Lets see how much play this gets...

[DarkDryad]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/05/25/malaysia.rights.reut/index.html

Suspected Muslim militants and others detained under Malaysia's tough security laws have been beaten, stripped naked and sexually humiliated, a U.S.-based human rights group has alleged in a report.

Oh noes!!! It cant be true!!!!! The US isnt the only ones who use these tactics. *sobs* Betcha this is gone in a day or so.

[Paelos]

I think the liberals just think it shouldn't happen and we shouldn't be the ones doing it, not that it doesn't happen.

Add that to the liberal list of the way they think the world should turn though and you get a wishbook worthy of a fairytale.

The best you can do is to be reactionary to the screwups, and proactive with good training.

[cevik]

I think the liberals just think it shouldn't happen and we shouldn't be the ones doing it, not that it doesn't happen.

So close, yet so far.  We think it shouldn't be happening, and we think we shouldn't be the ones doing it if it does happen, but we understand that there will be bad seeds and occasionally even nations great as ours will produce people that do these things and those people will be punished.  And we agree that the best you can do is be reactionary to the screwups when the screwups are just soldiers.

What we won't stand for, however, is our leaders http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact">ordering the torture of troops.  The outrage isn't that it happened, the outrage is that the Bush Administration ordered it to happen.

[Paelos]

I was moreso focusing on idealogy rather than your latest "wait and see" proof against the current administration. If they have enough to go on then by all means, start the justice wheel rolling.

I think we both know they don't, not to say they won't. Until then, it's the ravings of a media built on shock factors and me-tooism in my book.

[HaemishM]

I'm shocked! Shocked and appalled that MALAYSIA of all countries is using torture techniques for interrogation. What's next? Petty dictators cutting people's hands off?

In other news, the fucking sky is blue.

The shock and outrage over our troops abusing prisoners is from the double-talking president claiming that the torture chambers of the former dictator are no more, then finding out that not only are they just under new management, that management apparently has orders from one of his appointees.

We (the US) are supposed to be better than that, and so are our allies, by our own moral bluster. The fact that we aren't shouldn't be a shock to anyone.

[Aslan]

What I read from that, once I got past the words "New Yorker" and "fact" next to each other as if they belonged there, was that the Pentagon might have authorized sexual humiliation and physical coercion to extract information, which in and of itself is not torture, by definition.  And that said humiliation and coercion got out of hand when they allowed a few, I believe the word was hillbillies in the article, to enforce this.  It got out of hand because these kids didn't know what they were doing.  I seriously doubt the Pentagon authorized dog bitings, or killings.  Maybe the human pyramid, and maybe a bit of the chicks pointing at dicks, but so fucking what?  We are in a WAR and I don't think a bit of degredation is going to hurt anything.  
So from what I read of this article, the Pentagon authorized a program, one that did NOT include torture, as the Geneva defines it, and it got out of hand when some untrained people were brought in.  I don't see how this is the Bush Administration ORDERING torture and murder.  I see this as those in that prison doing stupid things and needing to be punished for it.  Which they ARE.  Those who knew or authorized the violations of the GC should and will be punished.  How you trace that back to Rummy and even farther the President himself, I don't get.   I never once saw in the article where Rummy or Bush said themselves, "Have dogs bite them and maybe even kill a few to get the message across."  You show me THAT and you'd have a case.

[HaemishM]

What the article said is that Rummy and Bush authorized a program that created the culture where such abuses could happen. They also did so by essentially classifying people as "illegal combatants" who are not protected by the Geneva Convention. They allowed the program to expand the definition of illegal combatant to anyone who might know a little something something about insurgency, such as the relatives of possible insurgents. There's the big problem. These people SHOULD have been protected under the Geneva Convention. And the article finishes it off with the most salient point:

“We’re giving the world a ready-made excuse to ignore the Geneva Conventions. Rumsfeld has lowered the bar.”

We have no right to complain if our enemies don't follow the Geneva Convention, because we only follow it when it's convenient for us. That's what this administration has done.

[Aslan]

Well, considering the fact that I never saw a fucking terrorist sit down for scones and tea whilst we delicately discuss the whys and wherefores of the cessation of hostilities, I don't see how that matters.  They NEVER followed the Geneva Convention, and if substantial evidence comes out that we did, then we were wrong and we are going to FIX it.  Whereas, they will keep mutilating Americans.  Tell me again how that doesn't give us the right to complain about them sawing the head off of a noncombantant?

[daveNYC]

It's about having the moral high ground.  It just doesn't sound as good when we say "Yes, we violate the Geneva Convention; but they violate it worse than we do."

If you're going to say you're better than the other guy, try to make sure the other guy isn't a fucking psychopath.

[Paelos]

I just think it's odd to try and put moral high ground and war in the same ideal. The only reason we even give two shits as a country about moral high ground is because we know we kick ass. In fact I wish I could put up a nice little sliding scale for you comparing the two. You'd see that the less ass you can kick, the less you care about morals when people are on your turf.

Of course, the moral code that we choose to live by can be very relative in a war. Utilitarians would be all for the torture of enemies if it led to saving allied lives. The truth is the Geneva Convention is very much like a contract between warring parties to play nice. That idea in and of itself is completely ridiculous in the terms of a war. What if somebody doesn't live up to the agreement, we're going to declare MORE war on them?

The point is it's easily broken with no recourse. Why should our enemies live up to an agreement when they know it gives them an advantage not to? They also know that instead of it being an agreement between two sovereign nations to keep the grisly part of capture out of war, it's merely a handcuff on the US to keep us from retaliating in kind. It basically plays right into the terrorists hands, they have nothing to fear and nothing to lose by violating it. So basically, when you get down to the bottom of the agreement, its there to make us feel better as a nation about our wars. Because, as we all know, if we responded in kind, that wouldn't make us better, and we need to be better than them. Because we're America, and we're the beacon on the hill for Democracy.

I can tell you one thing though, if stripping down all the prisoners we had and dressing them as Little Bo Peep would end the hostilities, I'd do it in a heartbeat and not think twice.

[Aslan]

And again the point can be raised that what GIVES us that moral high ground is not how delicate and nancy-boy we are about the war, but by how we respond to our own violations of what civilized war (snort) should be.  It's not that we lost the moral right to do what we are doing, we still have it, and I think that a quick and effective punishment to those responsible will clarify our position as the 'good guys' if you want to use that term.  We aren't honoring or clapping on the back those who violated those prisoners, the way I bet the beheader of that noncom American is getting lauded by HIS buddies.  Oh yeah, and ditto to everything paelos said.

[HaemishM]

It basically plays right into the terrorists hands, they have nothing to fear and nothing to lose by violating it.

Which is exactly what DV said, pretty much, and exactly why the terrorists are so easily able to do what they do.

However, think of the consequences to the world if our military and our government operated on the same principle. Do we really want to sink even close to the level of these nutjobs? Maybe that's the only way to beat them, but I'd like to think we're better than that. And when our leaders out right STATE that we are better than that with a condescending tone, speaking to the Iraqi people as if they were retarded children who we are going to magically bring into peace and fairy democracy land, I expect that the entire chain of command knows how to act to make that shit not seem hypocritical.

In the 1700's, warfare changed faces, and was nicknamed, "the sport of kings." It was a reaction to the bloody massacres of the previous centuries religious wars, such as the Thirty Years War. Certain rules were instituted and agreed to by all the combatants (except the Turks). Generals even had tea with each other before battles. And in the end, the great wars of the middle century barely changed the maps a few miles one way or the other.

There's a lesson in there somewhere.

[daveNYC]

I just think it's odd to try and put moral high ground and war in the same ideal.

We have to.  If the current War on Terror is to have any chance of succeding, it cannot be just about kicking ass and taking names.  The Rumster said it when he wrote the memo questioning if we were stopping (killing) terrorists faster than they were being recruited.

Haemish is right to compare this to the war on drugs, this isn't a war on a physical enemy as much as it's a war on the idea that America is the Enemy and must be destroyed.  Unless you want to open up a can of genocide on all Muslims, the only way to win this war is to try and convince people that we are not the Great Satan.

[cevik]

Haemish is right to compare this to the war on drugs, this isn't a war on a physical enemy as much as it's a war on the idea that America is the Enemy and must be destroyed.  Unless you want to open up a can of genocide on all Muslims, the only way to win this war is to try and convince people that we are not the Great Satan.

You do realize you are talking to neocons, right?

[Margalis]

Well, considering the fact that I never saw a fucking terrorist sit down for scones and tea whilst we delicately discuss the whys and wherefores of the cessation of hostilities, I don't see how that matters.

We just let out a bunch of people from that jail. They weren't terrorists. Almost none of the people in that jail are terrorists.

 Tell me again how that doesn't give us the right to complain about them sawing the head off of a noncombantant?

Who said that? Straw man, anyone? Complain all you want, it's sick.

This thread is stupid. WE DON'T LIVE IN MALAYSIA! We don't control what Malaysia does - we DO control what we do.

[Tebonas]

I wouldn't feel good if Malaysia decided to invade other countries to defend freedom and democracy, because that would be hypocritical.

See, and I would say that about every country that did such things.

[stray]

If you're going to say you're better than the other guy

How about "stronger", not "better? That's what it really is (and always has been) when it comes down to it.

[eldaec]

Malaysia never claimed they were so much better than iraq that they were entitled to invade.

[Tebonas]

Hence the usage of the word...

If

[Comstar]

We are in a WAR and I don't think a bit of degredation is going to hurt anything.  .

Be sure to say that the next time an american suffers degredation.

And I'm glad you agree you are at war. This the Geneva conventions apply. Seeing as they have been broken and ignored by BushCo, I assume you too want Rumsfield's head on a pike too?

[Aslan]

We are in a WAR and I don't think a bit of degredation is going to hurt anything.  .

Be sure to say that the next time an american suffers degredation.

Last time I checked, Americans don't suffer degredation, they suffer decapitation, let's try to see this with a modicum of perspective, shall we?

[Dark Vengeance]

Malaysia never claimed they were so much better than iraq that they were entitled to invade.

I wasn't aware that our justification was that we are "better", or even necessarily "stronger"....I believe our justification was that regime change in Iraq would improve our national security.

Our military and economic power merely made it feasible for us to invade without UN support and achieve a swift and decisive military victory. Which we did....the subsequent occupation has been another matter entirely.

The unfortunate side of this is that we are bound to Geneva conventions as an occupying country against mistreatment or abuse of POWs or Iraqi citizens. The Geneva convention totally ignores the fact that some of these folks are terrorists and/or insurgent groups that do not have the backing of any sovereign nation. Thus, they are NOT bound by the Geneva convention.

Our enemy has learned that they can gain an advantage by effectively being an army without a country or state sponsor. They will exploit that advantage to be a formless, shapeless force with quick strike ability and a near-constant advantage in the element of surprise. A good deal of their tactics read like something out of Sun Tzu's The Art of War. Essentially, they've learned how to get around any 'rules' that apply in modern warfare....it leaves us like the redcoats in the 18th century, lining up properly and honorably on the battlefield, and crying foul when the Native Americans, French, and revolutionaries don't fight fair.

Not that naked pyramid photos are going to give us some substantial advantage against them, or that it needs to be done at all. I just think perhaps the subject should be revisited, and the rules updated to reflect the very different world in which wars are being waged today.

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

[HaemishM]

War is not all that different today. I mean, the aims are the same. The use of guerilla tactics still accomplishes the same thing. Do you think the Catholic and Protestant armies of the Thirty Years War were somehow LESS brutal than Al-Qaeda? Or for that matter, the armies of the Crusaders and the Muslims, where the very idea of the "assasin" comes from? All of these motherfuckers burned entire villages, women, children, raping and pillaging and the like. Shit, William Wallace was every bit as brutal as Al Qaeda, and when he rampaged and sacked York, he was technically an army without a country. He sent the King of England the head of York's baron in a basket. The entire war of the Scottish Independence, with the exception of a few battles was fought with guerilla tactics which we would today consider "terrorist" acts. And those people were the same religion, almost the same ethnicity and all.

The details may differ, but the tactics are the same. Terror may be easier to spread via the easily-led, always salivating for the next story media, but it is the same core tactic. We use a loophole in the Geneva Convention to justify acts we perpetuate on terrorists, because they won't play on our set of rules. They don't "fight fair."

I wasn't aware that our justification was that we are "better", or even necessarily "stronger"....I believe our justification was that regime change in Iraq would improve our national security.

That was one of our justifications, which was subsequently proven to be a line of horse shit. We then switched justifications to the moral high ground, "freeing the oppressed Iraqi people!"

[Dark Vengeance]

Haemish, it takes a couple extra steps of logic....but removing an oppressive regime that is hostile to the US, and installing a democracy that is decidedly more US-friendly does have the long-term potential to improve our national security and help stabilize the region.

Turning an enemy into an ally is a good thing IMO, even if it does give the people of France and Germany another excuse to resent us, and another excuse for the left to despise the GOP. The goals of "freeing Iraq" and "improving our national security" are not mutually exclusive....after all, even when the administration was harping on WMDs, they still called the invasion "Operation Iraqi Freedom".

As to the rest of your post, the various examples you cited all share a commonality....a clear and achievable military objective. Al Qaeda has about as much of a military objective as the DC snipers (i.e. Muhammad & Malvo). It's not about land, or wealth, or political power....it's just about lashing out at "the Great Satan" in any way possible.

Since the enemy has no clear ties to any sovereign nation, nor any type of endorsement from a sovereign nation, we are fighting a war where there is no achievable military objective for the US, beyond "eternal vigilance". Go figure that in the pursuit of that objective, Bush has come off as a vigilante to some, due to his belief to be proactive and aggressive about prevention and pre-emptive efforts against terrorist organizations.

Obviously, the Geneva convention did not apply to William Wallace....though I see and agree with the parallels you've pointed out. But fundamentally, he fought for land and sovereignty. All I was getting at is that our modern "rules of war" are a standard which terrorists will never follow...perhaps the rules need to be modernized to account for such a conflict.

I'm not saying "let us torture prisoners", I'm saying that the terrorists gain strength, and inflict damage upon us based on advantages that we have granted them. Perhaps we need to re-examine what advantages we've allowed them is all.

But just to tread the other road, my personal take is that if it's a choice between treating terrorists with the same level of decency as a foreign soldier, citizen, or domestic prisoner versus preserving American lives...I tend to lean toward the "fuck the terrorists" side.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[daveNYC]

Haemish, it takes a couple extra steps of logic....but removing an oppressive regime that is hostile to the US, and installing a democracy that is decidedly more US-friendly does have the long-term potential to improve our national security and help stabilize the region.

Potentially, yes.  Remember though, that the fall of the USSR seemed like a good thing, but in the long term decreased our security by allowing former client organizations free reign.

Turning an enemy into an ally is a good thing IMO...

Yes, but I don't think that is what is going to happen.

...after all, even when the administration was harping on WMDs, they still called the invasion "Operation Iraqi Freedom".

Bah, what were they going to call it. "Operation Make Saddam Our Bitch"?  These stupid military operation names all sound like they were thought up by focus groups.  Did that start under Ronnie or Bush Sr.?  

But just to tread the other road, my personal take is that if it's a choice between treating terrorists with the same level of decency as a foreign soldier, citizen, or domestic prisoner versus preserving American lives...I tend to lean toward the "fuck the terrorists" side.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

Which might work well in the short term, but will not win the long term battle.  You can fight terrorists, and prevent them from striking using military power.  But to actually stamp out terrorism, you have to change the environment so that people don't want to commit acts of terror.  You could do that by using force to strike back at terrorists, and make the cost so high that people are too scared to attack you.  However due to the nebulous nature of most terrorist organizations, this is difficult to do.  Additionally you would need to maintain this high level of fear, otherwise terrorists would think you were soft and potentially attack.

The other choice is to combine military force (to prevent immediate attacks) with various types of touchy-feely actions in an attempt to get the people of the world to like us.  The theory being, if they like us, they won't be as likely to try and kill us.

Actions like "fuck the terrorists" might gain us a short term tactical advantage in the form of intelligence, but they hurt what should be our long term strategy by giving A-Q and its ilk the ability to recruit new members.

Sorry for the Brucing.

[HaemishM]

Al Qaeda most certainly does have a military objective, and it is the same one as William Wallace. They seek to found a holy land, free of what they consider the sinful influences of non-Muslims, and with a more pure form of what they consider Muslim law. In other words, Taliban-style Afghanistan. It isn't just about "The Great Satan," these wackjobs do actually have an aim. Unfortunately for everyone involved, their aim is removed from the reality of the situation that most Muslims don't really follow their whacked-out fanatical views of Islam, and we aren't going anywhere so long as there is sweet, sweet crude beneath them sands.

As batshit insane as terrorists are, they DO have a goal other than just creating chaos and anarchy. Chaos and anarchy are tools, not aims. The Palestinian terrorists (Islamic Jihad, Hamas, the PLO), have an aim of a Palestinian state, free of Zionist influence and control. Most of the radical Islamic fundamentalists have a similar aim.

As for removing a hostile regime (which we put into power in the first place), I do not feel that Iraq could have really been considered a credible enough enemy to be a threat to national security. They would have had to take over every oil field in the Middle East to really put a serious dent in our security. By 2002, they barely had a military capable of denting a brick shithouse.

EDIT: And now that I think about it, the biggest problem I think we have in fighting terrorists is our own mindset, and the lack of understanding of the Islamic mindset.

To an Islamic person, death is preferable to things like sexual humiliation. Shame is a more powerful fear than the fear of death, especially in the mind of someone who believes their death serves a greater cause that will be rewarded in the after life. Americans (and most Westerners) cannot grasp that concept. To us, saving lives is more important than inflicting pain and suffering on the enemy.

[eldaec]

I'm saying that the terrorists gain strength, and inflict damage upon us based on advantages that we have granted them. Perhaps we need to re-examine what advantages we've allowed them is all.

Yes. Advantages such as coalition forces being found torturing prisoners.

[eldaec]

other stuff...

We are in a WAR and I don't think a bit of degredation is going to hurt anything.  .

Be sure to say that the next time an american suffers degredation.

Last time I checked, Americans don't suffer degredation, they suffer decapitation, let's try to see this with a modicum of perspective, shall we?

Are you trying to tell me that photographs of piles of naked american hostages (men or women) with iraqis stood about leering, wouldn't cause significant comment if the previous week the Washington sniper had chosen to shoot an iraqi visiting the US?

Key point: the iraqis who killed that guy were *other iraqis*.

Yes, the US government is being held to higher standards than murderous ex-tyrants of third world countries. Or murderous gangs of terrorists. And even being held to higher standards than dubious governements of mostly democratic third world countries. This should neither be a surprise, nor something to get antsy about.

I would hope it's something to be proud of.

Haemish, it takes a couple extra steps of logic....but removing an oppressive regime that is hostile to the US, and installing a democracy that is decidedly more US-friendly does have the long-term potential to improve our national security and help stabilize the region.

100% true - unless of course you sink to the level of the previous bastards through the sort of crap discovered in the iraqi prison, in which case, regardless of intention, and regardless of morality, the effect will be to increase the power of islamic terrorists.

Removing tyrants is partly a military operation.

Installing democracy is not. It is entirely a political activity. And guess what, in politics, appearences matter.

Two seperate tasks.

[Dark Vengeance]

Bah, what were they going to call it. "Operation Make Saddam Our Bitch"?  These stupid military operation names all sound like they were thought up by focus groups.  Did that start under Ronnie or Bush Sr.?

So despite calling it "Operation Iraqi Freedom", freeing the people of Iraq wasn't one of our stated objectives? It may not have been our primary concern, or the main topic of discussion prior to the war, but once the term "regime change" crept into the conversation, it was pretty clear that freeing Iraqis was one of our objectives.

I agree that the naming convention is trite...much as I felt the same about the Patriot Act. There are certainly political issues with voting against such things....but it's nothing new to politics. Lawmakers have been mixing in urine with the sugar for years.

Which might work well in the short term, but will not win the long term battle. *snip*

Ultimately, when you are fighting a battle without a clear military objective, there is no long-term solution. "Making everyone like us", while effective, is also ridiculously unrealistic. Since all it takes is a pissed off individual with explosives to bring terrorism upon us, my opinion is that the only solution is eternal vigilance.

Bring the noise.
Cheers...............

[Dark Vengeance]

I'm saying that the terrorists gain strength, and inflict damage upon us based on advantages that we have granted them. Perhaps we need to re-examine what advantages we've allowed them is all.

Yes. Advantages such as coalition forces being found torturing prisoners.

Do me a favor....go look up the definition of torture. Then look up the definition of abuse. Christ, it's amazing that nobody has started referring to the naked pyramid as an atrocity yet.

I will concede that US forces abused prisoners, I will not concede torture. They are being used as synonyms in the discussion, and in this context, I do not agree with it.

You also miss the point entirely...I'm just suggesting that perhaps the "rules of war" be reviewed periodically to ensure that they remain relevant. Not suggesting that we tolerate the abuses that took place, merely that we recognize that this type of conflict is uniquely different from fighting war with a sovereign nation, and that perhaps the rules should be slightly different to reflect that.

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............[/url]

[Dark Vengeance]

Removing tyrants is partly a military operation.
Installing democracy is not.

There are a few thousand US troops in Iraq right now that would disagree with this sentiment.

Also, please read up on the sort of torture Saddam inflicted upon his prisoners. I don't care if we took enough naked photos to publish a weekly version of "Iraqi Playgirl", we are a far cry from anything done under the previous regime.

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

[Rasix]

I don't care if we took enough naked photos to publish a weekly version of "Iraqi Playgirl", we are a far cry from anything done under the previous regime.

How is this any sort of valid argument? It's like saying we're abusive pricks, but just not as bad as "those" abusive pricks. We're the "Saddam Lite" of prison abuse and torture (yes, sticking flashlights up prisoner's asses is torture).

We should be proud.

[daveNYC]

Bah, what were they going to call it. "Operation Make Saddam Our Bitch"?  These stupid military operation names all sound like they were thought up by focus groups.  Did that start under Ronnie or Bush Sr.?

So despite calling it "Operation Iraqi Freedom", freeing the people of Iraq wasn't one of our stated objectives?

Not really the issue, I was saying that the name of the operation doesn't mean shit.

When you say eternal vigilance, you mean eternal vigilance.  Unless something is done to improve people's idea of what America is, we will not win the war against terrorism.  The terrorists simply have too many juicy targets here, and we cannot be everywhere.

We need to 1: Shut down the current crop (generation) of terrorists, and 2: Stop the creation of new terrorists.  I'm not sure we're doing the former, and I'm damn sure we aren't doing the latter.

[Dark Vengeance]

Al Qaeda most certainly does have a military objective, and it is the same one as William Wallace. They seek to found a holy land, free of what they consider the sinful influences of non-Muslims, and with a more pure form of what they consider Muslim law. In other words, Taliban-style Afghanistan.*snip*

Correct me if I am wrong, but they HAD better than Taliban-style Afghanistan...they had the full blown thing. Yet, they decided to fly some planes into our buildings to lash out at us. They had a land for this shit, and merely used it as a planning ground to coordinate attacks on the sinful non-Muslims.

It isn't just about "The Great Satan," these wackjobs do actually have an aim. Unfortunately for everyone involved, their aim is removed from the reality of the situation that most Muslims don't really follow their whacked-out fanatical views of Islam, and we aren't going anywhere so long as there is sweet, sweet crude beneath them sands.

That is an idealogical battle, not a military one. When it comes to making everyone follow their purified Muslim law, or killing them, that is not a military objective. Their aim is based on what people think and believe, not about a specific piece of land or wealth or power. Converting people to their system of belief or wiping them out is more akin to the Spanish Inquisition or the introduction of Christianity to the Native Americans than it is to the plight of Scotland or Vietnam.

As batshit insane as terrorists are, they DO have a goal other than just creating chaos and anarchy. Chaos and anarchy are tools, not aims. The Palestinian terrorists (Islamic Jihad, Hamas, the PLO), have an aim of a Palestinian state, free of Zionist influence and control. Most of the radical Islamic fundamentalists have a similar aim.

The Palestinians are fighting for what they believe to be their homeland....that's why we can't just carve out a section of Wyoming and send them to live there. They don't just want land, they want THAT specific piece of land.

As for removing a hostile regime (which we put into power in the first place), I do not feel that Iraq could have really been considered a credible enough enemy to be a threat to national security. They would have had to take over every oil field in the Middle East to really put a serious dent in our security. By 2002, they barely had a military capable of denting a brick shithouse.

Don't think in terms of Iraqi military forces attacking our country. It doesn't take air strikes and tanks....our national security can be compromised with a dozen boxcutters. The bigger concern was that Iraq would harbor, train, or otherwise support terrorist actions against us.

When you consider the possibility of WMDs, now you've got a serious threat. A terrorist with a very small amount of VX could do a lot of damage. Whether you believe the reports on WMDs were intentional deception, bad intel, or something else, that kind of potential represented a fairly serious threat. Hindsight is 20/20 on the matter.

EDIT: And now that I think about it, the biggest problem I think we have in fighting terrorists is our own mindset, and the lack of understanding of the Islamic mindset.*snip*

Agreed.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[HaemishM]

Al Qaeda most certainly does have a military objective, and it is the same one as William Wallace. They seek to found a holy land, free of what they consider the sinful influences of non-Muslims, and with a more pure form of what they consider Muslim law. In other words, Taliban-style Afghanistan.*snip*

Correct me if I am wrong, but they HAD better than Taliban-style Afghanistan...they had the full blown thing. Yet, they decided to fly some planes into our buildings to lash out at us. They had a land for this shit, and merely used it as a planning ground to coordinate attacks on the sinful non-Muslims.

While they did have Taliban Afghanistan, Israel still existed and defiled their holy land, Palestine did not have its own state, Saudi Arabia was still linked at the hip to the US, etc.

They don't just want Afghanistan. They want the entire Middle East. They will not stop until all American influence is gone from the Middle East, what they consider their holy land. Afghanistan was just going to be the start of it. That's why the sent the planes into the buildings.

Again, nothing the intelligence Washington has at the time (at least that I've heard, or that I've heard that intelligence officials had) was credible enough to say that Iraq was training or trading with terrorists. While they COULD have been, the truth of the matter is that Saudi Arabia has provided more aid to known terrorists than Iraq ever thought of.