Geneva Convention Rights

[Dargo]

Oh, did I mention that I don't think there is any single easy solution, and I don't have the solution?

I'm speaking from the perspective of a parent of a son who wants to attend West Point and have a military career, and I do not like the current way our military is being used. Although it is too simple of a statement, for numerous reasons though I strongly feel that the U.S. is not, and should not be, the world police department. I do not wish my tax dollars to be spent for such nor do I wish my son to be given orders to be part of a military that is directed to do many things I think are wrong and very dangerous for our military personnel. Being in the military is a very honorable profession but part of that profession is doing exactly what your superiors order you to do. Since I disagree with several of what those orders would be, as the Bard of Avon would say, therein lies the rub.

 

[Melensdad]

Dargo, I support you completely onthe mosque situation, as long as you are absolutely certain that the mosque is being used as a fortress of sorts. A good proof would be the Imam of the mosque agreeing that the terrorists have taken over. Further, I think we could contribute to the rebuilding of the mosque once we solved the problems.

We bombed the crap out of Christian churches in Germany.

Don, just to clarify, we bombed the crap out of cities that had targets, and if there was a church in the target zone then it was destroyed. Let's be honest, the military technology of the time was limited to carpet bombing and long range artillery. We did not intentionally single out Christian churches, or for that matter other places of worship. What we did was destroy everything that was near a target because that was the best we could do given the technology of the time with high flying bombers and simple gravity bombs.

As for the point of bombing a Mosque, I will agree with both you and Dargo that if the Mosque is essentially a front for terrorist activity and for weapons storage, then it is a target. The problem will be that in the court of world opinion we will all see "worshipers" being carted out of the wreckage on stretchers. However, I suspect that if someone with an AK47 seeks refuge in the next Mosque, and we drop the hammer on that one. And then someone else seeks refuge in yet another one, and we drop the hammer on that one too, then at some point the Iman of the next Mosque down the road will not be too eager swing open the door and lay out the welcome mat for the gun toting lunitics and their fanatical crews.

Not every Iman and not every Muslim is a fanatical nutjob intent on killing all non-believers. I strongly suspect that the Mosques used as headquarters for terrorist cells are also controlled by fanatical clerics who are stirring up the anti-Christian, anti-Jew feelings as well as stirring up the divisions between the Shia and the Sunni factions.

 

[OkeeDon]

You cannot discourage them, or make it so bad for them that they don't want to fight. They are fanatics. If what it takes to defeat us is to be soaked in pig's blood, they'll soak themselves, and get a dispensation from the ayatollah.

You cannot defeat them militarily. No one ever has.

The Bush administration has discovered this the hard way; that's why they now say we are fighting to establish democracy and a better way of life for the Iraqis, Afghans, etc. The only way we can achieve that is to set an example of our high moral and ethical standards. The moment that we stoop to the level of the terrorists, we blow our entire reason for being there.

We are supposed to be better than they are. If we stoop to their level, we are not better. I suppose not many of you will understand this, but we will actually be worse than the terrorists, because we would be pretending to live to a higher standard while putting the lie to it with our actions.

 

[Melensdad]

I suppose not many of you will understand this, but we will actually be worse than the terrorists, because we would be pretending to live to a higher standard while putting the lie to it with our actions.

I think you enjoy showing yourself as the self-annointed member of enlightenment, but I think you also give far too little credit to the majority of the members here. Very few actually advocate stooping to the level of the fanatical terrorists, but many suggest that there are some rules we play by that should be set aside; in fact, I'd suggest that your agreement with Dargo on the Mosque issue puts you squarely in the camp of what is probably the majority opinion here.

I'll also agree with you one more time. You cannot discourage them. But you can kill them.

 

[Dargo]

However, I suspect that if someone with an AK47 seeks refuge in the next Mosque, and we drop the hammer on that one. And then someone else seeks refuge in yet another one, and we drop the hammer on that one too, then at some point the Iman of the next Mosque down the road will not be too eager swing open the door and lay out the welcome mat for the gun toting lunitics and their fanatical crews.

Not every Iman and not every Muslim is a fanatical nutjob intent on killing all non-believers. I strongly suspect that the Mosques used as headquarters for terrorist cells are also controlled by fanatical clerics who are stirring up the anti-Christian, anti-Jew feelings as well as stirring up the divisions between the Shia and the Sunni factions.

Bingo! My exact sentiments.

Today is an unfortunate day that I actually have to do quite a bit of "real" work and I have not the time to devote to complete thoughts in my posts. Fortunately though, Bob seems to be picking up via ESP(N) what my intended posts are.

 

[beds]

beds,
First off, I believe we are fighting musslim extremists..
Secondly, I tend to get a little carried away sometimes when I portray my opinion on this..

Greg, we disagree, but you have a good point. I think that we had a right to "fight dirty" in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. Maybe not nuke them, but certainly devastate the country where they were. Growing up, if someone started a fight, you had the right to fight dirty. In Iraq, I disagree with the right to fight dirty. There's alot of non-terrorist battles going on there - Shiite vs. Sunni, "my children were killed and I must have revenge", "I am a proud person and cannot live like this". And I don't see Iraq as a logical extension of Afghanistan.

 

[OkeeDon]

You cannot discourage them. But you can kill them.

Not when every one you kill causes two more to decide to radicalize.

We cannot defeat them. Interestingly, the Bush administration is on the right track in one area, the turnover of military activities to Iraqi troops. If the Iraqi army kills a terrorist or bombs a mosque, that is NOT the Great Satan doing it.

 

[OkeeDon]

I think you enjoy showing yourself as the self-annointed member of enlightenment, but I think you also give far too little credit to the majority of the members here. Very few actually advocate stooping to the level of the fanatical terrorists, but many suggest that there are some rules we play by that should be set aside; in fact, I'd suggest that your agreement with Dargo on the Mosque issue puts you squarely in the camp of what is probably the majority opinion here.

I suppose I am self-annointed, since on this forum there are few ready to verbally confront the "conventional wisdom". I know there are others who agree with me, but they seem content to let me carry the battle alone.

I'm also perfectly willing, and even pleased, to give credit to those who deserve it. You may be correct that very few actually advocate stooping to the terrorist level. But, in saying that you do acknowledge that there are at least a few with that opinion. Here's the crux of the matter -- while that may be a minority, I find myself absolutely alone in protesting the opinion. The rest of you think it's cute, like the way some of you go around puffing out your chests and braging about how you'll shoot anyone who sort, of, might be, threatening you. Or, you secretly agree. The point is, for whatever reason, there is no outrage at these outrageous rantings other than mine.

In my mind, that makes all of you as guilty as the person who proposed the anti-American stupidity in the first place. If no one else is enlightened enough to call them on it, then I guess I'm the member of enlightenment.

I learned to be confrontational because of prejudice and bigotry. All my life, I was taught not to offend the folks around me. I was taught that if someone had a poisonous attitude, I should just quietly ignore them. One day, it dawned on me that as long as no one confronted them, they would never stop. Since that time, if I'm in a group and someone starts to tell jokes about race or use bigoted terms, I simply tell them, "I don't appreciate that kind of talk." It's amazing; most of them immediately back down and apologize.

I think they see that kind of talk, and talk about what a tough guy they are, as locker room talk. I think they think it impresses all the other guys as to how tough they are. I think there is a lot of that on this forum. Me, it impresses me the opposite -- it just shows me what idiots they are, and that they don't know the real meaning of tough.

In the immortal words of our esteemed President, if you support them, you're part of the problem.

 

[HGM]

beds, I see your point too and totally respect it.. I do believe there is a connecting line between the two, and it doesnt stop there(but thats for the future to prove).. I dont want to nuke them or carpet bomb them, so to speak.. There are people(a minority IMO) who are pissed at us(and rightfully so) for being there and their family members being killed as casualties.. I think we are still doing right by taking out AlQuida, but would like to see a little more agressiveness in showing that they will pay for what they have done, not simply take a bullet to the head and get 40 virgins.. Things can be done systematicly, I believe it would work, but maybe I'm just stupid like motor mouthblahblah: ) suggests...