Can we kick some real terrorist ass please?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
You can't ever make terrorism go away... and even if you can make the Muslims stop committing terrorist acts, it will STILL go on by some OTHER group.

Like those wackos in Japan, or another Tim McVeigh.

The War on Terror is like a War on Murder, its a noble idea, but you're kidding yourself if you ever think it'll be "over".

I remember seeing a great political cartoon, which I saved. It says "Think Overwhelming Military Force Can Stop Terrorism? Look at Israel:" And it a drawing of bodies being carried away from the charred skeleton of a bus. Based on a real photo.

Israel has never really used overwhelming military force. The closest they came, in spring of 2002, they reduced terrorism considerably.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler


Like Pakistan. Oh wait, they just kill people in Kashmir, so why bother.

Pakistan is definitely on the list.

[Dom Pedro II]

Oh yes... Israel has never used overwhelming military force... except when they occupy lands illegally and shell houses.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
You can't ever make terrorism go away... and even if you can make the Muslims stop committing terrorist acts, it will STILL go on by some OTHER group.

Like those wackos in Japan, or another Tim McVeigh.

The War on Terror is like a War on Murder, its a noble idea, but you're kidding yourself if you ever think it'll be "over".

I remember seeing a great political cartoon, which I saved. It says "Think Overwhelming Military Force Can Stop Terrorism? Look at Israel:" And it a drawing of bodies being carried away from the charred skeleton of a bus. Based on a real photo.

maybe you cant make murder go away. But when it gets out of hand its a good idea to get tough about it. It may even be good to get outraged.

.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
Oh yes... Israel has never used overwhelming military force... except when they occupy lands illegally and shell houses.

Do you understand the difference between occupying land, legally or not, and using overwhelming force. AS for shelling houses, they do so only when they value of the target is great relative to the likely collateral damage. theyd have gotten a lot more terrs by now otherwise, and the terrorists wouldnt find hiding out among civilians so desirable.

[Dis]

I think it's time to realize we don't have the capability of kicking terrorist ass. They have a distinct advantage over us. I can't see any way to win.

[Dom Pedro II]

Uh huh... as in the case of when some idiot Palestine took some shots at an Israeli bulldozer (injuring NO ONE) and the Israelis responded by shelling the nearby Palestinian settlement killing several women and children... good job!

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


any counsel they want as long as the counsel has security clearance, IIUC. Is that asking too much, for trials at which top secret intelligence is likely to be presented?

Only US military attorneys, and I'm not sure whether the defendants will chose them or they will be "court" appointed.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Pakistan is definitely on the list.

Of US allies.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler


Only US military attorneys, and I'm not sure whether the defendants will chose them or they will be "court" appointed.

im quite sure i heard on NPR that they can request otehr attorneys who have security clearance.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
well terrorism pretty much ended in Egypt, without a positive and effective alternative. So im not sure your premise is right.

The government has succeeded in crushing the oppostion (they did in Alegria too), but that hqas not meant an end to the Islamist threat, only its going underground. Does the egypttian state dare lower its security? And added notion: if we start acitng like egypt's rulers then we have lost our freedom.

I would also note that we have islamic terrorism in Indonesia, where there is democracy and freedom for islamist parties, more so than jordan or egypt where there is not. But even if it is, the acts of terror tend to undermine any positve and effective alternatives, as seen from Palestine to Iraq, and from Pakistan to Indonesia. So it is necessary to fight it at the same time as we build an alternative.

Democracy in Indonesia is just beginning: it is hardly a model for anything.

I never said that we should not fight. But when ad how we fight must be based on an honest and intelliegent annalysis of where violence works and were it doesn't. The reason terrorism exist is becuase evryone knows that violence can work to bring about a desires political outcome. The probems is that most practicioners skipped the "honest and intelligent annalysis" part and thus are using violcne in self-defeating or unproductive ways.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


im quite sure i heard on NPR that they can request otehr attorneys who have security clearance.

So their pool is far more limited than it ever would in a criminal trial, or even a court Martial? And who gives out security clearances? Ajh, the very organization trying the men. So the US government, prosecutor, invariably controls who can be in the counsel..how democratic.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


How many people killed today? 20-30? Perhaps it is a good sign that people get so worked up about political violcene that leads to that many (which is not that many) deaths.

ah the term is changed from "terrorism" to the amorphous "political violence" - thus establishing a moral equivalence in which a Paul Kagame is held to be the equivalent of an Idi Amin, in which a Shimon Peres is no better than Abu Nidal, in which a Bill Clinton is the equivalent of a Slobodan Milosevic and a Tony Blair the equivalent of Osama Bin Laden.

[HershOstropoler]

"im quite sure i heard on NPR that they can request otehr attorneys who have security clearance."

Among the Concessions Lord Goldsmith won for UK citizens was chosing civil US attorneys and the possibility to consult UK lawyers. Also, that a minimum of attorney-client priviledge would be respected.

200 UK MPs called these "tribunals" a farce in a petition to bring them to a real court.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


So their pool is far more limited than it ever would in a criminal trial, or even a court Martial? And who gives out security clearances? Ajh, the very organization trying the men. So the US government, prosecutor, invariably controls who can be in the counsel..how democratic.

Of course their are loads of attorneys who have security clearances already - its not that hard to get one, and their hardly limited to supporters of current admin policies.

And how else do you deal with trials where most of the evidence is top secret, and where even the presence of the defendent in US hands is secret, and where what the defendant has said and been asked in interrogation is secret? Would you rather we not try them at all??? Or is that you dont care about the security issues??? Would you like someone whos just been through interrogation to pass on to their attorney what the interrogators asked? Who might then pass it on to al-qaeeda? To take backbearings? Do you know what backbearings are???