I don't think the solution is as simple as replacing the thugs with a
more sensitive police force.
--
Regards,
Dann deto...@hotmail.com
Blogging at: http://www.modempool.com/nucleardann/blogspace/blog.htm
Mechanical Engineers build weapons; Civil Engineers build targets.
ronniecat
23:30:21 +0000 (UTC), INVALID...@example.com.invalid (J.D.
Baldwin) wrote:
>In the end, I can't put it any better than my pal Bill Schenley
>(card-carrying bleeding-heart lib'rul):
>
> What makes the ATF or the FBI any better than any
> other group of lawbreakers? You're cryin' because four
> BATF agents were killed ... I'm cryin' because forty
> weren't killed.
God, what a disgusting sentiment.
ronnie
ronniecat
wrote:
>"JGM" <jgmc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1138068933....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> But I didn't ask if it had ever been done, I asked whether you'd
>> condone it in your neighborhood, with knowledge that casualties among
>> non-targets were probable, to get at the thugs and drug dealers.
>
>*IF the actions of the criminals in question were dangerous enough that my
>life were in jeopardy, I would move aside while the police took him out. Or
>I'd just move away. Or I could even see myself taking matters into my own
>hands, if need be.
What would you do if you were a Muslim woman completely and utterly
dependent on her male relatives with four small children?
ronnie
Pat O'Neill
The problem here is that the gorilla is relying only on its own
judgment...and there's no particular reason for the occupied citizens
of Iraq to trust that judgment will be applied fairly or accurately.
Bush and company made up reasons (or ignored evidence contrary to their
preferred plans) to invade and occupy Iraq; why should anyone--let
alone the Iraqis--believe they will not make up evidence to stay
indefinitely or ignore evidence that indicates it's time to get out,
especially if domestic US politics makes it more advantageous for them
to stay?
Pat O'Neill
Alexander D. Mitchell IV wrote:
> *A few million voters in both countries seem to agree with the Bush 43
> administration and our military (I was going to say "us", but then
> remembered we have a small number of quite obnoxious people that persist in
> saying the last two U.S. elections were "stolen"). The ones that oppose us
> had their chance to get elected in charge--and failed, or refused to
> participate in the process.
>
Because they believed the process was rigged against them. Indeed,
given who wrote the interim constitution and ran the elections, their
perception is probably correct. The Sunnis had no chance in hell of
having any power to protect their rights in the new Iraq.
Oh, so people whose political philosophy you disagree with should have
their ability to participate in democracy "restricted." No wonder you
have no problems with the way the Shi'ite majority ran the elections in
Iraq--you'd run them the same way if you had the power.
racs...@gmail.com
Dann wrote:
> The brain droppings of pete...@SPAMnelliebly.org were posted in
> >
> > So the point is not what the particular hard-men are supporting. It's
> > about who is supporting them, and why. And my contention is that, in
> > Iraq or in Afghanistan/Pakistan, the people can be turned against the
> > insurgents by sensible, humane policy (not huggy-kissy, but just and
> > fair), but they readily can be turned towards the insurgents if they
> > feel they are being oppressed by the outsiders, and identify with the
> > insurgents to a greater degree than they identify with the
> > authorities.
>
> I understand your point and even agree with it to some extent.
>
> The exceptions, IMO, are Al Qa'ida in Afghanistan/Pakistan and the VC.
>
> The remote areas of Pakistan [primarily] are barely under the national
> government's control. Independent of the issue of supporting Usama, they
> have never been particularly supportive of their national government.
> Those areas are the least modernized as well. They have never been
> exposed to any options beyond the men that run their local village/tribe.
>
> <snip>
> >
> >>
> >> My point [such as it is] is that the chances of finding a solution
> >> with terrorists that have a limited range of objectives is far
> >> greater than those that have an expansionist set of objectives.
> >
> > And my point is that I wasn't talking about the terrorists -- rather,
> > about the communities that shelter them. And that factor is not
> > dependent on the goals of the particular organizations being
> > sheltered.
>
> I think you have a point where we are talking about communities that are
> reasonably neutral being pushed one way or the other. I think you also
> have a point where we are talking about communities that were formerly in
> the opposing camp and are now more supportive of negotiated solutions.
> [Thus my comment above regarding the Palestinians.]
>
> IMO, the remote areas of Pakistan fall under the category of supporting
> the opposing camp of their own volition and thus are a different nut to
> crack.
>
> That doesn't mean that we ought to be dropping bombs willy-nilly on them.
> But I don't think the solution is as simple as replacing the thugs with a
> more sensitive police force.
I started to reply and then realized that most of what I was going to
say was said by Nellie some time ago. November 14, 2001, in fact. And I
stand by her story:
********************
AROUND THE WORLD
with NELLIE BLY
In Afghanistan, it's never over 'til it's over
The news this week from Afghanistan seems encouraging: The Taliban
suddenly abandoned the capital city of Kabul. Now, people are talking
about how the U.S. and its allies need to make sure the Northern
Alliance doesn't go ahead and set up a government that doesn't
represent all the Afghan people.
But Afghanistan's history is full of grim stories about those who
celebrate victory here too soon, and anybody who makes jokes about
people hiding in caves should read some of those stories. Over the
centuries, Afghan armies have frequently run to the mountains to hide,
only to re-appear later, ready for a new battle. This war is very
likely not over.
Afghanistan has been a target of invaders for centuries, starting with
Alexander the
Great and including the Persians, the British and the Russians, some of
them more
than once, but none of them with any real success.
We've talked about how lines on a map don't always match where
various peoples
live, how most of the Uzbeks and Tajiks of the Northern Alliance really
are from
Afghanistan, that they aren't foreigners coming across the borders of
Uzbekistan and
Tajikistan. In addition, the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan is the
Pushtun, and
many Pakistanis are also Pushtun. (That's why Pakistan has been more
sympathetic
than most nations to the Taliban, who are mostly Pushtun.) At various
times through
the centuries, those ethnic groups, and some others, have fought civil
wars against
each other, trying to gain power. But often, when an outsider tries to
buddy up to a
group and invade, they think of themselves again as Afghanis. Like a
quarrelling family, they may hurt each other, but they resent anyone
else who tries to join the fight.
We have many allies in the fight against terrorism, and there is hope
that the world
can bring peace and good government to Afghanistan. But to build a
future for the
Afghanis, we must understand their past. The news is good, but the war
is not over.
*******************************
And indeed it wasn't, and isn't.
What I didn't share with the kiddies was Kipling's lines on the topic:
"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains And the women
come out to cut up what remains Just roll to your rifle and blow out
your brains An' go to your Gawd like a soldier."
Or the facts of the British retreat through the Khyber Pass at the
conclusion of the First Afghan War, for which I would recommend
<http://www.britishbattles.com/first-afghan-war/kabul-gandamak.htm>
There are any number of learned books on the topic, but the best policy
remains, as it has since the days of Alexander, "Don't f*ck with these
people."
Ask the Soviets -- Reagan fans like to credit his speech in Berlin with
tumbling the Soviet Union, but his arming of our good friend Osama had
a lot more to do with it. The fall of the Soviet Union began when they
rolled tanks into Afghanistan, because Afghanistan ain't Hungary or
Poland or Czechoslovakia. And the American Stingers helped, but they'd
have done it with rocks and sticks if they had to.
QED, and QED again ad infinitum.
hubcap
>Seen in Barbara Tuchman, THE FIRST SALUTE. She doesn't mention the Redcoats
>ever being identified, much less punished.
Scholars will find nothing of interest in The First Salute, nor will
the so-called "general reader" learn very much about the American
Revolution.
Peter S. Onuf
University of Virginia
The Journal of American History
Vol. 76, No. 2 (Sep., 1989)
It would be best to believe something so horrible only if it
came from a reputable source. The scene in The Patriot where they
burned all those people in that Church was pretty bad too, but
they made it up.
-Mike
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Carl Fink <ca...@dm.net> wrote:
> > ?!? Never heard that story ... what happened to the perps?
>
> Seen in Barbara Tuchman,
You can stop right there.
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Peter Trei <.> wrote:
> Let me get this straight - once your land has been violently but
> successfully occupied, violent acts to get it back are *always*
> illegal?
"Illegal" isn't necessarily all that relevant. If you don't bear arms
openly in an armed conflict, you are outside the protection of the
Geneva Conventions relative to treatment of prisoners of war, should
you be captured. I used "outlaw" in another post, and I suppose I've
been sloppy with the word "illegal" when in reality the underlying
issue is not the legality of the conduct but whether it merits
protection under the GCs.
That said, yeah, conducting military operations from cover as a
civilian is generally considered a "war crime" and there are very,
very good reasons for this that argue strongly against changing the
rules.
> So, the Resistance movements during WW2 in occupied Europe were
> criminal under the LOAC?
Their partisans were outside the protections of the Geneva
Conventions. No one really disputes this. I mentioned it elsewhere,
but it bears repeating: WW II occupying forces (Nazis, Russians) who
hanged captured partisans were NOT prosecuted for war crimes after the
war, at least not for those acts specifically, and such prosecutions
were not seriously contemplated. Who is and isn't protected as a POW
is fairly (not perfectly) clear stuff.
> How about actual wars of liberation? How about our own American
> Revolution, which threw out not an occupying power, but the power
> formerly universally regardrd as the legitimate sovereign? Are you
> saying the Founding Fathers were criminals under the LOAC?
No, they bore arms openly. Even the previously-mentioned Minutemen
were probably OK as "irregulars" or in another protected category.
Ethan Allen's Green Mountain Boys were probably not, in general,
protected. Nathan Hale was hanged by the Brits for acting as a
miltary operative (in this case, a spy) while in the guise of a
civilian. I'm not aware of any source that considers his hanging to
have been a war crime, either by the standards then, or by modern
standards. That was the risk he took, just as those setting IEDs in
Ramadi take the risk of winding up living in a mesh cage in Gitmo with
no recourse beyond a tribunal to review the factual details of their
capture. Boo-fucking-hoo.
> Are you saying that there are no circumstances under which a
> non-sovereign group can legitimately take up arms?
Take up arms whenever you like, for whatever cause you like. Don't go
expecting the protections of the Geneva Conventions, though, if you
don't qualify for them. If you win, history will probably justify
you. You think anyone would have protested if Menachem Begin had been
hanged by the British in 1946? I sure don't. But his side won, he
went into "legitimate" politics, and even the Brits came to accept him
as a legitimate head of state. So I guess the rule is that, if you're
going to resort to these tactics, you'd better win.
And, yes, even the GCs recognize and protect "non-sovereign" fighters
such as militias, irregulars and those who take up arms spontaneously
to repel invasion. Fighting for a recognized government is
specifically NOT required. The GCs do not, however, protect people
who act as civilians purely as cover for their real status as as francs-
tireurs.
J.D. Baldwin
Not within the letter and intent of the relevant Geneva Convention.
But at this point, you can simply read it for yourself.
Carl Fink
> Scholars will find nothing of interest in The First Salute, nor will
> the so-called "general reader" learn very much about the American
> Revolution.
>
> Peter S. Onuf
> University of Virginia
> The Journal of American History
> Vol. 76, No. 2 (Sep., 1989)
Wow, historian snobbery. So someone I've never heard of doesn't like
Tuchman. Watch me fail to be impressed.
Cite actual inaccuracies in Tuchman's work, or don't.
Carl Fink
> Because they believed the process was rigged against them. Indeed,
> given who wrote the interim constitution and ran the elections, their
> perception is probably correct. The Sunnis had no chance in hell of
> having any power to protect their rights in the new Iraq.
Thi sis just silly. The Sunnis will apparently get approximately
proportional representation in the Parliament and Cabinet. Your statement
is true only if "their rights" mean "the right to continue ruling Iraq".
Carl Fink
> Afghanistan has been a target of invaders for centuries, starting with
> Alexander the Great and including the Persians, the British and the
> Russians, some of them more than once, but none of them with any real
> success.
Well, except for the successes of Alexander and the Persians. But let's
ignore the facts for rhetorical flair.
Alexander D. Mitchell IV
>> administration and our military (I was going to say "us", but then
>> remembered we have a small number of quite obnoxious people that persist
>> in
>> saying the last two U.S. elections were "stolen"). The ones that oppose
>> us
>> had their chance to get elected in charge--and failed, or refused to
>> participate in the process.
>>
>
> Because they believed the process was rigged against them. Indeed,
> given who wrote the interim constitution and ran the elections, their
> perception is probably correct. The Sunnis had no chance in hell of
> having any power to protect their rights in the new Iraq.
*You may now elaborate on exactly how the process was rigged against
them--not your "perceptions" but documented examples. All I can say to this
is simply that if you refuse participation in the process because you don't
want to use the process that everybody else has agreed would be the deciding
factor, don't complain when you're shut out. (Which, for example, is why I
ignore political critics that refuse to vote.)
*It's not the fact that they disagree with me politically. It's the
ironclad fact (in this instance) that if MY political philosophy of
democracy and freedom is perpetuated and carried out, the Marxists will
retain a right to have their say in the government; should THEIR political
policies be carried out to the ends they desire (Communism and socialism),
MY right to have a say in their government will be eliminated once they
install a Marxist dictatorship, junta, or whatever. (One might make the
case that Sinn Fein wants "democratic socialism;" having read the political
papers of Sinn Fein and the IRA, I don't buy that for a second, and won't
until a new leadership renounces Marxism.)
Pat O'Neill
Alexander D. Mitchell IV wrote:
> >> administration and our military (I was going to say "us", but then
> >> remembered we have a small number of quite obnoxious people that persist
> >> in
> >> saying the last two U.S. elections were "stolen"). The ones that oppose
> >> us
> >> had their chance to get elected in charge--and failed, or refused to
> >> participate in the process.
> >>
> >
> > Because they believed the process was rigged against them. Indeed,
> > given who wrote the interim constitution and ran the elections, their
> > perception is probably correct. The Sunnis had no chance in hell of
> > having any power to protect their rights in the new Iraq.
>
> *You may now elaborate on exactly how the process was rigged against
> them--not your "perceptions" but documented examples. All I can say to this
> is simply that if you refuse participation in the process because you don't
> want to use the process that everybody else has agreed would be the deciding
> factor, don't complain when you're shut out. (Which, for example, is why I
> ignore political critics that refuse to vote.)
When the interim constitution (drawn up BEFORE the first round of
elections under coalition-appointed "representatives") specifically
eliminated any protections for minority representation in the
government, the jig was up for the Sunnis. That was rigging.
When the permanent constitution put the oil revenues in the control of
the local provinces, that eliminated any chance that the Sunnis would
get any benefits from the oil revenues, as all the oil is in the
Shi'ite and Kurdish strongholds. That was rigging.
> > Oh, so people whose political philosophy you disagree with should have
> > their ability to participate in democracy "restricted." No wonder you
> > have no problems with the way the Shi'ite majority ran the elections in
> > Iraq--you'd run them the same way if you had the power.
>
> *It's not the fact that they disagree with me politically. It's the
> ironclad fact (in this instance) that if MY political philosophy of
> democracy and freedom is perpetuated and carried out, the Marxists will
> retain a right to have their say in the government; should THEIR political
> policies be carried out to the ends they desire (Communism and socialism),
> MY right to have a say in their government will be eliminated once they
> install a Marxist dictatorship, junta, or whatever. (One might make the
> case that Sinn Fein wants "democratic socialism;" having read the political
> papers of Sinn Fein and the IRA, I don't buy that for a second, and won't
> until a new leadership renounces Marxism.)
Where is it written that a Marxist government must be undemocratic?
Marx wasn't anti-democracy...those who twisted his philosophy into the
Soviet system certainly were (but, then again, the Russians had never
known democracy and would almost certainly have been ill-prepared to
handle it--sort of like the Iraqis, come to think of it). The Irish
have a long history of democracy at this point, even the somewhat
stunted kind they had under the Brits.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
>
>When the permanent constitution put the oil revenues in the control of
>the local provinces, that eliminated any chance that the Sunnis would
>get any benefits from the oil revenues, as all the oil is in the
>Shi'ite and Kurdish strongholds. That was rigging.
>
According to Micael Barone of US News & World report, the question
is still open:
www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneblog/archives/060120/the_iraqi_elect.htm
One question the Iraqis will have to face is how to divide
the oil revenue. Splitting it among the regional governments
would be a big mistake. Sunnis will charge that they're
being cheated (their regions have almost no oil; it's mostly
in the Shiite and Kurdish regions) and will have an incentive
to somehow take over the national government, which they
dominated from the 1920s to 2003. And putting all the oil
money in the hands of governmentthe central government or
the regional governmentstends to encourage corruption at
best and violent seizure of power at worst. The better
solution, long promoted by Ahmed Chalabi, the current deputy
prime minister and oil minister, is to give individuals a
share of oil income, in a system something like Alaska's
Permanent Fund. I have urged this several times, and it's
been encouraged by intelligent voices on the left, like the
New America Foundation's Steve Clemons and Brazilian Sen.
Eduardo Suplicy, who represents the state of Sao Paulo.
If every citizen gets an identical annual oil dividend
payment, Sunnis cannot complain that they're being cheated;
they'll each be getting the same as everyone else. Citizens
will have a form of wealth against which they can borrow
to finance small businesses or higher education. Government,
deprived of easy oil revenue, will have to tax citizens and
will have to justify tax levels and expenditures in turn:
the kind of accountability you don't find in most oil-rich
nations. Creation of such an oil fund is permitted by Article
110 of the Iraqi Constitution. It should be one of the first
acts of the new Iraqi government.
Ted
A. Mayuzumi
Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> According to Micael Barone of US News & World report, the question
> is still open.
It's a good thing it's still open, and I think his idea is
interesting.
I'll admit, one of my concerns when the constitutional process was
going on was in fact that the Sunnis would be left with no access to
resources, or worse, demonized as a group in the written law.
Don't get me wrong, they need to not be dominating out of
proportion
in the new government, and misdeeds must certainly be confronted.
However, time will pass, and eventually the Sunni people will not be
any of the ones who had power in the Baath government, and their
descendants might get resentful, which is NEVER a good situation.
Far better to handle reparations of past wrongs separately from
the new constitution document, and leave that to not single out
any groups. Whatever reparations or redistributions have to happen
can be done with smaller more limited laws rooted in this time.
--
A. Mayuzumi
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Alexander D. Mitchell IV
<LNER447...@bcpl.net> wrote:
> Ditto Koresh. If you really, really think that Koresh would have
> come along quietly, I'll be sure to call you the next time the
> authorities have to deal with someone who has collected a massive
> arsenal of weapons and was reported for attempting to purchase a
> functioning tank. And you can deliver the warrant.
Since when is owning an "arsenal" of weapons, or a functioning tank,
illegal for a U.S. citizen without a felony record?
And no informed observer believes Koresh would not have cooperated
quietly with the warrant. That includes the sheriff's deputies who'd
picked him up on prior occasions.
Pat O'Neill
Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article <1138127114.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Pat O'Neill <patdo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >government, the jig was up for the Sunnis. That was rigging.
> >
> >When the permanent constitution put the oil revenues in the control of
> >the local provinces, that eliminated any chance that the Sunnis would
> >get any benefits from the oil revenues, as all the oil is in the
> >Shi'ite and Kurdish strongholds. That was rigging.
> >
>
> According to Micael Barone of US News & World report, the question
> is still open:
>
> www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneblog/archives/060120/the_iraqi_elect.htm
>
Yes, but in a government dominated by Shi'ites and Kurds, it won't be
open for long and when it is closed you can bet it will be closed to
the Sunnis.
> The better
> solution, long promoted by Ahmed Chalabi, the current deputy
> prime minister and oil minister, is to give individuals a
> share of oil income, in a system something like Alaska's
> Permanent Fund. I have urged this several times, and it's
> been encouraged by intelligent voices on the left, like the
> New America Foundation's Steve Clemons and Brazilian Sen.
> Eduardo Suplicy, who represents the state of Sao Paulo.
Chalabi apparently has no support among the people, especially not
among the Sunnis. He's a CIA-supported joke. He's also a convicted
embezzler (though not imprisoned, again thanks to the CIA keeping him
out of Jordanian hands). Somehow a scheme cooked up by a thief does not
provoke any confidence....it sounds to me like a really good way for
the folks at the Oil Ministry to quietly siphon funds into their
private accounts.
Pat O'Neill
J.D. Baldwin wrote:
> In the previous article, Alexander D. Mitchell IV
> <LNER447...@bcpl.net> wrote:
> > Ditto Koresh. If you really, really think that Koresh would have
> > come along quietly, I'll be sure to call you the next time the
> > authorities have to deal with someone who has collected a massive
> > arsenal of weapons and was reported for attempting to purchase a
> > functioning tank. And you can deliver the warrant.
>
> Since when is owning an "arsenal" of weapons, or a functioning tank,
> illegal for a U.S. citizen without a felony record?
>
Depends on the weapons. Most fully automatic weapons--like machine
guns--are illegal for private possession....and if "functioning tank"
includes ordinance for the weapons, yeah--that's illegal too.