 |
| |
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:24
|
|
 at GePap.
The issue with "sovereignty" starts with what exactly, is it? In the case of the US, we can defend it. In the case of, say, Iraq, where a dictator murdered his way into power over an arbitrary geographic region created for the convenience of a British colonial administration, it's a bit more touchy.
Gee, we have a choice between "anti-American riots" (like those are particularly new or interesting), or tolerating terrorists actively planning attacks on us being harbored in some dysfunctional third-world dungheap with no control over it's own supposed "sovereign" territory.
Can't do anything to violate their "sovereignty" or they'll get mad at us. Boo-hoo-hooey-hoo.
Let me put it this way - any of these shithole so-called countries where unilateral action might be needed are too economically and politically insignificant for the rest of the world to really give a damn about. Think about it, if they can't maintain their own territorial integrity and have functional police and military forces, then what possible impact do they have in global economic or geopolitics?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:24
|
|
Well MtG: if our country is too: indolent, stupid, slow, lazy, ignorant, slowwitted, vainglorious and hypocritical to be able to stop terrorist from attacking it on its own, what right do we have to harp on what other do, huh?
Also, if a bucnh of 20-40 guys could successfully plan to kill thousand of americans and succeed, yeah, it must be impossible for any state out there to do so as well.... since we are so powerful as to eb able to stop those 20-40 guys.....
Why on earth was what Osama Bin Lande did is wrong?He has a political disagreement with us, he see us as terrorist agents, so he decided to strike back at the terrorist? If rights do not matter, only might (individual rights are just as inherent as soverignty, ie. they have to inherent qualities) then we should give him kuods for being able to so effectively bypass where we are strong and hit us were we were weak.
Might comes and goes, and even the mightiest can't stop everything. If you decide on apolicy of might, screw rights, then you must be wiling to acept the consequences of such actions. Osama bin Laden is a consequence of a previous policy of might over right. And I am sure MtG, that you would not have any problems with your children and grandchildren having to deal with the consequences of your "might over right' policy in the future; if they survive the consequences, that is.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:24
|
|
There is a vast difference between doing something an it being right. And no you can't. Once you have created the precedent, anything is possible. The current governments may not whish to infinrge on a certain right, but that does not mean they won't in the future (are you Nostradamus?)
Whats trikes me most odd about the oposite position is that you have the insane notion (in my mind at least) that somehow: 1. you are strong enough to ignore the consequences of your actions 2. Some 'rights' are more real than others 3. You have the ability to deny others rights you claim for yourself.
Number 3 is the most obvious problem: Terrorism is a political act. When you have someone like Howards speak, he is saying: "We retain the right to, anywhere and anytime, strike with violence, at the those who's political activities endanger our values, interests, or well-being; BUT they (the enemy) does not have the same right to atrike with violence at us for our polices that might endanger their rights, interests, well being since they lack the convenbtional military capability to be choosy about who they kill." In essence, we (the West) are trying to make a capabilities-oriented morality (political violnce is fine as long as you can afford guided weaponry) whiel expectng evryone else to go along with it, to their won detriment. Well, it won't work, and will unforseen but dangerous consequences (just as Osama and Al Qaeda are the unforseen consequences of anti-communist policies of the 1980's)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:24
|
|
Study a little modern mid-east history, first. Islamic fundamentalism has been on the rise with arab nationalism since the 1940's, with the first real coherent written philosophy of the fundamentalist movement and it's goals written by Sayyid al Qutb in the early 1950's.
The Ayatollah Khomeini was exiled in 1964 for his fundie activities, al Qutb and others were exiled or outlawed, and it's a joke to claim that US aid to Mujaheddin in Afghanistan created the modern Islamic movements - they have been growing for years before hand, arms are cheap all over the mid-east, but the real issue has been one of timing.
The Iranian fundamentalist movement was very successful when built around a charismatic leader (Khomeini) and a large population base - students and the conservative rural poor in Iran. Had Khomeini died before 1979, the movement probably never would have gotten anywhere. Relatively few Iranians with secular education and skills have embraced the fundamentalist movement, and most of those are in the Iranian military and intelligence services, which have been extremely effective in aiding and organizing terrorist groups.
Al Qutb died in 1970, with no easy means of communicating his message, and with his writings more or less effectively suppressed by arab governments. He had not yet gotten the audience of secularly educated moslems which is essential to operating any large scale enterprise, be it a government, a global terrorist organization, or anything else.
Afghanistan was helpful to al Qaeda, but what has been far more helpful is the spread of communications technology and electronic transfers of funds. Fundamentalist Islamic clerics on their own can't do much, nor can a bunch of rag-tag peasant followers operate outside their own territory. It was people like OBL who brought secular training and talents (and contacts) to the fundamentalist movement, and OBL would have found his niche anywhere. He didn't need Afghanistan - Somalia or Algeria or another arab state would have served - Chechnya would have happened once the USSR collapsed, regardless of Afghanistan.
As for your three notions, they're quite simple:
1: One can safely ignore the consequences of actions which are inconsequential. A hellfire missile in the Yemeni desert isn't going to have any long term effect.
2: No "rights" are "real." The entire concept of "rights" is an arbitrary human creation. If you think you have any natural or real rights, hop into a cage with a very hungry tiger, and discuss the concept with him and see how far it gets you. We have precisely whatever "rights" others decide to grant us, or conversely, can't be arsed to do anything about.
3: Bullshit. You're distorting Howard's statement to fit your agenda, and playing this lefty mental game of decoupling cause and effect - "who started it" is irrelevent in the imaginary leftist world, where self-defense, or reaction, are indistiguishable from first strike attack. Howard said nothing about "political activity" - he framed his remarks in terms of those planning or engaging in carrying out attacks.
The killing of specific armed attackers and their operational support is distinct from the "political activity" of killing random civilians en masse. It is not a question of terrorists being unable to directly target "enemy" military installations, it is anathema to their intent, which is to create terror and economic and political disruption by unpredictable attacks on non-combatants.
Howard's remarks would only be equatable if he suggested that if other countries didn't handle terrorists, and they attacked Australia, then the Aussies would retaliate by attacking random cities of the country that hosted the terrorists.
Precedent is a joke. "Once you have created a precedent, anything is possible" - Obviously, it was possible to do it the first time, without having a precedent.
I'll get to your previous entertaining post after I cross the border and get to work.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
No, I have the rather sane notion that rights are not static and can change greatly depending upon the circumstances under which you try to apply them. For example, I would normally consider killing another human being to be morally wrong, but if I was fighting in a war I would have no problem killing my enemy. It's all shades of grey. |
Killing means nothing, but the issue is how these mores change. One individual can't claim to switch the morality of the whole: the majority must agree to change it. Only once the majority agrees to a change does a change take place. The vast majority of humanity does not agree with this change since they know they loose out on it, and a minoritymay try, but will fail, to enforce its new morality on the whole, specially if they do so in a hypocitical manner.
quote:
Morality is not absolute, therefore rights and laws are also not absolute. |
I completely agree that morality is not absolute, but the process is. As I said before, a minority, no matter how powerful, can't succeed in changing the morality, and if it tries, then it must be willing to accept other chalanges to the accepted code. After all, Al qaeda is also trying to chalange the system. I fail tos ee how the US can itself try to change the system, yet claim that its change is more valid than Al Qaeda's, once you state there are no absolutes (though I must say Drake that ypou have never struck me as a relativist, and my guess is that your relativism only applies to those things you want changed)
quote:
Bullshit. They are several parts of the US Constitution that have been infringed upon, but it hasn't made the whole Constitution irrelevant. Your slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. |
I don't believe that there is such a things as a slipepry slope, but precedent does matter. Once you chllange the system, the whole system must be looked at. The fact is that every part of the constituion has been challenged and in some way infringged upon. Find me one bit that hasn't since 1791. If the right of sovereingty is not sacrosant, then whats wrong with the international Court of Justice? Or Kyoto? What strikes me most unappealing and disingenous about your position is that you argue for soveriegnty when it benefits your view and attack it when it doesn't, then still have the gall to question the ability of others to do the same.
As I said above: challange the system, and it is all in question: the parts you don't like, and the parts you do. And you better have a damn good arguemtn why certain changes must be made but not others. Sadly, those arguments have yet to materialize.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:24
|
|
MtG: while I respect and have respected previous of your posts, you dfo have the annoying and reprehensible aspect of being vaiglorious and conceited. I know plenty of ME history. I just don't make the assumption that fact all lead to the same conclusions and I am not blind to the notion of diverngent viewpoints. Hopefuly when you get back to my more 'hilarious' posts you will not be so petulant a child.
As for your points:
This war against "terrorism" is a war against Al qaeda. Most of the Islamist grousp you speak of are national groups, groups which do not carry out international atatcks against general targets. Cehchnya, for ewxample, is a Russian issue only (Chechens don't carry out atatcks against the US, just Russian interests) Al Qaeda does, and vital to the creation of this network was the funding and training that the US and western allies gave Islamist to have them fight Communism. So the West does have a great responsibility for makign these anti-west groups (and not simply national-interest groups) possible.
1. We had the support of the Yemeni government. there was no reach of sovereignty. HOward was speaking of something far more fundamental than one tiny act. Which again was why he took the statement back.
2. re: my post to Drake.
3. This great difference you speak of is one of capabilities, not morals. The US, and to some extent, Australia, has the capability to strike in such a way as to just kill insurgent. The insurgents don't. When they have to kill, they must find another way, which means soft targets, civilians. I fail to see where you would have the evidence to make your statement about what they mean to do. It would serve their cause far more if they couls violently overthrow the governments they seek to topple, yet they have not done so, why? Because they are weak.
Many things are taboo. They are not to be done. Take making a human clone. Today countless laws have been passed to stop it. Now lets say someone clone a child, and the child is healthy. What validity do those anti-cloning laws now have? The precedent of breaking the law makes it possible to overturn them, to destroy them. If no one were to clone a healthy child, then there would be no precedent to overturn them , now would there? Pleas etry to argue above childish word games....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
you do have the annoying and reprehensible aspect of being vaiglorious and conceited |
{Jack Nicholson voice}Is there a point in there somewhere?  {/Jack Nicholson voice} 
quote:
I know plenty of ME history. I just don't make the assumption that fact all lead to the same conclusions and I am not blind to the notion of diverngent viewpoints.
|
When you attribute al Qaeda and the present problems with Islamic fundamentalist terrorism to US anti-Communist policies in the '80s (which in the Islamic world was pretty much limited to aid to Mujahedin in Afghanistan), without reference to any other factors, then you mask what knowledge you have pretty well. 
The relevant viewpoints here aren't from the western factual historical perspective, either, rather they're from the fundamentalist world view sculpted and molded in the mosques and training camps.
quote:
Hopefuly when you get back to my more 'hilarious' posts you will not be so petulant a child.
|
MOMMMMMEEEEEEEEE! He called me a name. 
As for your points:
quote:
This war against "terrorism" is a war against Al qaeda. Most of the Islamist grousp you speak of are national groups, groups which do not carry out international atatcks against general targets. Cehchnya, for ewxample, is a Russian issue only (Chechens don't carry out atatcks against the US, just Russian interests) |
You missed the point entirely. Of course Chechen peasants aren't going to attack the US, or even far outside their own territory. They are going to fight, however, and that's one of the essential components of translating the pan-Islamic jihad al Qutb wanted into operational reality.
In al Qutb's time, you had Islamic fundamentalism as the province of a few clerics with limited outside world experience, and mostly rural villagers. (who were the backbone of Khomeini's movement for years, but ineffective even in a national scope until the movement picked up secularly educated urban students and people who could work their way up in the Shah's security forces over a period of years)
In order to create an al Qaeda, you need men with secular educations, social and financial connections, who are susceptible to the fundamentalist message. To make jihadi out of them, you need a real world training ground. If Afghanistan hadn't been a fighting ground, instead of the "Afghan Arabs", "Algerian Arabs" or "Chechen Arabs" would have done just fine. You just need a place to train these guys, harden them, get them in the influence of jihad, and then return them to the outside world to operate. Anywhere would do just fine as a training ground, except for Palestine.
quote:
Al Qaeda does, and vital to the creation of this network was the funding and training that the US and western allies gave Islamist to have them fight Communism. So the West does have a great responsibility for makign these anti-west groups (and not simply national-interest groups) possible. |
The US funded some 13 distinct groups of Mujahedin. Most of those groups later became the Northern Alliance. Most were not Islamist, and are not now. A few local warlords were anti-west then, and anti-west now, but have not got any more love, affection and support for the Taleban and al Qaeda than we did.
If you look at the rate of annual funding and training, from the US, a small minority of that that went to Islamist groups. With the annual combat losses among all funded groups, the amount of money and training which cumulatively contributed to the development of what is now al Qaeda is a very minor component compared to the sort of "United Way" donations by arab nationals and people like OBL himself, using their social connections to funnel money. People who wanted to become "Afghan Arabs" also contributed money, it was a sort of cause celebre. The most important factor by far was not direct aid by the CIA or arabs, but the development of an indirect financial network of donors who were prepared to advance sums of money for wide-ranging long-term operations other than direct combat in the Afghan theater.
The organization of and marketing to this financial network was not something brought by the west or the CIA specifically - it was a creation of the business and social savvy of OBL and his lieutenants, who were able to mix messages of arab nationalism, Islamic fundamentalism, anti-western sentiments, the "inspirational experiences" of young "Afghan Arabs" returned from their fighting experiences.
Another factor you (and most people) completely ignore in the Afghan issue is how much of the tribalist/nationalist Mujahid vs. Islamist Mujahid conflict was a result of Indo-Pakistani geopolitics. In the post-USSR Afghanistan, when al Qaeda really emerged as a significant force, Indo-Pakistani maneuvering (India supporting the NA and EA as traditionally hostile rivals to Pakistan and the old Greater Afghanistan empirelet of the Pashtuns., to create a potential security threat on Pakistan's northern border, while the Pakistanis wanted a friendly proxy state to be able to maintain their focus on Kashmir)
Unless you blame the collapse of the Soviet Union as a primary cause for the rise of Islamic fundamentalist terror groups, the post-Soviet environment in Afghanistan is much more crucial to their development in Afghanistan (and again, any Islamist-outsider conflict other than Palestine could have been adapted to their development needs). That era was far more dominated by Indo-Pakistani strategic maneuvering (which has a history that predates the modern Indian and Pakistani nations) for indirect power in Afghanistan.
Given the totality of events, the overall time frame and the different players, US "anti-communist" or any other type of aid in the 1980's was an extremely minor constituent in the present problem, although it is fashionable to exaggerate in importance for "you reap what you sew" moralizing. It also has the benefit of being simple, since bilateral geopolitics has been the American mindset since WW2 at least.
quote:
1. We had the support of the Yemeni government. there was no reach of sovereignty. HOward was speaking of something far more fundamental than one tiny act. Which again was why he took the statement back.
|
Whether we had the support of the Yemeni government isn't really that big of an issue, IMO. Had we not had that support, but the Yemeni government been unable or unwilling to exert effective control over it's own purported territory, then IMO the same action should have been taken. Maybe not for such a relatively small value target, but the simple notion of permission from a peanut state unable or unwilling to exert control over the territory it claims should not be an absolute bar to preemptive action to eliminate active threats.
quote:
2. re: my post to Drake.
|
The moral superiority bit? I'm not interested in debating moral superiority. I'm interested in the most efficient means of killing al Qaeda and their active allies, or otherwise breaking their capability to kill us. If there's cheap and inoffensive ways of doing that, great, if somebody's going to get pissed off, too bad.
quote:
3. This great difference you speak of is one of capabilities, not morals. The US, and to some extent, Australia, has the capability to strike in such a way as to just kill insurgent. The insurgents don't. When they have to kill, they must find another way, which means soft targets, civilians. I fail to see where you would have the evidence to make your statement about what they mean to do. It would serve their cause far more if they couls violently overthrow the governments they seek to topple, yet they have not done so, why? Because they are weak. |
Absolute capabilities are meaningless. The relevant standard is how well current capability can be adapted to long term strategy. The airliners that hit the WTC could have easily been directed against different targets, say Langley and NSA at Fort Meade. Suicide bombers in Palestine could concentrate on specifically attempting to maximize the ratio of IDF personnel taken out. The ability to attack conventional military forces by unconventional means is present, but it doesn't suit the strategic goal. As von Clausewitz and others have pointed out, the center of gravity is economic and political, rather than military. This was first stated in other terms by Sun Tzu. If you break the enemy's political will to fight, you don't care about the disparity between your forces, and failing that, if you can break the enemy's economic ability to support those forces, you can do more damage than in direct conflict.
(another reason why Islamic fundamentalism needs secularly educated jihadi to succeed - they need to be able to reach into our mindset, the same as we need to be able to reach into theirs to defeat them.)
The evidence of what they mean to do is found in their own writings and statements, in their interpreation of the Quran and Hadith, and the strategy is fairly direct. The governments they are seeking to topple are nothing less than all non-Islamic government worldwide.
In particular, if you can find a translation of Sayyid al Qutb's ma'alim fil tariq, the entire concept is clear.
The traditional jahiliya (originally the religion and beliefs of the arabs prior to Islam) is now any and all non-Islamic states which do not fully embrace Sharia. The simple fact of having a non-Islamic legislative body (Iran has fallen from the standards of "purity" advocated by al Qutb) places us and the rest of the world as the enemies of true Islam - enemies which must be converted or destroyed to please Allah and be rewarded in the coming life. Other Salafists like Sayyid Abu A'la Maududi have similar views - one is either with Allah, or kafir - an infidel who defies Allah and must be destroyed.
In order to first obtain control over the secular arab governments, which are viewed as kafir whores of the US, they have to break the US will to project power into the arab world. In order to do that, having the means to directly attack military forces is irrelevant. We are more or less insulated from the losses incurred by military forces - the loss of 3,000 troops in combat halfway around the world would have a hell of a lot less
impact than watching the WTC towers drop on CNN. We are regarded as weak, amoral, selfish, clinging to life, in fear and rejection of Allah, so the strategic goal, regardless of capability, is to strike at the weak underbelly. If the US has to expend a large portion of it's economic resources to secure itself internally, and encounter economic disruption due to security measures and insecurity due to the prospects of random attack, both the means and the will to project power are undermined.
This is where al Qaeda fits into the framework of local and nationalist Islamic movements - as the mobile striking force which can inspire by striking the big remote target - the greatest Kafir of them all, and by being the strategic threat which limits the will and ability of the big Kafir to come to the aid of it's lackeys in Riyadh and elsewhere when their time comes.
quote:
Many things are taboo. They are not to be done. Take making a human clone. Today countless laws have been passed to stop it. Now lets say someone clone a child, and the child is healthy. What validity do those anti-cloning laws now have? The precedent of breaking the law makes it possible to overturn them, to destroy them. If no one were to clone a healthy child, then there would be no precedent to overturn them , now would there? |
The precedent argument is relevant to what, exactly? If you hold some form of political sovereignty to be some sort of sacred cow, it has been slaughtered in every war that has ever been fought since the concept of political identity. Given the hypothetical choice between, say, declaring war on Indonesia or Yemen, or a quick raid to waste some terrorists they can't or won't deal with themselves, which is preferable?
The precedent for that sort of preemptive action goes back for centuries.
quote:
Pleas etry to argue above childish word games.... |
Only if you try to argue past superficial generalizations. 
Last edited by MichaeltheGreat on 06-12-2002 at 03:33
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-12-2002 22:30
|