Majority of Canadians polled say US partially to blame for 9-11

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Chris 62
That they wouldn't be considered POWs, since they were illeagal combatants by the Geneva stautes.

They are being held in a sort of limbo, no status has been given for them.

How so? The Geneva convention doesn't force combatants to be citizens of the country they're fighting in...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Frogger
Mike, your argument is kind of disingenuous.

Do some people hate the West because of its freedom/openness/whatever? Yes.

Would this have the same power in a world where it wasn't combined with a feeling of having your national affairs being trampled on by neo-colonial militarism? No.

Disingenuous? moi?

So do you think if they were allowed to depose the monarchies and secular dictatorships and the token democracy in the arab world, create a pan-arabic fundamentalist Islamic state, overrun Israel, exterminate the jews and eliminate the Judeo-Christian holy sites there, and we all left them alone, that they'd be content?

Sorry, but the only thing that would change is the tactics. Until the entire world is under Islam and their interpretation of Islamic law, they're in a state of armed jihad. The relative balance of power (interference) only determines the tactics, not the existence of the conflict.

Hey Yank, what's up?

[KrazyHorse]

The term of "illegal combatant" means crap all. Was made up by the US admin to justify the fact that they wanted to break the Geneva convention.

Especially when the Convention states that in cases of any doubt, there should be some sort of internat. council to determine staus.

The Geneva convention's definition of POW was written so broadly that it covers just about anybody captured in open combat (i.e. not being hidden in a civilian pop.)

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Frogger


How so? The Geneva convention doesn't force combatants to be citizens of the country they're fighting in...

But distinct uniforms, command structures, recognizeable insignia, and comformance to the rules governing the conduct of war are required. Armed mobs don't count. Taleban fighters in many/most cases would be POWs. Al Qaeda fighters in most cases did not qualify.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Disingenuous? moi?

So do you think if they were allowed to depose the monarchies and secular dictatorships and the token democracy in the arab world, create a pan-arabic fundamentalist Islamic state, overrun Israel, exterminate the jews and eliminate the Judeo-Christian holy sites there, and we all left them alone, that they'd be content?

Sorry, but the only thing that would change is the tactics. Until the entire world is under Islam and their interpretation of Islamic law, they're in a state of armed jihad. The relative balance of power (interference) only determines the tactics, not the existence of the conflict.

Hey Yank, what's up?

What I think you are missing, however, is that Bin Laden would have considerably greater problems in recruitment and fundraising if it weren't for US policy in the region.

[Chris 62]

Johhny's under the weather reb, keeping me up.

Frogger, have you yet seen any POW designation for them?

They are "detainees".

I looked at the last Geneva convention some time ago, it was clear about several things, especially "non-identified combatants", IE not properly uniformed or wearing identifing markings, and this area was quite ambibious, and this is where those guys fall, the Taliban portion are POWs, the others are criminals, not soldiers, and not provided the same rights.

I had a lengthy discussion with Roland about this some time ago, trying to hammer out the leagality about it.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Frogger
Especially when the Convention states that in cases of any doubt, there should be some sort of internat. council to determine staus.

No, just a tribunal.

The Geneva convention's definition of POW was written so broadly that it covers just about anybody captured in open combat (i.e. not being hidden in a civilian pop.)

Partly true as to the background of the combatant, not true with respect to organization and conduct. The reason is that precise definition of local inactive reserve and militia units is rather difficult, so it's more a standard of "if you fight like soldiers, you're soldiers" than anything else.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Frogger
The term of "illegal combatant" means crap all. Was made up by the US admin to justify the fact that they wanted to break the Geneva convention.

Actually, illeagal combatant is in the convention, the US didn't make that up.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Disingenuous? moi?

So do you think if they were allowed to depose the monarchies and secular dictatorships and the token democracy in the arab world, create a pan-arabic fundamentalist Islamic state, overrun Israel, exterminate the jews and eliminate the Judeo-Christian holy sites there, and we all left them alone, that they'd be content?

Nope. And I don't think that because they arose due to actions of West interfering in their affairs is enough justification to let them run things all of a sudden either.

And allowing "them" (I'm assuming you mean some sort of Holy Alliance of Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia) to overrun Israel would of course be unacceptable.

But to deny that religious nationalism as a backlash against Western "influence" with Arab governments is the main cause of Islamic terrorism is just blinding yourself to the truth. And maybe you should consider that the harder you stick it to 'em, the harder they'll want to stick it to you. Because moderate voices for reform are just plain ignored, it seems. People are forced between being content with sad little puppet regimes in every important oil producer or mad anti-US dictatorships in all the others.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by ckweb
What I think you are missing, however, is that Bin Laden would have considerably greater problems in recruitment and fundraising if it weren't for US policy in the region.

US policy does provide simple and easy to use propaganda. But as long as there was some major discontent (which is massive in much of the Islamic world) there would be some way to draw a pretty picture linking non-Islamic governments, evel infidels, and local suffering because Allah is displeased at the local's failing to heed his commandment for Jihad and conversion.

We give them real issues, but the spin would be there even if we didn't. And any policy "concessions" or changes we made would allow the fundamentalists to expand their power. So they don't give us much choice in the matter.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse

I wonder if we could have a commemoration thread on the OT?

I think its more appropriate if you U.S. guys come up with something - maybe a condolence thread, shoot anyone who trolls on it.

I'm not making any more critical policy comments now because I know this is a sensitive time for you guys.

I'll try really really hard not to anyways

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Actually, illeagal combatant is in the convention, the US didn't make that up.

It seems to be restricted to spies, saboteurs and urban guerillas from what I remember...

Everybody who can be identified as an enemy before he pulls the knife out of his pocket and sticks it in your back is protected. There are about 3 catchall clauses that Al Qaeda members who fight openly fall under...

[Chris 62]

The craken heads date has been set Reb, just so you know, got it from the grapvine.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


US policy does provide simple and easy to use propaganda. But as long as there was some major discontent (which is massive in much of the Islamic world) there would be some way to draw a pretty picture linking non-Islamic governments, evel infidels, and local suffering because Allah is displeased at the local's failing to heed his commandment for Jihad and conversion.

We give them real issues, but the spin would be there even if we didn't. And any policy "concessions" or changes we made would allow the fundamentalists to expand their power. So they don't give us much choice in the matter.

True. But the propaganda given by the US is not just easy to use, it is effective! It resonates with people who would not otherwise support Bin Laden or his type of Islam. Bin Laden would be a man with very limited recruits and a lot less financial resources if it wasn't for US policy. And if he were so limited, he would not have been able to strike the US on 9/11 or build the kind of global terrorist network that presently exists. He would be confined to suicide bombing targets in the Middle East.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I think its more appropriate if you U.S. guys come up with something - maybe a condolence thread, shoot anyone who trolls on it.

I'm not making any more critical policy comments now because I know this is a sensitive time for you guys.

I'll try really really hard not to anyways

How about a thread of of one line statements on what people feel about what happened, or what they think of it.

Short, concise posts.