I did not know I was obligated to respond to your point at all. I am not Chronohistorian. I did not make any pledges to answer questions or address others' points.
I didn't say that you were obligated to do anything at all. It's just that for us to have a useful and constructive discussion, it would help if we were both talking about the same subject. If I reply to something that you've said and then as a response you reply to something else entirely, then what progress can we actually make? I'm perfectly happy not to have this discussion with you if that's what you want, I simply fail to see the point of replying to things that you say if you're then going to pay little or no attention to what I have to say, instead changing the subject and berating me for things that have nothing to do with what we were discussing.
I DID address your point. You simply ignored the fact that inaction and the "it's not my problem" attitude are what contribute to continued ability for terrorists to stay in operation.
Again, that's got nothing to do with the point. It's not about other countrys. It's not about terrorism in general. It's about, very specifically, the actions in Afgahnistan and their effectiveness with regards to eliminating terrorism. The alleged inaction and attitude of countrys that did not participate in said action are incidental, as what we're discussing is that conflict itself.
The reaction of the Spanish people to the train bombing, in how they voted, exhibits the same attitudes that existed in Europe that permitted continued escalation in WW I and WW II. It IS a pertinent example, as it relies on history.
It is not a pertinent example because the hypothesis that you have made is that bin Laden knows that his time is up. I have said that the activities of al Quaeda, under the direction of bin Laden has not changed, as they are executing bigger and better attacks, and bin Laden is still inciting hatred and staying in the press. I offered as an example the recent al Quaeda bombing of the Spanish railway system. Now how the Spanish reacted to that is incidental, because the only point I was making was that the attacks happened - that bin Laden is still active and that al Quaeda are still as active as they were.
Now, if you wish to discuss the spanish public's reaction to the bombing as well as the point I was making, we can. I have had extended conversations on this very subject with quite a few Spanish people, and to say that they voted the way they did because of the terrorist actions rather than the actions of the government, and to say that Spain is withdrawing it's troops from Iraq because of the terrorist actions is simply not true. But it
is a copmpletely different point.
Furthermore, while you do not state it, it is implicit in your response that you think Al Qaeda activity would NOT be this high if we had simply left them alone in Afghanistan and invited them to "summit peace talks" or something of the sort.
I don't infer things. When I have something to say, I say it.
Again, the whole of this paragraph is going off on a tangent, addressing views that you believe it's possible that I might hold, rather than addressing what I actually have said. I ask you again to stick to addressing what I have said and viewpoints that I do hold. I am
not going to be drawn into discussing strawmen and defending points of view that I do not hold.
Now I will show you what a valid point is, as it is supported by data: We can certainly see that Al Qaeda's activity within the United States HAS gone down since the 9/11 tragedy.
Do you have a cite for this data? It's not exactly like al Quaeda activity within the US was massive before the invasion of Afgahnistan, was it?
Furthermore, your point about them "not being charged with anything" is irrelevant.
No it's not. I believe in the due process of law. I will not call someone a murderer if they have not been convicted of murder. Similarly, I will not call someone a terrorist until they have been convicted of terrorism. As it is, these people haven't even been charged.
And, the fact that some have been released without charge, certainly indicates that not everyone who was captured was a terrorist. How do you know which of those within the walls have done what? There's certainly been little information released. Can I assume that you have some source of information that I don't?
Even in these sentences, I do not see if you think it is acceptable to kill terrorists, as one of the only methods that will stop them from killing others. Care to clarify here?
Certainly. Assasination is wrong under international law. It doesn't solve problems, merely creates martyrs and incites yet more violence and hatred. And, also, the casual disregard for innocent human lives that are nearby is deplorable - on exactly the same level as Tim McVeigh's "collateral damage".
The attitude is "we got the leader of Hamas. we killed 20 children, too, but that's okay, because they were only Palestinain children". You can almost see the peace accord being signed now, can't you?
Perhaps we should FIRST worry about the legality of the acts they take before we worry about the legality of killing terrorists? Which element of legality in this issue is more important to you?
Both are important. Look at it this way. There is a child rapist living on your block. You have a choice; you can go to the police and deal with it in a legal fashion. Or you can go vigilante and firebomb his house, even though his (innocent) family is in there, too, and his wife's brother will come after you and firebomb your house. The latter option is the one that Sharon is going for. The former is what I believe in.
Do you really believe that international law can and should be waived, as long as it's in America's interests? Why should we have international laws at all? If the US and it's allies can disregard it whenever it's inconvenient, then why should other countrys abide by it?
Or, to put it another way, why is it okay for Sharon to launch a missile attack against Yassin, wheras Saddam isn't allowed to assasinate Bush? And don't say that one was a terrorist and the other wasn't, as we all know that the definition of "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" differes depending on where your political compass lies.
Your implication is that we should simply ACCEPT the loss of life from the terrorist actions, do nothing, and thus allow terrorists to live another day and kill more people.
"Stay within the law and don't assasinate people creating martyrs" does not equate to "do nothing". Again, read what I do say, do not infer your own things that I haven't said.
That is because I am concerned about the ACTUAL lives lost as of today. The "lives lost" you are talking about are HYPOTEHTICAL lives lost that may, or may not, occur. Can you understand this major difference?
I do understand the difference. The lives that have already been lost have already been lost, and there's nothing we can do about them. Unless we are both talking about potential future victims of terrorist activities, then I don't know what you're getting at. You can't bring those who are already dead back, no matter how many people you assasinate.
Now on "international law" I will admit to being at a loss here. Can you show me where in international law it makes explicit the "rules" for targeting or not targeting known terrorist groups and their leaders? If you can provide such quotes, I'd be glad to give you my opinions on them.
You don't know that it's illegal for a country to launch missile strikes against another soverign nation? You don't know that assasination of someone in another soverign nation is illegal? You don't know that punishment without charge or trial is illegal? You don't know that arbitrary assasination is illegal?
Well, okay:
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cpr.html
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/i7pepi.htm
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/geneva1.html (article 147)
And, for that matter, read the UN Charter.
You seem to have no distinction, do you? Let's use an analogy from a different realm to see if you have the ability to distinguish between similar, but different, events. In one case, the owner of a dog actively commands the dog to attack and bite a child that is running across the owner's back yard. In another case, the owner has a dog to protect his property. While the owner is not around, a child strays into the yard and runs across it, and the dog bites the child. Are these the same acts?
Well, I'm not really sure how apt your analogy is, but I'll put that aside. Are you seriously saying that we should accept and even encourage barbaric, morally reprehansible and illegal actions, as long as they're not as bad as those perpetrated by "the other guy"? I'm sorry, but I'll never be convinced of that.
Perhaps if the terrorists did not surround themselves with the population they claim to be fighting for, there would be less innocent lives lost when Israel targets these terrorists?
Is that what you think happened with Rantissi? He was sitting in his car in a public place when an Apache came over the horizon and shot three high-yeild missiles at him. It's not like he saw that they were after him and quickly ran to a crowded place. Or are you really saying that it's his fault for not living like a recluse and never coming into contact with the public? Tell me, if JFK had been assasinated with a missile attack that also killed innocent bystanders, would Kennedy have been to blame?
Please don't introduce an element that was not part of my point.
It seemed to be your point. You said that American veterans of WWII were "even more vehment in their disgust for other countries" than the current generation. What is this saying, other than that the older generation is xenophobic? What else do you call disgust at every country that is not your own?
America is clearly the LEAST xenophobic country on the planet.
I'd say that that would be a very hard thing to prove. But, without getting into too much of a "US vs. UK" thing, I believe that the UK has the laxest immigration laws in the world, as well as possibly the highest number of immigrants per year.
As I said, it's pretty irrelevant, but I'd love to know where you get your assesment of the comparative xenophobia quotients of our countrys from.
My point was that Americans are frustrated at other country's in the world that lack the resolve to take action to help anyone but those inside their own borders...
And yet you've already said that America's actions have been for it's own benifit and not others'. I'm sorry, but you will not sell me on the idea that the actions in Afgahnistan or Iraq were for the benifit of anyone other than those directly involved. If the actions in Afgahnistan were for the benifit of Afgahnis, for example (and you've already conceeded that they were not), the the country would have been left in a better state than it was when the troops first got there.
Oh, and, FWIW, Bush didn't want to go into Afgahnistan, he wanted to go straight after Iraq. Blair was the one who convinced him that actually going after the person responsible for Sept. 11th might be the best plan. And, yes, before you say it I am equally, if not more, critical of my own government's role in this whole debacle.
I do not believe America will EVER let Europe forget WW I and WW II. Nor do I think we should. If Europe is not willing to constantly refer to their own history, in an effort to prevent repeating it, then the memory of the Americans will have to do THAT job for you as well.
Well, it depends how you see it. We Europeans look upon your involvement in both world wars somewhat differently than you do. In fact, in those instances we
were looking for you to look outside your boarders and help those who needed it, and yet you only joined the fray when the Us was threatened. I'm not criticising, merely pointing out the inconsistancys.
As for repeating the mistakes of history, it may be wise to remember not just WWI and WWII, but Vietnam and Korea. Members of Bush's own staff are beginning to compare the current situation to those two conflicts, in every way, from the ill-advisedness, to the mishandling of the situation, down to the casual atrocities committed by the US forces and their allies. It seems that repeating the mistakes of history is not a uniquely European trait, after all.
