Milosevic dies in jail

[rmnunez]

I would prefer that MY country would have the courage of our convictions rather than doing what's expedient because we're so afraid.

Terrorism is a new problem, it is not known how to tackle it successfully. Holding suspects is a good first choice, demanding they be handled with the same due process guarantees and processed like other criminals have been before, may not be the best answer.

The complexity of legal procedure, its rules for evidence, standards for probable cause, relevance, admissibility and such, obviously don't adequately address concerns relating to multijurisdictional criminal conspiracies which involve efforts to bring about political change.

To err on the wrong side will have disastrous consequences, but choices need to be made. It is better to confront terrorism by force than to either ignore the problem or try and bargain with them. It is also preferable to hold terrorists prisoner than to kill them or let them go. Beyond this, we need all sorts of refinements, but to apply old templates to radical, international, religiously-premised crimes against humanity through terrorism isn't the answer.

[RickSp]

Quote by: rmnunez Terrorism is a new problem, it is not known how to tackle it successfully. Holding suspects is a good first choice, demanding they be handled with the same due process guarantees and processed like other criminals have been before, may not be the best answer.

There is absolutely nothing new about terrorism. It is as old as history. Terrorism has always been the tool of the weak against the strong. The state also uses terrorism, though it is called instead "policy".

[rmnunez]

I disagree with the hamster, I can appreciate how there have been other forms of terrorism in the past, but the terrorism of concern here has unique features never seen before; it is eminently international, religiously-inspired and much more lethal in its individual attacks.

[RickSp]

Quote by: rmnunez I disagree with the hamster, I can appreciate how there have been other forms of terrorism in the past, but the terrorism of concern here has unique features never seen before; it is eminently international, religiously-inspired and much more lethal in its individual attacks.

You might consider learning a bit more history. The international and religious inspiration of terrorism are anything but new. The Isma'ili followers of Hassan, the "Assassins" were crossing international borders and killing with religious intent almost a thousand years ago. There is also very little new about modern terrorism, except weaponry, and even that is incremental. The terrorist weapon of choice is still the explosive device, which hasn't really changed since the Gunpowder Plot of 1605.

And it is a bunny with a pancake on its head, not a hamster.

[rmnunez]

Enlighten me on this Gunpowder plot, I take it these were religious fanatics with cells in many countries killing thousands of people just like they do today?

[RickSp]

Quote by: rmnunez Enlighten me on this Gunpowder plot, I take it these were religious fanatics with cells in many countries killing thousands of people just like they do today?

No, the Assassins were religious fanatics with cells in many countries killing leaders at will. Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder Plot involved an attempt to assassinate the King of England and both Houses of Parliament. It was motivated by religion and came close to succeeding. They managed to smuggle 2.5 tons of gunpowder into the basement below the House of Lords. Guy Fawkes Day is still celebrated on November 5th in Great Britain.

Claiming that terrorism is "new" is a feeble attempt to justify extreme measures to respond to what is in fact an age old problem.

[rmnunez]

Scotish separatism 4 centuries ago cannot be reasonably analogized to Islamic fundamentalist-inspired martyrs operating in international cells to purge humanity of its non-Muslims -even though both have resorted to explosives.

Terrorists of the sort now confronted, though they seek somewhat political goals by force (like Guy Fawkes) have determined the best way to accomplish this is by attacking civilians, rather than the parliamentarians aimed at then.

If members of some separatist group, without all these international connections seen in Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, were caught, due process guarantees could be more easily applied as the evidence, language, and laws of the relevant jurisdiction not as diverse as is the case now. Moreover, we now recognize self-government as a universal human right.

[RickSp]

That is absurd senor. First you define terrorists as in-human monsters - an old and tired technique to justify your own barbarism. Islamic terrorists have various goals but purging "humanity of its non-Muslims" is not one of them, except perhaps in your more fevered fantasies.

Your suggestion that terrorists only attack civilians is equally ludicrous. Terrorists throughout history, including Islamic terrorists, have targeted both civilians and political leaders. Even 9/11 was not only an attack on civilians unless you choose to ignore the attack on the Pentagon and the attempted attack on either the White House or the Capital building. If Guy Fawkes had succeeded, his act of terrorism would have far succeed the impact of 9/11. You preference to dismiss the Gunpowder Plot demonstrates your preference to ignore history more than anything else.

[rmnunez]

Did Guy Fawkes focus his efforts on killing innocent civilians?

Islamic fundamentalists aspire to the creation of a new caliphate. A Caliph is a religious and political figure endowed with the capacity to call for a jihad, which is a religious war against infidels -this is why I say these Islamic fundamentalists seek to exterminate the world of non-Muslims. That this is their aim is in ample evidence, everything any of the Islamic fundamentalist-inspired terrorist leaders have ever said, in all of their public threats or claims of responsibility for their barbaric acts -has always been prefaced with religious incantantions and sprinkled with such terms; they call their terrorist members "martyrs" or "mujahedeen", their confrontation is a "jihad", their enemy "infidels"...

[RickSp]

Quote by: rmnunez Did Guy Fawkes focus his efforts on killing innocent civilians?

No, and as I have pointed out, neither have most terrorists who have targeted both civilians and political leaders. Ignore history, even recent history, if you will, but that doesn't change it.

Quote by: rmnunez Islamic fundamentalists aspire to the creation of a new caliphate. A Caliph is a religious and political figure endowed with the capacity to call for a jihad, which is a religious war against infidels -this is why I say these Islamic fundamentalists seek to exterminate the world of non-Muslims. That this is their aim is in ample evidence, everything any of the Islamic fundamentalist-inspired terrorist leaders have ever said, in all of their public threats or claims of responsibility for their barbaric acts -has always been prefaced with religious incantantions and sprinkled with such terms; they call their terrorist members "martyrs" or "mujahedeen", their confrontation is a "jihad", their enemy "infidels"...

Oh please. Spare me your farcial hysterics. One of the Islamist goals is the restoration of the caliphate, which was in Baghdad and ended in 1258. This goal does not require the extermination of two thirds of the world's population as you claim. As I have suggested before, claiming that your enemies are inhuman monsters bent on global destruction says far more about you than them.

[Scribbler1]

So why then do so many of them go around saying "death to America" and other pleasantries? I'm pretty sure this caliphate of thirs is nowhere in the US.
And they were saying this before we were ever anywhere near Baghdad if memory serves.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Scribbler1 So why then do so many of them go around saying "death to America" and other pleasantries? I'm pretty sure this caliphate of thirs is nowhere in the US. And they were saying this before we were ever anywhere near Baghdad if memory serves.

So you are basing their position on chants and placards? I would expect a bit more nuanced perspective from you Scrib.

Bin Laden's complaints were the presence of US military in Saudi, effectively occupying Islam's holy sites, and our continued support of Israel. "Death to America" makes a better chant. Bin Laden also would have supported those who shouted "Death to Saddam", a secular despot controlling the seat of the Caliphate as well as the holy city of Najaf.

Anyone who claims that the Islamists want to eradicate all non-Muslims is delusional.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: RickSp So you are basing their position on chants and placards? I would expect a bit more nuanced perspective from you Scrib.

That wasn't perspective, it was a question. A question you have yet to answer. You are basically dismissing my question "why then do so many of them go around saying "death to America" without showing WHY you dismiss it.

Bin Laden's complaints were the presence of US military in Saudi, effectively occupying Islam's holy sites, and our continued support of Israel. "Death to America" makes a better chant. Bin Laden also would have supported those who shouted "Death to Saddam", a secular despot controlling the seat of the Caliphate as well as the holy city of Najaf.

I have been hearing this "death to America" stuff LONG before Bin Laden became a household word. Somehow the flap over that damned cartoon even ended up with death threats against the US.

Anyone who claims that the Islamists want to eradicate all non-Muslims is delusional.

Okay, educate me. You obviously know something I don't.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Scribbler1 That wasn't perspective, it was a question. A question you have yet to answer. You are basically dismissing my question "why then do so many of them go around saying "death to America" without showing WHY you dismiss it. I have been hearing this "death to America" stuff LONG before Bin Laden became a household word. Somehow the flap over that damned cartoon even ended up with death threats against the US. Okay, educate me. You obviously know something I don't.

I was reacting specifically to nunez's claim that the Islamists were intent on ridding the world of non-Muslims. I contend that is a ridiculous claim, just as the suggestion that "terrorism" is new ignores a few thousand years of history.

My point was that "Death to America" is a lot easier to paint onto a banner than a more complicated and accurate statement. When during the Iranian revolution the students were chanting "Death to the Great Satan (America)" in 1979 my guess was that they were not suggesting a worldwide campaign to kill everyone in America. I'd bet they were saying that they were sick and tired of living under the dictatarship of the Shah, a despot who had been installed by a CIA lead coup in 1953. They were pissed at the United States and had a right to be.

And my guess is that the recent riots weren't just about cartoons but about larger complaints against the West, their own repressive governments and on and on and on. I am not saying that the riots were rational or admirable, only that even radical Muslims are not in-human monsters who will not rest until they have drunk our blood. But hasn't this been beaten to death already in another thread?

[rmnunez]

Rick, I said before that critics of US foreign policy read into Islamic fundamentalist-inspired rhetoric what they think would animate people to express outrage against the US too. If the critic is most concerned with human rights, the sexual humiliation of captives at US military hands would be the reason for their terrorism. A critic who finds most offensive continued support for Israel, figures this is what fires them up. A critic who is particularly mindful of income disparities will have you know its about unemployed youths in impoverished slums denied meaningful opportunities and education.

Your example just above works beautifully. Iranians stormed the US embassy because

They were pissed at the United States and had a right to be

for installing and supporting the Shah whom you find was a despot.

my guess is that the recent riots weren't just about cartoons but about larger complaints against the West, their own repressive governments and on and on and on.

[RickSp]

Imperialists often define their enemies as the mirror image of themselves.

The imperialists want to dominate the world and spread goodness, light and virtue, regardless of how many of the savages they need to butcher along the way, whereas your enemies want to dominate the world and, in your words, "to purge humanity of its non-Muslims." Your fantasy Islamist is but a mirror image of yourself.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: RickSp I was reacting specifically to nunez's claim that the Islamists were intent on ridding the world of non-Muslims. I contend that is a ridiculous claim, just as the suggestion that "terrorism" is new ignores a few thousand years of history.

Since you quoted ME I thought you were responding to me.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Since you quoted ME I thought you were responding to me.

Being obtuse this morning I see. You responded to my response to nunez and now you complain about that clairification. Why bother?

[rmnunez]

Rick:

Imperialists often define their enemies as the mirror image of themselves.

And critical lefties often describe their friends as the mirror image of themselves.

One of the Islamist goals is the restoration of the caliphate, which was in Baghdad and ended in 1258. This goal does not require the extermination of two thirds of the world's population as you claim.

Restoring the caliphate does not require slaughtering two thirds of humanity, this is required by the caliph who calls for the jihad -after the caliphate gets restored. Erradication of the infidel is the prerequisite aim of the caliph-called jihad.

[RickSp]

Quote by: rmnunez Rick: Restoring the caliphate does not require slaughtering two thirds of humanity, this is required by the caliph who calls for the jihad -after the caliphate gets restored. Erradication of the infidel is the prerequisite aim of the caliph-called jihad.

LOL. So now you are an expert in radical Islam. Where did you read this, Daniel Pipes or some other Muslim basher?

Here is the raving of one radical megomaniac:

"It is the policy of Al Qaeda to seek and support jihad in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending Zionism and crusaderism in our world. In the world today, the fundamental character of regimes matters as much as the distribution of power among them. The goal of our struggle is to help create a world of Islamic, well-governed states that can meet the needs of their citizens and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system.

Of course this was not a spokesman of AlQaeda, but George Bush in his State of the Union Speech. I only substituted "Al Qaeda" for the "United States" , "jihad" for "democracy", "Zionism and crusaderism" for "tyranny" and "Islamic" for "democratic".

No mirror image you say?