running commentary on middle east policy and news.

[John Roberts]

Re: running commentary on middle east policy and news.

War has a poor track record either. Especially when war causes are simply made up like regarding Iraq. I still stand behind this statement 100%:

I appreciate your conviction to your personal opinion, but it is still opinion.

"There never was a good war or a bad peace." Benjamin Franklin, while even he made exceptions.

It is impossible to accurately speculate what the world might look like if WWII was not fought and won by the right side, while the winners always get to write the history, that war seemed worth fighting in hindsight.

Who exactly is talking about war with Iran? Besides Iran! I am surely repeating myself but the west's intentions are just to stop the nuclear weapons program, not invade the country.

[irony] Since Iran has been building hardened facilities for years, even the West's most powerful conventional bunker busters may be inadequate to penetrate the barrier. A small tactical nuclear weapon could be used as the ultimate bunker buster... now that's irony! An underground burst, would not be as dirty as an air or surface blast, but Iran has probably collocated their facilities among populous areas so never a good option. [/irony]

Joschka Fischer - "Excuse me, I am not convinced" - YouTube

excuse me I don't do youtube. Tell me "your" arguments or paraphrase his if you don't have your own.

I'm very pessimistic regarding Iraq. I don't think that war helped anyone but oil drilling companies.

There are many who would disagree. Like the Shia and Kurd Iraqis who were the actual majority there but oppressed under Saddam. He used poison gas against his own people (Kurds), among other atrocities.

The primary beneficiary of reopening and upgrading Iraq's oil industry is the Iraqi people and hopefully the world. Many in the US wanted to believe the popular myth that we invaded to take the oil for ourself, or US oil companies. Right now there are internal disputes in Iraq over profit sharing from early oil contracts the Kurds cut with international oil companies before the central government was fully established. The Kurds think they should be allowed to cut their own oil deals, the central government in Baghdad doesn't agree.

Whether the Kurds, Sunni, and Shia can work together long term still stands to be seen, but it is mostly outside actors that want them to fail (like Iran who would love to take over southern Iraq for itself) and has fought at least one war with Iraq in the past.

Now what is the Iran case?

On nuclear weapons overall, I think they should be banned. For everyone. Now, again, who can have the authority to control a ban? Not easy.

We need to separate wishful thinking from practical solutions. That genie can't be put back into the bottle. If we continue to talk and apply insufficient measures, Iran will inch into the nuclear weapons club, and I don't buy their claims of peaceful intent.

North Korea is reopening nuclear "talks" and we can always hope the kid is less crazy than his dad. Time will tell how far that nut fell from the family tree. We can always hope for more rational dealings. The people of North Korea have suffered for far too long. Similar to the German reunification, South Korea could do a lot of good for the North Korean people given the chance.


JR

 

[Christian Tepfer]

Re: running commentary on middle east policy and news.

...excuse me I don't do youtube. Tell me "your" arguments or paraphrase his if you don't have your own...

I simply share Mr. Fischer's opinion about the missing Iraq war case. There has never been a case and he didn't buy the lame made-up "reasons". So did't I.

Similar to the missing Iraq case I think there is not yet a Iran case, just not believing the Iran leaders doesn't mean they are wrong.

I appreciate that we can have different opinions on some topics (and share similar opinions on others) and still can debate. That's a very high good, which we should never lose.

 

[John Roberts]

Re: running commentary on middle east policy and news.

While a general technique used for investing, international matters need to be looked at for the potential upside and downside.

In this case the downside of accommodating the Iranian regime is welcoming another nuclear equipped combatant into the middle east. Iran has a track record of supporting terrorists and insurgencies in their neighbors. Gaining nuclear weapons is not likely to make them a better neighbor. I find it interesting that even Hamas and Hezbollah are distancing themselves from Iran these days.

This is more of a concern for nations in the middle east, and my suspicion is that they are secretly hoping Israel will prevent Iran from getting the bomb, so they can go back to business as usual, hating Israel again.

JR

PS: An interesting footnote to the missing WMD, is that now there are international concerns about securing the stockpiles in Syria which may be left unprotected if the Assad government falls. Exclusive: State Department quietly warning region on Syrian WMDs | The Cable it is widely speculated than Saddam moved some of his goodies to Syria in the run up to his war. He certainly had time and opportunity, with a Bathist friendly community in Syria. For the record the WMD was not the single justification for the invasion, but the one that resonated with the public so it alone got played up in the press. Apparently the public can't be expected to grasp multiple concepts at the same time. There is a long list of mistakes in the prosecution of that conflict, but at this point that ship has sailed. While we always need to study history so we don't repeat it. However there appear to be different versions of the history out there, depending on POV.

 

[Charlie Zureki]

Re: running commentary on middle east policy and news.

I simply share Mr. Fischer's opinion about the missing Iraq war case. There has never been a case and he didn't buy the lame made-up "reasons". So did't I.

Similar to the missing Iraq case I think there is not yet a Iran case, just not believing the Iran leaders doesn't mean they are wrong.

+1

I've learned over & over in my life that, just because someone spouts some information or, makes some claim...doesn't make it so.

I see a lot of America's problems, are caused by nothing more than people finding creative ways to justify their Jobs, their "Beliefs" (political or religious) or to obtain even more (political or financial) power. Examples from the News headlines:

Cops writing more tickets than ever... (coincidental, that these communities are on the verge of Bankruptcy ?)

Three States pass...No Civilian video taping of Police Officers (they can video tape us through their Cop car cameras, but, we can't video tape them ?)

Patriot Act...

Federal Bill prohibits protesting near Political Events....

Federal Agency files are off limits to persons named on file.... (No freedom of information Act
IRS seizure powers... (no Court... no verdict ?)

State's Governor dismisses Contracts with Labor... (without a Court hearing...?)

And then, there's all of the fear mongering over the last 50 years.... USSR, China, Cuba, etc... build up our Nuclear Arsenal.. those terrible commies are going to get us... Then, Viet Nam and the rest of Indo-China..."communism is going to spread, and surrounding Countries will fall like dominoes". It did not, and now we trade with ALL of Indo-China.

Then, when we have no Communist enemies to keep our War Machine running ... Terrorists arrive on the scene! Funny how there's MORE Generals, and Admirals now, than we had in WW11 and the Korean War ...combined ..?

What is so disturbing to me...is that 10 years ago.. the Terrorists were in Iraq (which had nothing to do with anything) Afghanistan, Indonesia, and Pakistan...now, they're writing Laws to address Americans as Terrorists.


I'm waiting for them to break out the mind-reading machines...then we're all in trouble.

Hammer

ps...the former Prime Minister of Pakistan ..the one that was assassinated was not a Man...it was a Woman...

 

[John Roberts]

Re: running commentary on middle east policy and news.

+1

I've learned over & over in my life that, just because someone spouts some information or, makes some claim...doesn't make it so.

+1 cuts both ways.

I see a lot of America's problems, are caused by nothing more than people finding creative ways to justify their Jobs, their "Beliefs" (political or religious) or to obtain even more (political or financial) power. Examples from the News headlines:

Cops writing more tickets than ever... (coincidental, that these communities are on the verge of Bankruptcy ?)

Three States pass...No Civilian video taping of Police Officers (they can video tape us through their Cop car cameras, but, we can't video tape them ?)

Patriot Act...

Federal Bill prohibits protesting near Political Events....

Federal Agency files are off limits to persons named on file.... (No freedom of information Act
IRS seizure powers... (no Court... no verdict ?)

State's Governor dismisses Contracts with Labor... (without a Court hearing...?)

ummm " Can't we all just get along,,?" The Rodney King videos tightened up several blue buttholes.

And then, there's all of the fear mongering over the last 50 years.... USSR, China, Cuba, etc... build up our Nuclear Arsenal.. those terrible commies are going to get us... Then, Viet Nam and the rest of Indo-China..."communism is going to spread, and surrounding Countries will fall like dominoes". It did not, and now we trade with ALL of Indo-China.

Surely you should know better than to call the USSR an imaginary threat... Who of our generation doesn't remember Kruschev at the UN hammering on his table with his shoe proclaiming he will bury us. If he was an imaginary external threat he played the part well.

Then, when we have no Communist enemies to keep our War Machine running ... Terrorists arrive on the scene! Funny how there's MORE Generals, and Admirals now, than we had in WW11 and the Korean War ...combined ..?

What is so disturbing to me...is that 10 years ago.. the Terrorists were in Iraq (which had nothing to do with anything) Afghanistan, Indonesia, and Pakistan...now, they're writing Laws to address Americans as Terrorists.

yes this is disturbing.. While Holder seems drifting toward justifying death from above to even US citizens (albeit bad ones). .

I'm waiting for them to break out the mind-reading machines...then we're all in trouble.

Good science fiction in that movie... "minority report"..

Hammer

ps...the former Prime Minister of Pakistan ..the one that was assassinated was not a Man...it was a Woman...

Huh? Who was talking about Bhutto? I was talking about a moderate politician assassinated over a campaign to repeal blasphemy legislation more recently. Apparently more than one legislator but governor of Punjab (Salman Taseer) was pretty high profile and assassinated by his own bodyguard for secular rather extreme religious leadership.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/world/asia/05pakistan.html?pagewanted=all
Pakistani Legislator Stands Up to Extremists Over Blasphemy Law | PBS NewsHour | April 14, 2011 | PBS

Bhutto was assassinated in 2007 just before an election, which happens all to often in that part of the world. A moderate western leaning political leader in Lebanon was assassinated by a (Syrian?) car bomb. like I said before Machiavelli would be proud. Dead men (or women) can't run for office or change laws. The Bhutto assassination was of interest because she had survived other attempts, and it was argued that her security was intentionally inadequate.

JR

 

[Charlie Zureki]

Re: running commentary on middle east policy and news.

Hey JR.

Not disputing the fact that Kruschev talked tough...he had to. He was the leader of his Country....and the U.S. "enemy". But, you also have to research the whole discussion in regards to your reference.... Where as both Countries had insiders that were not only War Mongers, but, expansionists. And, neither side were saints, nor completely evil...as neither executed a first shot. In fact, Kruschev backed down after making demands that our ICBMs were to be withdrawn from Germany in exchange for them NOT persuing their ICBMs in Cuba. But again, that's history.


Regarding "mind reading machines" there's is supposedly such a machine. It makes measurements of facial features, (eye movements, tightness of jaw, movement of brow, etc...) while it reads heart rate and body movement, does some kind of comparisons and spits out a go/no go signal. Now, as to how accurate, or wether it actually works means little... since the U.S. has had a history of buying/using incomplete security/ high fail equipment.... TSA scanners


Ms. Bhutto was killed because she couldn't be bought.
Hammer

 

[John Roberts]

Re: running commentary on middle east policy and news.

Hey JR.

Not disputing the fact that Kruschev talked tough...he had to. He was the leader of his Country....and the U.S. "enemy". But, you also have to research the whole discussion in regards to your reference.... Where as both Countries had insiders that were not only War Mongers, but, expansionists. And, neither side were saints, nor completely evil...as neither executed a first shot. In fact, Kruschev backed down after making demands that our ICBMs were to be withdrawn from Germany in exchange for them NOT persuing their ICBMs in Cuba. But again, that's history.


Regarding "mind reading machines" there's is supposedly such a machine. It makes measurements of facial features, (eye movements, tightness of jaw, movement of brow, etc...) while it reads heart rate and body movement, does some kind of comparisons and spits out a go/no go signal. Now, as to how accurate, or wether it actually works means little... since the U.S. has had a history of buying/using incomplete security/ high fail equipment.... TSA scanners


Ms. Bhutto was killed because she couldn't be bought.
Hammer

And our activity in Europe was not to unilaterally threaten or intimidate the USSR, but balance their undue influence over western Europe to prevent Finlandization of the entire continent. Finlandization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was in Germany with the first infantry division in 1970 participating in Nato maneuvers with allies, while the soviets were 10 kilometers away on the opposite side of the border doing the exact same thing with their eastern bloc armies.

I believe a free democratic Europe was worth defending, and make no mistake the cold war was a war. While settled with economic power rather than military might. Another reason we shouldn't dismantle our economic engines.

Speak softly but carry a big (economic) stick...

============


Yup, perhaps more like lie detectors than mind readers, we hairless monkeys exhibit many physical tells when our words are out of sync with our thoughts, while some are better liars than others (pathological), and some even believe their lies are true so they aren't actually lying..
------

No doubt Bhutto was killed for old fashioned political reasons, but I consider it more insidious how freely the religious extremist kill each other in the name of their religion. Regarding that blasphemy law the moderate politicians were opposed to, it is mostly applied to minorities to discredit them, and even more insidious, something like 60% of those charged and acquitted (declared innocent) are later killed anyhow.

It wasn't always like that over there... this extremism seems to have greatly expanded over the last few decades.

JR

 

[Christian Tepfer]

Re: running commentary on middle east policy and news.

...

<about my oil drilling statement>

There are many who would disagree. Like the Shia and Kurd Iraqis who were the actual majority there but oppressed under Saddam. He used poison gas against his own people (Kurds), among other atrocities.

The primary beneficiary of reopening and upgrading Iraq's oil industry is the Iraqi people and hopefully the world. Many in the US wanted to believe the popular myth that we invaded to take the oil for ourself, or US oil companies. Right now there are internal disputes in Iraq over profit sharing from early oil contracts the Kurds cut with international oil companies before the central government was fully established. The Kurds think they should be allowed to cut their own oil deals, the central government in Baghdad doesn't agree.

Whether the Kurds, Sunni, and Shia can work together long term still stands to be seen, but it is mostly outside actors that want them to fail (like Iran who would love to take over southern Iraq for itself) and has fought at least one war with Iraq in the past.

...

JR

You may be right about the oil contracts.

One thing is to be feared, the Sunni minority being oppressed, now without the Saddam power.

Following the oppression of the Shiites and Kurds, we have a civil war in Iraq.

Now, what was the war case and objective for Iraq? There is still no war case, not even a made up after the invasion. And nobody seems to care about it, we can talk about the oppression of the Shiites and the Kurds but that doesn't make a war case. By that logic the US must invade half of the world.

 

[John Roberts]

Re: running commentary on middle east policy and news.

You may be right about the oil contracts.

One thing is to be feared, the Sunni minority being oppressed, now without the Saddam power.

It was remarkable how well they got along in some neighborhoods, even intermarrying under the oppressive rule of Saddam. Biden and others have long argued that Iraq would deteriorate into civil war and attempting a federation of the three distinct groups was pointless. I appreciate that after getting elected to VP, Biden didn't try to prove himself correct and has given them a chance to stand up, while I remain apprehensive about how much Iraq's neighbors will try to interfere. Iran (mostly Shia) has designs on the oil rich south, Syria (with a significant bathist Sunni community has provided a pretty porous border for malefactors to infiltrate, and Turkey in the north has a long running fight with the Kurdish rebels who partner with opposition elements inside Turkey (the kurds also don't get along with northern Iran)..

Iran actually sheltered the very anti-American cleric Sadr (a shia with his own militia) when things got too hot for him to remain in Iraq. He is back now and elected to the legislature to apply influence from within the system, while he still has Iran's backing which seems at cross purposes with a secular Iraqi independence.

Following the oppression of the Shiites and Kurds, we have a civil war in Iraq.

Now, what was the war case and objective for Iraq? There is still no war case, not even a made up after the invasion. And nobody seems to care about it, we can talk about the oppression of the Shiites and the Kurds but that doesn't make a war case. By that logic the US must invade half of the world.

I don't recall the full list that Powell presented to the UN but IIRC it included harboring/sheltering alkaida (there were reports of medical treatment and recuperation there), another item was Saddam promoting terrorism in the region.. I recall something like a bounty or bonus that he paid to the families of suicide bombers...giving them yet another incentive to attack western interests. Saddam pretty much ignored or circumvented every UN resolution to stop his bad behavior. All he had to do, is stop being such a bad ruler.

I prefer to focus my few remaining brain cells on finding a better path from here, not rehashing old hot buttons, ad infinitum. There was also speculation of some unfinished business from the first war with Saddam, when we made him give up Kuwait and chased him back to Iraq, then encouraged his internal opposition to stand up... We didn't support them then, because we didn't have a UN mandate to do so, and they got crushed by Saddam.

The US was a little slow to react to some other (more) serious examples of genocide (like Bosnia), and I consider Darfur an embarrassment to any thoughtful western person, but there are limits to how thin we can spread ourselves in addressing every ugly world circumstance.
-----
I am very critical of the prosecution of Iraq... Turkey denying us a path to bring armor in from the North changed the whole prosecution from a systematic clear and hold (using the armor to secure the captured areas), to the make it up as you go, quick rout using light, fast moving vehicles, but without a secure hold (a little reminiscent of the WWII Blitzkreig. Not sure how well that worked out for Hitler back then). That and a long list of mistakes (like releasing Saddam's army), resulted in a vibrant insurgency and many more deaths and destruction than it should have. Of course second guessing this stuff after the fact is way too easy and not all that useful. Afghanistan has well demonstrated how different it is from Iraq, so different lessons to learn.

JR

 

[Christian Tepfer]

Re: running commentary on middle east policy and news.

I can help with the Powell speech:

washingtonpost.com
I agree with you, it's not helpful to dig into that again and again. I just wanted to note that this case was very slim and that's a real problem when it comes to wars. There has to be a real strong case to call to arms imho.

The death sentence for Saddam was the biggest war mistake imho. It's a way to show that a western tribunal is not showing any mercy, like Saddam was not showing mercy in his genocide operations. But that's another basic discussion, death penalty overall. Not the topic.


To the topic, what should be the goal in middle east politics?

Looking at security measures on airports, the terrorists have won already, by definition. So war on terror may not be a valid goal, after embracing the concept on a state level (and by that I mean almost every western country, signing laws that terrorize the people). Also, drones are not a good thing, as they give power to hate-preachers. Not everything that is technologically possible is a good idea.

Human rights, well, that's not politics, it should be an international focus. To me it seems, the UN only adresses human rights problems when it is politically (=economically) feasible and that's a real shame. While we can sue China over rare earth export regulations, nothing is done about the Uigur conflict for years. Well, China is doing something about it, changing police law. And still, nobody is doing anything about it, we buy stuff, China buys national debt. How many percent of the US debt ist held by China again? So no invasion in favor of the Uigurs, let alone Tibet.

 

[John Roberts]

Re: running commentary on middle east policy and news.

I can help with the Powell speech:

washingtonpost.com
I agree with you, it's not helpful to dig into that again and again. I just wanted to note that this case was very slim and that's a real problem when it comes to wars. There has to be a real strong case to call to arms imho.

The death sentence for Saddam was the biggest war mistake imho. It's a way to show that a western tribunal is not showing any mercy, like Saddam was not showing mercy in his genocide operations. But that's another basic discussion, death penalty overall. Not the topic.

Trial of Saddam Hussein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While some dispute any trial as being politically motivated, the apparent crimes of Saddam against his people were hard to dispute. Efforts were made to give him as fair a "civilian" trial as possible, while I'm sure there was a motivation compelling the interim leadership to eliminate any possibility of him returning to power, that fueled hope for the insurgency.

I would contrast how Saddam's trial was handled with the recent treatment of Libya's Khadaffi, and other failed dictators in the region. Deposed dictators rarely get much accommodation from succeeding governments.

To the topic, what should be the goal in middle east politics?

Should be a single goal for the entire world. While it is not our job, and we don't have the resources to impose our ideals on the world, we have long promoted liberty and freedom for all people.

On a more practical level, the west has economic interests in the region (oil,, duh), and it is incredibly difficult to ignore groups who actively plot the destruction of the west, to restore a conservative religious rule over the entire world. Many dismiss this as ramblings of few crazies, but this very small fraction of the overall muslim community is tolerated by the more moderate majority perhaps out of fear based appeasement.

Looking at security measures on airports, the terrorists have won already, by definition. So war on terror may not be a valid goal, after embracing the concept on a state level (and by that I mean almost every western country, signing laws that terrorize the people). Also, drones are not a good thing, as they give power to hate-preachers. Not everything that is technologically possible is a good idea.

More cliches, what do you propose? Prosecuting terror attacks after the fact as simple criminal activity, allows an increasing amount of this terrorist activity in the west, unless we proactively protect ourselves by searching out and neutralizing these bad actors. The hard part is to balance this security activity against personal privacy and individual freedoms.

If there was prosperity and rule of law everywhere, there would be no place for terrorist to base and operate from. Spreading economic prosperity around the world is one leg of the stool to promote world peace.

I am critical of the expansion of drone use. Just like one nuclear bomb can serve as a deterrent, the spread of the technology too widely can be destabilizing. What rational person thinks drones will not get used by terrorists, to wage their asymmetrical warfare? The technological threshold for drones is certainly lower than for nuclear weapons while a barrier (so far).

Human rights, well, that's not politics, it should be an international focus. To me it seems, the UN only adresses human rights problems when it is politically (=economically) feasible and that's a real shame. While we can sue China over rare earth export regulations, nothing is done about the Uigur conflict for years. Well, China is doing something about it, changing police law. And still, nobody is doing anything about it, we buy stuff, China buys national debt. How many percent of the US debt ist held by China again? So no invasion in favor of the Uigurs, let alone Tibet.

The UN is mostly a "feel good" organization, but it doesn't hurt to give even the crazies a platform to speak. The UN needs to focus on things they can actually do. Even their record as a neutral police force is not without blemishes

Funny you mention China... our ability to influence them wrt human rights tracks along with their economic trade and dependance on us for that revenue. At the moment China is preparing for another transition of internal leadership at the top of their government with rumblings from a less western aligned candidate. If he should gain power that could lead them to walk back recent progress there. I don't see how they could ever take back what they have already given their citizens in recent decades without a fight, but it wouldn't be the first time they decided to reeducate their own citizens.

Besides the Uyghars, China's treatment of Tibet is also not appropriate for a modern world power, but be aware, it could get a lot worse if the next government shifts away from the west. Then the Uyghars would be low on the list of the west's complaints with them. Right now China's thirst for energy and resources has led them to align with the wrong side (IMO) in many regional conflicts. They don't block the west for idealogical reasons, but in competition for the same world resources and economic power (Darfur/Sudan/oil... do the math).

Of course I could be wrong...

JR

 

[Charlie Zureki]

Re: running commentary on middle east policy and news.

More cliches, what do you propose? Prosecuting terror attacks after the fact as simple criminal activity, allows an increasing amount of this terrorist activity in the west, unless we proactively protect ourselves by searching out and neutralizing these bad actors. The hard part is to balance this security activity against personal privacy and individual freedoms.


JR

I suppose many people are more intelligent than I am, and, that I'm just not understanding this....but, how in the World does someone distinguish a "terrorist" from a non-terrorist ? Do they look different ? Smell different? ..or wear little terrorist symbols on their person? How does one (anyone know) that they're in the midst of a terrorist without this terrorist admitting to that fact?

I've been hearing this B.S. talk about routing-out terrorists for ten years now, surely, they're rounded them all up by now ?

According to a Washington Think Tank paper... "a high percentage of the captured or killed suspected terrorists have been found to be non related to any terrorist activity or threat. Further, it is suspect that many of these alledged terrorists have been falsely accused by paid informants, false leads, or falsified documentation."

"In the matter of XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX, the post mortem death investigation by the following Agencies XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX has cleared him of any terrorist links, threats or activities."

How do we spot or stop a terrorist, when our own Agencies cannot stop our people from commiting terrorist acts, such as the Soldier in Afghanistan killing the civilians?

I think it's time that the U.S. recalls all troups and comes up with a different plan. American soldiers are offing themselves, and their families at an increasing rate. I'm afraid that this generation of Soldiers will be the next generation of homeless/street people...just like after Viet Nam, but a larger, more violent group.

A well known writer pointed out that... other than the World Trade Center incidents (if you're inclined to believe the official story) these terrorists have only a history of attacking Military property. That is was strange that they'd attack a Commercial building, and that none have been attacked since.

Hammer

 

[John Roberts]

Re: running commentary on middle east policy and news.

I suppose many people are more intelligent than I am, and, that I'm just not understanding this....but, how in the World does someone distinguish a "terrorist" from a non-terrorist ? Do they look different ? Smell different? ..or wear little terrorist symbols on their person? How does one (anyone know) that they're in the midst of a terrorist without this terrorist admitting to that fact?

I've been hearing this B.S. talk about routing-out terrorists for ten years now, surely, they're rounded them all up by now ?

According to a Washington Think Tank paper... "a high percentage of the captured or killed suspected terrorists have been found to be non related to any terrorist activity or threat. Further, it is suspect that many of these alledged terrorists have been falsely accused by paid informants, false leads, or falsified documentation."

"In the matter of XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX, the post mortem death investigation by the following Agencies XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX has cleared him of any terrorist links, threats or activities."

How do we spot or stop a terrorist, when our own Agencies cannot stop our people from commiting terrorist acts, such as the Soldier in Afghanistan killing the civilians?

I think it's time that the U.S. recalls all troups and comes up with a different plan. American soldiers are offing themselves, and their families at an increasing rate. I'm afraid that this generation of Soldiers will be the next generation of homeless/street people...just like after Viet Nam, but a larger, more violent group.

A well known writer pointed out that... other than the World Trade Center incidents (if you're inclined to believe the official story) these terrorists have only a history of attacking Military property. That is was strange that they'd attack a Commercial building, and that none have been attacked since.

Hammer

I'll try... I suspect focusing on a useful definition of "terrorist" is part red herring, and part PC language police.

The actual important distinction is combatants without a national affiliation. It's hard to hold non-national organizations responsible and impose punitive sanctions in say the UN or a world court for behavior of some vague groups members with no nation of their own to hold responsible and apply non-military sanctions against.

We (the US) are absolutely responsible and accountable for the behavior of that one US soldier in Afghanistan who killed apparent innocents he was tasked with protecting.

Regarding the WTC attack, I am not sure I understand your point. It mainly differed in place and scale, not the actual type of attack against innocent civilians, while they were reaching for a symbolic impact beyond the thousands killed. In the US we have a tendency to view world from a distance, but this has been going on for some time, even previous attempts directed at the WTC that failed.

While little reported because too much publicity is counter-productive (like parading that seal team around in the press shared a little too much information about them). There have been numerous attacks thwarted by solid (police) intelligence work.

I do not want to ignore the risk to personal liberty and privacy that over-reach in these same strategies expose us to.

I fear this will be a decades long problem, until the muslim community themselves stand up and expunge this modest fraction responsible from within. We don't appreciate outsiders messing with our internal problems and they surely don't appreciate us meddling in theirs.

We need to find some constructive way to get from here to that better end point for all of us... I don't see an easy path, and many mistakes so far.

But ignoring that it exists as problem, is how an ostrich might deal with it, and IMO not a successful strategy.

Of course opinions vary...

JR

 

[Christian Tepfer]

Re: running commentary on middle east policy and news.

...
More cliches, what do you propose? Prosecuting terror attacks after the fact as simple criminal activity, allows an increasing amount of this terrorist activity in the west, unless we proactively protect ourselves by searching out and neutralizing these bad actors. The hard part is to balance this security activity against personal privacy and individual freedoms.
...

My opinion is: there can not be a proactive protection against terrorism in the way it is carried out now. It is simply wrong.

1. agencies that talk people into building bombs to catch them doing it afterwards is simply illegal in my view.
2. pre-crime should be fiction, not reality

There is no way to balance security against freedom. While I'm not sure if Benjamin Franklin actually said this or something similar, it's a good quote:

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."

Of course, terrorists should be treated as criminals, no more, no less. No other treatment is worth a civilized society.

The definition or terror and terrorism (or the lack of a firm definition) is what led me to the airport statement, the word terrorism is derived from french terrorisme, from state terrorism "Reign of Terror". There are lots of controversial definitions of terror and terrorism, one of them is spreading extreme fear. Everybody who is flying would agree that it's different now and (depending on the airport) creating some fear. So I would call airport security a mild form of terrorism itself. In my opinion it's not the right way to go for a free society.

Also in my opinion there is no way to go out and "root out" terrorists, as every takedown creates new spin for other players.

 

[kristianjohnsen]

Re: running commentary on middle east policy and news.

War has a poor track record either. Especially when war causes are simply made up like regarding Iraq. I still stand behind this statement 100%:

Joschka Fischer - "Excuse me, I am not convinced" - YouTube

I'm very pessimistic regarding Iraq. I don't think that war helped anyone but oil drilling companies.

Now what is the Iran case?

On nuclear weapons overall, I think they should be banned. For everyone. Now, again, who can have the authority to control a ban? Not easy.

I find it interesting that the official US policy is that "every man has the right to be armed - it works as a deterrent against criminals who want to do bad things" - if there was real merit to this logic wouldn't it be a shortcut to world peace to just hand out nukes to EVERYONE :lol:.

I also find it interesting that Israel officially tries to justify an attack on Iran now by saying they need to do it before it's too late; if they wait until they have nukes, they'll be deterred from attacking them. No shit, they're called deterrant weapons for a reason when "we" have them. Making these statements is much like shooting yourself in the foot since they're basically justifying the attacks on themselves in the past as those were carried out "before it was too late". The attacks failed, however, judging by the fact that Israel has nukes.

 

[John Roberts]

Re: running commentary on middle east policy and news.

I find it interesting that the official US policy is that "every man has the right to be armed - it works as a deterrent against criminals who want to do bad things" - if there was real merit to this logic wouldn't it be a shortcut to world peace to just hand out nukes to EVERYONE :lol:.

The second amendment, part of the bill of rights, is not well understood, and still argued about today (in the courts). You may not like my version, but my understanding is that it's original intent was so citizens could protect themselves from the "government". Our very wise founders were distrustful of federal government being so hungry it might try to usurp personal rights from it's citizens.

As another old saying goes, when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.. A few responsible armed people around can actually save lives, while this is not worth discussion as remotely related to nations and nuclear weapons. There is a calculus involved with nukes on the national level but not very simple.

I also find it interesting that Israel officially tries to justify an attack on Iran now by saying they need to do it before it's too late; if they wait until they have nukes, they'll be deterred from attacking them. No shit, they're called deterrant weapons for a reason when "we" have them. Making these statements is much like shooting yourself in the foot since they're basically justifying the attacks on themselves in the past as those were carried out "before it was too late". The attacks failed, however, judging by the fact that Israel has nukes.

I am still glad I don't live within thousands of miles of that neighborhood and don't have neighbors like Israel has who want to disappear them/us. My judgement is that Iran is not trying to get nuclear weapons as a deterrent, but more so they can be a bigger bully in the region.

Who is threatening to invade them? We did them a favor by neutralizing their closest and proved enemy (Saddam), who they already fought one nasty war with in the past. Instead of relaxing, they have ramped up the rhetoric with the west (I explain this as creating a straw man external enemy to distract political opposition from the regimes internal shortcomings.)

It's easy to be critical of Israel from a distance, but i suspect they have very good reason to be apprehensive. Iran has publicly declared their bad intentions toward Israel. The downside of underestimating that threat is pretty ugly. Hopefully they are just empty threats from Iran for political effect but how can you tell? After the fact, expecting the UN to scold them is too little too late.

JR

PS Some UN related group is accusing Texas of human rights violations for requiring photo IDs to vote... If this is such an abuse of human rights lets get them folks some friggin photo IDs! For all the free shit the government is already giving away, giving them a picture ID too seems small change. There's always a subtext to these things and this smells like political posturing to me to gain favor with some minority group. It is already illegal to deny "citizens" their right to vote. When I went to vote today.. I had to sign a ledger and attest that I was who I said I was,, In this modern age if someone doesn't have a photo ID (Papers?) they can leave behind a thumbprint and pose for quick photo. I think every citizen should vote, but only once and only while they are still alive. I plan to stop voting then. We can't be more than a decade or so away from smart voting machines being able to recognize us. That should end this nonsense. If the smart voting machine doesn't recognize you from a voter registration database, just press your thumb here and smile.

 

[Christian Tepfer]

Re: running commentary on middle east policy and news.

Another thought is:

The collateral damage of "war on terror" is much too high, there have been and most likely will be false accusations. A free society can not bear this in my opinion.

Some of the collateral damage:

Lawyer Falsely Accused of Terrorism Sues FBI and other "Terror" Updates
Terror suspects sue U.S. for millions: Brandon Mayfield | Mail Online
False Terrorist Accusations Alleged - Los Angeles Times
British men report abuse from Guantanamo - CNN
A Truly Shocking Guantánamo Story: Judge Confirms That An Innocent Man Was Tortured To Make False Confessions | Andy Worthington

I think money can not compensate for this lack of justice. Who has the authority to detain terrorists and by what standards the claim is made? It's time to revise the strategy, as the current modus operandi doesn't lead to success, it's a war nobody can win.

 

[kristianjohnsen]

Re: running commentary on middle east policy and news.

The second amendment, part of the bill of rights, is not well understood, and still argued about today (in the courts). You may not like my version, but my understanding is that it's original intent was so citizens could protect themselves from the "government". Our very wise founders were distrustful of federal government being so hungry it might try to usurp personal rights from it's citizens.

As another old saying goes, when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.. A few responsible armed people around can actually save lives, while this is not worth discussion as remotely related to nations and nuclear weapons. There is a calculus involved with nukes on the national level but not very simple.

Let's just say I think it would be better if nobody had nukes than if everybody had them...

The only reason "we" (read: you) keep them is as backup in case we actually run out of other effective weapons to acheive our goals. Countries like Iran probably feel like they have run out of other effective weapons now...

I am still glad I don't live within thousands of miles of that neighborhood and don't have neighbors like Israel has who want to disappear them/us. My judgement is that Iran is not trying to get nuclear weapons as a deterrent, but more so they can be a bigger bully in the region.

My judgement is that it takes two to tango and Israel can dance very well.

PS Some UN related group is accusing Texas of human rights violations for requiring photo IDs to vote... If this is such an abuse of human rights lets get them folks some friggin photo IDs! For all the free shit the government is already giving away, giving them a picture ID too seems small change. There's always a subtext to these things and this smells like political posturing to me to gain favor with some minority group. It is already illegal to deny "citizens" their right to vote. When I went to vote today.. I had to sign a ledger and attest that I was who I said I was,, In this modern age if someone doesn't have a photo ID (Papers?) they can leave behind a thumbprint and pose for quick photo. I think every citizen should vote, but only once and only while they are still alive. I plan to stop voting then. We can't be more than a decade or so away from smart voting machines being able to recognize us. That should end this nonsense. If the smart voting machine doesn't recognize you from a voter registration database, just press your thumb here and smile.

What I find most surprising about this is that an advanced nation like the USA actually has citizens enlightened enough to vote who don't own something as simple as a photo ID. Couldn't they just slide it into the back of their Ipad case? :lol:

The second most surprising is that the UN would spend time on this. Here, photo ID to vote is a matter of course.

 

[Bennett Prescott]

Re: running commentary on middle east policy and news.

I find it interesting that the official US policy is that "every man has the right to be armed - it works as a deterrent against criminals who want to do bad things" - if there was real merit to this logic wouldn't it be a shortcut to world peace to just hand out nukes to EVERYONE :lol:.

I don't accept your straw man argument here, Kristian. Nuclear weapons are not a viable tool of self defense.

There is certainly an interesting discussion to be had about whether nuclear proliferation is a good idea, and how much national sovereignty means, but it has nothing to do with man-portable arms. People are overwhelmingly good and go to great lengths not to do what you apparently assume they will when they have access to weapons. Governments, I don't put in the same category... in their relatively small population (there's, what, a couple hundred?) many (most?) of them are constantly at odds with each other, and they threaten entire land masses at a time.

 

[Tim McCulloch]

Re: running commentary on middle east policy and news.

I'm acquainted with Brandon Mayfield's father. There are aspects of the case that he can't discuss, and he's inwardly livid about the way his son was treated based on an incompetent investigation and his son's religious conversion 15 years earlier.