Anyone can be wrong, you included. In my opinion, the 911 attack by terrorists was sufficient justification for our initial military response( I don't agree that every military action is an act of war).Originally Posted by Kepi
We will never agree, so this could just be endless . I will try to wait for a new subject.
We all saw the effect of the 911 attack. What is the basis for your speculation about 'neo-nazis' attacking China?
That's irrelevant. The relevance is whether or not you would say another nation is justified in waging war against the US under more or less the same exact circumstances,*and the example takes away the emotionally charged cultural elements and puts the shoe on the other foot. I mean, I wouldn't be okay if someone attacked us under those conditions, so why would I be okay with my country attacking?
Since I see no counter-part in the USA to the terrorists that attacked the USA, your comments are irrelevant to anything real.
The only difference between Neo-Nazis and Al Queda is that Al Queda has money. Even without the money, Neo-Nazis have training camps in the US and UK, and are, by definition, terrorist groups. The only thing they don't have, are funds to blow people up.
If it makes you more comfortable, use the Army of God, the guys behind the Olympics bombing in Atlanta or any of the number of militia separatist groups, which is what Timothy McVeigh was representing. If you want to go left wing, you could go with groups like The Earth Liberation Front. If MS-13 strikes your fancy, go with them. We have enough violent and dangerous dirt bags that are a well funded investor away from a global terror campaign you can pick from any of them. Are you or I culpable for their actions? No? Then why would we hold the people of Afghanistan to a different standard?
I just don't see anyone in the USA with goal to attack other countries. Bad and evil, yes. You must have information that I have not seen.
MS-13 totally massacred over 20 people to protest the reinstitution of the death penalty. Should Honduras invade the US?
Varg Vikernes, a known White Power terrorist was arrested in France for plotting a terror attack within their borders. Should they attack Norway? I mean, Norway let him out of prison 7 years early even though he's clearly unrepentant for either the murder or the church burning.
ELF hasn't committed murder, but they started in the UK and have chapters in across Europe and in the US. They're pretty big on arson. Should we invade the UK?
Even though we haven't seen groups like The Army of God had into China, Christianity is the fastest growing religion there. You don't think that with China's one child policy that they wouldn't want to make some hits there? If they managed to pull something like that off, should China invade the US?
All these groups, with the right kind of funding could and most likely would do exactly what Al Queda is doing.
Too much projection and extrapolation for me. I will wait for some data.
The US has been attacked by terrorists. There have been isolated terrorists attacks within the US. I still don't see US citizens as being threat to other countries.
I'm not predicting attacks here. It's a question of ethics, not a question of if it will happen. Why would that even matter?
It matters to me the the USA has been attacked( might be attacked again) , and I don't see US citizens attacking other countries. I want to do what we can to prevent, or at least minimize, future attacks on the USA.
That's pretty racist.
now you have stooped to name calling. Shame on you.
I'm not calling you a name. I'm pointing out that the fact that you seem to value the lives of people who are from the US over those of people from other countries is a racist idea. The notion you expressed is intrinsically racist and the reason you refused to answer my question wasn't because they hypothetical, I mean, I handed you real world examples and your final defense was essentially "I only care about the USA, and the USA is always right because it's the USA." I'm sorry, in order to be the good guy in a situation you have to be the one doing the good things. Nobody just gets a bonus because of their culture. The idea that someone does get a bonus because of their culture is, by virtue of fact, a racist idea.
Last edited by Kepi; 10-20-2014 at 12:48 AM.
If Neo-Nazis in America did what Al Qaeda did, the USA would not hesitate to hand them over to their victims for trial.
The borders things is true, at least on the surface; but Al Qaeda is the same as the IS, and now they are taking territory. Their aim all along has been to establish a caliphate. You could point out that capturing bin Laden didn't stop the IS, but maybe if we had gotten to him in 2001, it could have; maybe. And if the Taliban had such a tangential relationship, why did they fight against the USA and along side Al Qaeda once the US invaded? At least once the USA invaded, the relationship was a lot tighter.With Obama Bin Laden, that money was from inherited Saudi oil money. Osama Bin Laden wasn't a terrorist so much as a terror financier, which is arguably much worse. However to say that Bin Laden was committing acts of terror at the behest of the Taliban or for the benefit of the Taliban is just untrue. The Taliban had nothing to gain from Bin Laden's terror financing. The borders of Afghanistan did not expand due to Bin Laden's financed attacks, and the religious leaders associated with him did not gain followers or hierarchical growth because of these attacks. The nation state of Afghanistan and the terrorist finance group Al Queda had a tangential relationship at best.
I don't know if the FBI could have done it. The special forces had the training and equipment to do that job, and intel on the ground was needed.Meanwhile, if we look at the operation which finally took Bin Laden down it was something that the FBI could have done. I don't have a problem with who did it as much as how it was done. If the SEALs had swung in on a singular helicopter and arrested or even killed Bin Laden without an arrest attempt, I'd be more or less okay with it, because they are using tools and tactics which are available to your larger law enforcement agencies.
That probably would have been the best policy. On the other hand, the Taliban itself was abominable, so I was not too unhappy we were attacking them and at least trying haltingly to overthrow them. It's what you call Boomer over-reach (although Bush was about the only Boomer involved) and I call American over-reach. Of course the problems were mainly two-fold; 1) our approach killed a lot of Afghan civilians and aroused opposition, 2) we diverted our efforts for no reason to Iraq. But now that Obama refocused the efforts back to the original target, we don't know that it won't turn out better for Afghanistan after all.As you point out, it's an infringement, but it's an extremely mild infringement. To use the Neo Nazis v. China argument, if China showed up with a full military invasion force, because some of our Nazis blew up their buildings, that's clearly war fare. They're using weapons that have no other purpose but full scale war. But if they swing in on a helicopter and only kill people associated with the Neo-Nazis? I'm going to give them a pass on that.
The scale of the attack was much greater, and on several occasions. It was great enough to be called an act of war, whether it was or not, and US NATO allies supported this approach. More people died on 9-11 than on the Day of Infamy. If the Taliban had cooperated with the search and capture of the criminals, the USA and its allies might not have attacked the Taliban.
OK
My response is that I care primarily about the USA and the USA has been attacked by terrorists.
I want to prevent, mimimize future attacks.
I don't agree that your postulated scenarions are realistic because I do not see US terrorist groups threatening foreign countries.
I have never said that the USA is always right.
If a strong military could prevent future attacks without firing a shot, I would be happy.
I am not seeking a 'bonus'. I want a US free from attacks.
Just want to want to question your use of the term ‘racist’.
I do plead guilty to being pro-American(USA).
http://www.britannica.com/blackhistory/article-234663
"The difference between racism and ethnocentrism
Although they are easily and often confused, race and racism must be distinguished from ethnicity and ethnocentrism. While extreme ethnocentrism may take the same offensive form and may have the same dire consequences as extreme racism, there are significant differences between the two concepts. Ethnicity, which relates to culturally contingent features, characterizes all human groups. It refers to a sense of identity and membership in a group that shares common language, cultural traits (values, beliefs, religion, food habits, customs, etc.), and a sense of a common history. All humans are members of some cultural (ethnic) group, sometimes more than one. Most such groups feel—to varying degrees of intensity—that their way of life, their foods, dress, habits, beliefs, values, and so forth, are superior to those of other groups.”...
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/488187/racism
"racism, also called racialism , any action, practice, or belief that reflects the racial worldview—the ideology that humans are divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called "races," that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural behavioral features, and that some races are innately superior to others.”...
Last edited by radind; 10-20-2014 at 11:23 AM.
Scale of attack is irrelevant. Al Queda isn't a nation state. The Taliban declined extradition without evidence. It is beyond customary to provide evidence in order to get extradition. The Taliban was being cooperative, we just balked at even the most basic requirements of due process, which is wrong.
MS-13 isn't a postulated scenario. MS-13 is a US born gang that has committed acts of terror in Latin America. That isn't a postulation, that's a fact.
What is a postulation is that the War in Afghanistan has prevented terrorist attacks. There's only one thing that would have to be done to prevent attacks in the US from Al Queda, and that's to stop the flow of money from terror sources to the US, which we had not done previously, has been done since, and which has been successful. Meanwhile, considering that Al Qaeda's started goals in 2005 was to goad the US into a prolonged serious of wars across the Middle East, my guess is that we haven't so much damaged them as proliferated the spread of their ideology.
If we're going to state that the War in Afghanistan prevented terror attacks in the US, without postulation but with evidence, we'd need evidence of that. With just a little searching I've found 10 plots which we had to thwart since 9-11. It looks to me that our wars have proliferated, not prevented terror.
The MS-13 should be wiped in the USA by the FBI and local law enforcement. The are an evil and violent group.
-I would like to know if the US MS-13 gang members are US citizens.
Were any of the MS-gang members involved in the Latin America terrorist act US citizens?
It appears that MS-13 is now an international gang that should be the target of international law enforcement.
I would have preferred a continued focus on the 911 terrorists and not the mistaken Bush wars.
There must be some way to target groups that openly advocate terrorists attacks on the US.
Last edited by radind; 10-20-2014 at 11:36 AM.
Why would scale of attack be irrelevant?
It's a good point, but I'm not sure it's true or not. Bin Laden was threatening more attacks. That confirmed the other attack. How much evidence would have been needed to convince the Taliban? How could it be gathered quickly? Would US agents have been allowed inside Afghanistan to collect it? The Taliban demanded that a neutral country take custody of bin Laden and his associates. Could they have been trusted?Al Queda isn't a nation state. The Taliban declined extradition without evidence. It is beyond customary to provide evidence in order to get extradition. The Taliban was being cooperative, we just balked at even the most basic requirements of due process, which is wrong.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/200...tan.terrorism5
I agree a focus on the terrorists would have been best. That would have required operations in Afghanistan at the time. The USA fighting wars across the Middle East does not prevent terrorism and spreads the ideology, I agree. But criminals needs to be apprehended, and attacks by countries (e.g. the IS) on other countries need to be opposed or resisted in some way that's appropriate and lawful.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 10-20-2014 at 01:27 PM.
Scale is irrelevant because you attacked someone who is tangentially related to the attack. It's like if you punched me, so I start beating up your family in revenge. You can't call yourself in the right ever if you're fighting the wrong guy.
And really let's also get Osama Bin Laden's role here right. 9-11 likely wasn't planned by him, he didn't participate in it. He just paid for it. So it would be more like if you paid a guy to come over here and break his neck on me, and I went over there and started beating up your family.
That's the bad thing about blood lust. They guys who did the 9-11 plot were dead. The remaining guy was the guy who signed the checks. If someone said "so we'll stage a sniper team to take him out" I'd be like "okay, not necessarily moral or just, but acceptable given the circumstances," because at least you're killing the right guy.
Most MS-13 members are US citizens. Even internationally, the leadership at the very least is going to be US fronted. The source of MS-13 is the US. The organization works to promote criminal enterprise in the US and abroad, and they use terror tactics in places like Honduras and El Salvador for the benefit of criminals in the US. Even if the individual actors were not US citizens (and considering that the particular act in question was in Honduras, my guess is they are more likely US citizens than anyone else), it's all in the interest of a US based criminal network which if Al Queda is the Taliban's responsibility then MS-13 is ours.
And part of our problem is that we mistake advocation for intent or some other tangible form of evidence. It's kinda why I disregard ISIS as a genuine threat to America. Their goal is the establishment of a Califate Nation, and therefore they have a centralized hierarchy of sorts and are establishing a nation add their first priority. So they may make comments, but until you're spending millions of dollars a year on terror, chances are you just aren't going to matter at all.
This all comes down to our philosophy of "anything we're afraid of its automatically bad." Fear is not a good assessor of threats, because you have to go with what people say, and people have a legitimate reason to make threats that don't involve carrying them out, specifically because they create fear.
I've tried to stay out of this, but I have to make one important point. Criminal activity and military activity are not mutually exclusive. Nor is there a rule that mandates that only nation states can make war. We pursue pirates, because they act in war-like manner. Are they criminals? Sure, but they are also a private navy.
In the case of Al Qaeda, its generally agreed that the 9/11 attacks exceeded simple criminal acts and crossed into war-like behavior. Responding in kind is fully reasonable. How would you have addressed the same acts, but taken to the natural limit: the use of purloined nuclear weapons? New York would have been vaporized by the two nukes, and much of the Greater DC area as well. Should we call the police? If not, then how atrocious does the attack have to be to cross the line?
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
The Taliban failed to do the one thing any nation would do in a similar case. They refused to take the accused into custody. If that had happened, I doubt we would have attacked.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
The main target after 9-11 was Al Qaeda. They were not tangentially related; they conducted the attack. Many Al Qaeda people were involved, and many who were involved were captured and imprisoned, including the mastermind planner. Al Qaeda were like pirates, as M&L said. Sometimes the army rather than law enforcement has the tools needed. As for the Taliban, that could arguably be called the "wrong guy" to attack, but they didn't cooperate enough and didn't arrest the suspects even though some evidence was known. In any case, Al Qaeda were in the Taliban's country, and had to be found and apprehended there. The Taliban refused to let us in to find and apprehend him.
He announced the deeds, organized the planners and trainers, inspired them, and financed them. He was the head guy, not just the paymaster.And really let's also get Osama Bin Laden's role here right. 9-11 likely wasn't planned by him, he didn't participate in it. He just paid for it. So it would be more like if you paid a guy to come over here and break his neck on me, and I went over there and started beating up your family.
It was more than financing; that's why your statement that all we needed to do was raid his bank account, does not seem like enough.That's the bad thing about blood lust. They guys who did the 9-11 plot were dead. The remaining guy was the guy who signed the checks. If someone said "so we'll stage a sniper team to take him out" I'd be like "okay, not necessarily moral or just, but acceptable given the circumstances," because at least you're killing the right guy.
