Assassination

[spot]

This is from General Order 100, written at the request of Abraham Lincoln in 1863 and issued to US armed forces. Are the current rules "relapses into barbarism", as he says?

Art. 148. The law of war does not allow proclaiming either an individual belonging to the hostile army, or a citizen, or a subject of the hostile government, an outlaw, who may be slain without trial by any captor, any more than the modern law of peace allows such intentional outlawry; on the contrary, it abhors such outrage. The sternest retaliation should follow the murder committed in consequence of such proclamation, made by whatever authority. Civilized nations look with horror upon offers of rewards for the assassination of enemies as relapses into barbarism.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE FIELD

[Ahso!]

Its a good question. I really don't know right now because so much has changed since that Code was written. I think its much more important to get the dangerous people because of the available means to do so much damage to innocent people (Not that what the U.S. is doing is really much better).

I think guerrilla tactics have changed war itself and therefore the rules governing it.

[spot]

Guerrilla tactics weren't employed in the Civil War? I beg to differ.

The trouble is, you're choosing to trust your Government both in its assessment of danger and it's choice of targets. Some of those on the US Death Lists are American citizens; I only mention that because it might have some bearing for US posters here. There's no right to trial, not even a declaration of charges, just assassination and a far greater "collateral damage" - the deaths of bystanders - in the process.

Do you really trust your Government to the extent of waiving trials whenever they declare it expedient?

[Lon]

spot;1286049 wrote: This is from General Order 100, written at the request of Abraham Lincoln in 1863 and issued to US armed forces. Are the current rules "relapses into barbarism", as he says?

Art. 148. The law of war does not allow proclaiming either an individual belonging to the hostile army, or a citizen, or a subject of the hostile government, an outlaw, who may be slain without trial by any captor, any more than the modern law of peace allows such intentional outlawry; on the contrary, it abhors such outrage. The sternest retaliation should follow the murder committed in consequence of such proclamation, made by whatever authority. Civilized nations look with horror upon offers of rewards for the assassination of enemies as relapses into barbarism.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE FIELD




No more a "relapse into barbarism" than soldiers used as cannon fodder and in the present napalm, present nuclear & present 21st high tech ability to slaughter people en masse----definitely not barbaric.

[Ahso!]

I expect Guerrilla tactic were used during the Civil War but not as the formal method of warfare itself. Theres no front in this so called war.

I'm not sure a trial with an absentee defendant is much different than trusting the government. But no I don't trust any government in that situation.

[spot]

Perhaps Honest Abe would have regarded all those as relapses into barbarism, Lon. Lord knows he'd have had reason to.

[spot]

Ahso!;1286072 wrote: I'm not sure a trial with an absentee defendant is much different than trusting the government. But no I don't trust any government in that situation.


I think my minimum definition of "trial" would be a knowledge of the charges, on the part of the defendant, and the voice of defence counsel to answer them.

[spot]

Ahso!;1286072 wrote: I expect Guerrilla tactic were used during the Civil War but not as the formal method of warfare itself.


Bushwhacker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia both Union and Confederate. It sounds pretty formally tied to the armies themselves, to me.

"In most areas, irregular warfare operated as an adjunct to conventional military operations. The most famous such "partisan ranger" (to use the title adopted by the Confederate government in formally authorizing such insurgents) was Col. John Singleton Mosby, who carried out raids on Union forces in the Shenandoah Valley and northern Virginia. Partisan rangers were also authorized in Arkansas [...] The conflict with Confederate bushwhackers everywhere rapidly escalated into a succession of atrocities committed by both sides".

[Ahso!]

Yes but one side or the other could cause the cessation of those activities with a formal surrender or win, its not like that anymore, its all Guerrilla warfare with this current situation. I doubt there will ever be any formal anything with this.

[spot]

That's what you get when you spend 42% of the world's arms budget on your forces. Nobody can fight you any other way, but you none the less need to be sent home beaten or you'll just carry on empire-building. The Viet Cong managed it. Cuba managed it. Iran's managed it. Now Pakistan is managing it.

[Ahso!]

spot;1286095 wrote: That's what you get when you spend 42% of the world's arms budget on your forces. Nobody can fight you any other way, but you none the less need to be sent home beaten or you'll just carry on empire-building. The Viet Cong managed it. Cuba managed it. Iran's managed it. Now Pakistan is managing it.You can say it that way or you can say: That's what the rest of the world gets for playing a game with a participant that doesn't like to lose.

America is always a forward thinking culture. The first three conflicts you mentioned served as learning opportunities for the U.S.. America has to get everything not just right, but perfect. That's why nothing much seems to get done. We micro study, micro analyze, micro torture ourselves to death until its as perfect as perfect can be.

If Pakistan succeeds as you suggest. it won't be for lack of military or intellectual ability, it will be because the will of the majority of Americans denounce the ongoing reluctance to end the wars. You already know that though.

[spot]

"the ongoing reluctance to end the wars"? Is that what US deployment abroad consists of? What war was in progress in Iraq that led to the deployment? Or, for that matter, in Afghanistan? You confuse effective police enforcement with the projection of power.

Effective police enforcement doesn't involve assassination, either.

What you actually have in US government circles is amoral criminal opportunism.

[Ahso!]

spot;1286111 wrote: "the ongoing reluctance to end the wars"? Is that what US deployment abroad consists of? What war was in progress in Iraq that led to the deployment? Or, for that matter, in Afghanistan? You confuse effective police enforcement with the projection of power.

Effective police enforcement doesn't involve assassination, either.

What you actually have in US government circles is amoral criminal opportunism.It may be but its no more amoral than not fighting a formal type war in the minds of many here.

We both know the history of all this and I think its probably useless to rehash it. I don't at this point agree with either activity on the part of the U.S.. But what does one expect when you pick on the biggest kid on the block and kill many of its innocent family members? They are going to hit back hard and long until. Thats war and the people that gave us 9/11 asked for it. the fact that they refuse to stand up and fight openly rather than hide behind women and children is not our fault, we fight to win, and I think our enemies are learning that lesson. Lets see how they respond to their defeats (if any are left standing)?

[spot]

Ahso!;1286119 wrote: It may be but its no more amoral than not fighting a formal type war in the minds of many here.

We both know the history of all this and I think its probably useless to rehash it. I don't at this point agree with either activity on the part of the U.S.. But what does one expect when you pick on the biggest kid on the block and kill many of its innocent family members? They are going to hit back hard and long until. Thats war and the people that gave us 9/11 asked for it. the fact that they refuse to stand up and fight openly rather than hide behind women and children is not our fault, we fight to win, and I think our enemies are learning that lesson. Lets see how they respond to their defeats (if any are left standing)?


The people that gave you 9/11 - besides the Bush Administration totally failing to prevent what was eminently preventable - were a small group of criminal fundamentalists eager to embroil the US armed forces in the Middle East, to harden Muslim opinion against the West. They were neither the people nor the government of either Iraq or Afghanistan, though they may well have included extreme elements of Pakistan's intelligence service. The US is a puppet on a string to Al Qaeda, the Muslim reaction to these occupations is everything that could have been hoped for by the extremists. I haven't the slightest idea why so many Americans can't see something so blindingly obvious.

The other government that routinely authorizes the assassination of people is Israel's. There's no more bitter twist to "relapses into barbarism" than that one. Like America, Israel used to enjoy a fund of international goodwill.

[Ahso!]

spot;1286124 wrote: The people that gave you 9/11 - besides the Bush Administration totally failing to preventing what was eminently preventable - were a small group of criminal fundamentalists eager to embroil the US armed forces in the Middle East, to harden Muslim opinion against the West. They were neither the people nor the government of either Iraq or Afghanistan, though they may well have included extreme elements of Pakistan's intelligence service. The US is a puppet on a string to Al Qaeda, the Muslim reaction to these occupations is everything that could have been hoped for by the extremists. I haven't the slightest idea why so many Americans can't see something so blindingly obvious.

The other government that routinely authorizes the assassination of people is Israel's. There's no more bitter twist to "relapses into barbarism" than that one. Like America, Israel used to enjoy a fund of international goodwill.I won't denounce my country for its association with Israel regardless of how much that relationship irks me.

I'm not going to admit the claim that the Bush administration knew more than we know because thats just speculation. It may be correct speculation, but its unproven speculation just the same.

There was a time I entertained the "puppet on a string" theory, but no longer give it any credence simply because the U.S. will not tire unless as I stated before, the American people mass protest.

When you think about this in totality, the missteps of Al Qaeda are numerous and just plain stupid. They do this with a hot headed, unsure, gun slingin', arm swingin' yahoo in office in the beginning of his term no less when he is at the bottom of the opinion polls. Pretty dumb..And it goes from there. They will lose this whatever it is unless the American people come to their rescue.

This small group of criminal fundamentalists have grown to a significant group. But you know what America says to that? Good let em all join one by one so we can be rid of them all. If they join the fight they were probably enemies in waiting anyway. Thats the mindset of Americans and it ain't changin' any time soon.

Iraq and Afghanistan were in enough disarray and and the governments over there were both vile enough for the American people to, one; approve of the invasions and, two; still live with occupying both countries. Even the more liberal people on this board when pressed will give approval to regime change there as they become more familiar with the laws and consequences of disobeying those laws.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban better hope the American people change their attitude regarding these whatevers, but I see the American people becoming more complacent and distracted by economic events.

[spot]

Ahso!;1286119 wrote: The fact that they refuse to stand up and fight openly rather than hide behind women and children is not our fault, we fight to win, and I think our enemies are learning that lesson. Lets see how they respond to their defeats (if any are left standing)?


To what extent does that differ from what would have been said in the Soviet Union in the mid-eighties?

[Ahso!]

spot;1286149 wrote: To what extent does that differ from what would have been said in the Soviet Union in the mid-eighties?What we saw as Americans during that time was a less capable military botching up an easy win.

We became involved in that thing for educational purposes. We got to take a close look at our enemy and study them. For us that was what gave Reagan the balls to challenge the Soviet Union. We weren't so much rooting for the Afghans as much as we were amused with the Soviets.

That conflict may be why we are doing this thing so methodically and slow.

[gmc]

spot;1286149 wrote: To what extent does that differ from what would have been said in the Soviet Union in the mid-eighties?


Don't forget who weighed in supplying arms and giving training in guerilla warfare to those who were fighting the russians and trying to overthrow the afghan government of the time.

Posted by ahso

I think guerrilla tactics have changed war itself and therefore the rules governing it.




Geurrilla tactics are nothing new and youi would be hard pushed to find a major conflict in history where geurrilla tatcics weren't used at some time or another. They've always been used when a weaker opponent is faced with a vastly superior enemy military one. The US has forces special trained in guerrilla tactics-you actually call the special forces-and there has always been an argument about whether such tactics are "proper" in war with sheer expediency and effectiveness always winning out in the end. You did indeed send some to afghanistan in the eighties to train the taliban et al, so did we as it happens.

Terrorism isn't new either-it was a terrorist act that started ww1 for instance and terror has always been by state authorities somewhere in the world to keep control.

What has changed warfare is the ability for a militarily superior nation to take out a weaker from afar with no real consequences for the one doing it. It gives the illusion war is clinical and only the bad guys actually get killed so going to war is somehow not the awful thing it used to be-it happens far away ans afew people get killed or maimed but if it's not our family or you don;t see the cripples it has no impact, you can almost go to war with no consequences and it is a tool you can use to solve problems rather than a dreadful last resort.

The present conflict is not a war of nation states when it's a terrorist you are taking on then conventional armies and warfare are worse than useless-especially when you invade a country that had nothing to do with the terrorists.

When it really gets down to all out war rules go out the window and it's destroy your enemy, the thing is politicians and religious leaders can get us in to such conflicts if the people don't occasionally squeeze their balls and remind them who's boss.

[spot]

gmc;1286390 wrote: The present conflict is not a war of nation states when it's a terrorist you are taking on then conventional armies and warfare are worse than useless-especially when you invade a country that had nothing to do with the terrorists. It depends on what you mean by "the present conflict". The occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan involve domestic insurgencies, not terrorism. The Taliban aren't terrorists any more than the French or Norwegian resistance was in World War Two. Alongside those conflicts there's also the terrorist activity of Al Qaeda egging Western forces into greater conflict with Muslims in the Middle East. The two activities scarcely overlap at all and they have no common purpose.

[gmc]

spot;1286394 wrote: It depends on what you mean by "the present conflict". The occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan involve domestic insurgencies, not terrorism. The Taliban aren't terrorists any more than the French or Norwegian resistance was in World War Two. Alongside those conflicts there's also the terrorist activity of Al Qaeda egging Western forces into greater conflict with Muslims in the Middle East. The two activities scarcely overlap at all and they have no common purpose.


I use present conflict for want of a better way of describing it.

[Ahso!]

spot;1286394 wrote: It depends on what you mean by "the present conflict". The occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan involve domestic insurgencies, not terrorism. The Taliban aren't terrorists any more than the French or Norwegian resistance was in World War Two. Alongside those conflicts there's also the terrorist activity of Al Qaeda egging Western forces into greater conflict with Muslims in the Middle East. The two activities scarcely overlap at all and they have no common purpose.What the United States military has done on its own terms is define those insurgents equally with terrorists. Maybe to their thinking its: We're here to find terrorists. We will leave everyone else alone. However, if you decide to attempt to hamper our efforts we will have no choice but to view you as either terrorist too or at least sympathizers assisting them.

I'm sure you'll jump and scream about that, but it is what it is.

The best thing the Afghan people can do IMO is stay clear of the terrorists and if they force themselves on the population, kill them or turn them in to American forces. Thats the best chance they have of ending this thing as quickly as possible.

[spot]

Ahso!;1286666 wrote: What the United States military has done on its own terms is define those insurgents equally with terrorists. Maybe to their thinking its: We're here to find terrorists. We will leave everyone else alone. However, if you decide to attempt to hamper our efforts we will have no choice but to view you as either terrorist too or at least sympathizers assisting them.


So what did Americans call the Contras?

[Ahso!]

spot;1286694 wrote: So what did Americans call the Contras?Not sure what you mean. But They didn't do what Al Qeada did to Americans so theres a difference. This action, as you know, is pretty unique all around. Conventionality has been tossed out the window on this one.

I know you're a student of history and ethics, but really, its all new now.

[Saint_]

My cousin Abraham, (twice removed on my mother's side) was an amazing man. To answer the question, yes. Putting out bounties for enemies is barbarous. Is this any surprise after the war that spawned Abu Graib and outsourced torture?

Bush is a war criminal.

[Ahso!]

One can also say that Al Qeada is doing the same thing. Surely any person offering either money or paradise for assassinating Americans is equally illegal. Two wrongs don't make a right, but this terrorist organization is dirty. The United States military will destroy the organization. Make no mistake about that.

[spot]

Ahso!;1286700 wrote: Not sure what you mean. But They didn't do what Al Qeada did to Americans so theres a difference. This action, as you know, is pretty unique all around. Conventionality has been tossed out the window on this one.

I know you're a student of history and ethics, but really, its all new now.


You'd not call Nicaraguans American? Maybe that's a big part of the problem. The US refuses to allow neighbouring countries their own foreign policy, on pain of death. The Middle East adventurism is just an extension of an old principle.

United States and state terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is a good starting point when considering who did what to whom, and how many died in the process of spreading "Freedom and Democracy" at gunpoint.

[Ahso!]

spot;1286718 wrote: You'd not call Nicaraguans American? Maybe that's a big part of the problem. The US refuses to allow neighbouring countries their own foreign policy, on pain of death. The Middle East adventurism is just an extension of an old principle.

United States and state terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is a good starting point when considering who did what to whom, and how many died in the process of spreading "Freedom and Democracy" at gunpoint.I don't need convincing, you're singing to the choir. Though I'm not sure I agree with your third sentence. I believe it is/was convenience more than anything, but perhaps thats what you mean.

Our media's hands are all over this thing. They spoon feed us the stuff that makes us want to support our governments actions. But what can a person expect - they're American too.

That's American style group mentality unfortunately, at least up to this point. Many of us are hoping it changes sooner rather than later. Americans think in terms of survival and winning, and thats about it. Its throughly ingrained in our psyche. Most of our people are well indoctrinated in those two principles that its all we do in our professional lives and in our spare time. Everything our entertainment is molded by it.

[Oscar Namechange]

Ahso!;1286700 wrote: Not sure what you mean. But They didn't do what Al Qeada did to Americans so theres a difference. This action, as you know, is pretty unique all around. Conventionality has been tossed out the window on this one.

I know you're a student of history and ethics, but really, its all new now.


You are losing the war against Al-Quada.

If you really believe that the US Military will some-how defeat once and for all Al-Quada and the Taliban, then your very wrong. The difference this time round is that you have now had 3 attacks on your home-land, 9/11, Fort Hood, and a near disaster from a Nigerian Al-Qada recruit on a US plane on Christmas Day.

Obama could have saved you when his pre-election promise to close Guantánamo looked a reality yet a year later he Is dragging his heels only to fuel more Al-Qada recruits.

I predict that the US will have more and more Al-Quada attacks on your home-land. I prey they are not successfull but they will surely come and I don't believe your Country is prepared for them.

[Ahso!]

oscar;1286806 wrote: You are losing the war against Al-Quada.

If you really believe that the US Military will some-how defeat once and for all Al-Quada and the Taliban, then your very wrong. The difference this time round is that you have now had 3 attacks on your home-land, 9/11, Fort Hood, and a near disaster from a Nigerian Al-Qada recruit on a US plane on Christmas Day.

Obama could have saved you when his pre-election promise to close Guantánamo looked a reality yet a year later he Is dragging his heels only to fuel more Al-Qada recruits.

I predict that the US will have more and more Al-Quada attacks on your home-land. I prey they are not successfull but they will surely come and I don't believe your Country is prepared for them."More and More Al Qeada attacks?" Really! put that into some kind of perspective for me, will you? Are you saying that there will come a time when the U.S. will be attacked so often by Al Qeada that it will happen monthly, weekly, daily or hourly? Give me something a little more concrete than what you said.

The minute Bush picked up that bull horn in NYC, this thing was essentially over from a military and intellectual standpoint. America's military is its number one asset - its a machine. People have no idea of its capabilities. When I was in the military in the mid 70's it was spectacular with the very limited amount that I got to see, today it must be truly something else. You as an outsider haven't even had the view I've had. I'm telling you, Al Qeada doesn't stand a chance unless the American people call the dogs off, and that too appears to have been dealt with pretty effectively at this point.

You'd be much better served making a different argument instead of one betting against the American military..

[Oscar Namechange]

Ahso!;1286819 wrote: "More and More Al Qeada attacks?" Really! put that into some kind of perspective for me, will you? Are you saying that there will come a time when the U.S. will be attacked so often by Al Qeada that it will happen monthly, weekly, daily or hourly? Give me something a little more concrete than what you said.

The minute Bush picked up that bull horn in NYC, this thing was essentially over from a military and intellectual standpoint. America's military is its number one asset - its a machine. People have no idea of its capabilities. When I was in the military in the mid 70's it was spectacular with the very limited amount that I got to see, today it must be truly something else. You as an outsider haven't even had the view I've had. I'm telling you, Al Qeada doesn't stand a chance unless the American people call the dogs off, and that too appears to have been dealt with pretty effectively at this point.

You'd be much better served making a different argument instead of one betting against the American military..


Firstly, I have read many of your posts since you returned here and I found you Un-Patriotic at times. Here you are know In fighting talk.

Secondly, you seem perfectly adept at coming Into British Political threads yet when I comment about the US, you deem me an outsider.

Thirdly, and I do apologise before-hand, but your line of ' intellectual standpoint'. did raise a titter in my house given that Dubya is not exactly renowed for his 'Intelligence'.

The Military was spectacular In the mid 70's was It? Vietnam war, 1961-1975, one of your biggest humiliations In the history of the US Military. You could not defeat the Việt Cộng.

YouTube - Nineteen - Paul Hardcastle



Prior, you lost 33,000 men due to you Intervention Into South Korea 1950-1953. Your Intervention Into Somalia 1992 was nothing short of a disaster.

CUBA l961 Command operation CIA-directed exile invasion fails.

GERMANY l961 Nuclear threat Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.

LAOS 1962 Command operation Military buildup during guerrilla war.

CUBA l962 Nuclear threat, naval Blockade during missile crisis; near-war with Soviet Union.

IRAQ 1963 Command operation CIA organizes coup that killed president, brings Ba'ath Party to power, and Saddam Hussein back from exile to be head of the secret service.

PANAMA l964 Troops Panamanians shot for urging canal's return.

INDONESIA l965 Command operation Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1965-66 Troops, bombing Marines land during election campaign.

GUATEMALA l966-67 Command operation Green Berets intervene against rebels.

CAMBODIA l969-75 Bombing, troops, naval Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos.

OMAN l970 Command operation U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.

LAOS l971-73 Command operation, bombing U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside.

.

MIDEAST 1973 Nuclear threat World-wide alert during Mideast War.

CHILE 1973 Command operation CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president.

CAMBODIA l975 Troops, bombing Gas captured ship, 28 die in copter crash.

ANGOLA l976-92 Command operation CIA assists South African-backed rebels.


Source; http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossma ... tions.html

Prior to 9/11, the US never believed they would be attacked on your home-land. 9/11 not only woke you up but also recruited more extremists to the cause of Al-Qada after the US and the UK Illegally Invaded a Soveriegn Nation of Iraq.

The pilots in the planes of 9/11 were Saudi not Iraqi or Afghan. The US military can not and will not find Bin Laden. All the time your are In iraq and Afghan, you will recruit more extremists to the cause to attack you on your home-land.

You want me to put figure on my prediction that you will be attacked agin on your home-land? I predict there will be another serious attack such as Fort Hood within a year. Possibly another 9/11 within 3 years. God forbid, I don't want to see It happen but your Country is not prepared and Is not capable of dealing with It. Many of the foiled attempts by Al-Qada on your home-land Is down to British Intelligence. Why do you think we have never had a 9/11 or a Lockerbie? Although Lockerbie happened to come down over Scotland when the belief Is, it was planned to go down at sea. The attacks will keep coming and If you really think they won't, then you need help.

[Ahso!]

oscar;1286834 wrote: Firstly, I have read many of your posts since you returned here and I found you Un-Patriotic at times. Here you are know In fighting talk.

Secondly, you seem perfectly adept at coming Into British Political threads yet when I comment about the US, you deem me an outsider.

Thirdly, and I do apologise before-hand, but your line of ' intellectual standpoint'. did raise a titter in my house given that Dubya is not exactly renowed for his 'Intelligence'.

The Military was spectacular In the mid 70's was It? Vietnam war, 1961-1975, one of your biggest humiliations In the history of the US Military. You could not defeat the Việt Cộng.

YouTube - Nineteen - Paul Hardcastle



Prior, you lost 33,000 men due to you Intervention Into South Korea 1950-1953. Your Intervention Into Somalia 1992 was nothing short of a disaster.

CUBA l961 Command operation CIA-directed exile invasion fails.

GERMANY l961 Nuclear threat Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.

LAOS 1962 Command operation Military buildup during guerrilla war.

CUBA l962 Nuclear threat, naval Blockade during missile crisis; near-war with Soviet Union.

IRAQ 1963 Command operation CIA organizes coup that killed president, brings Ba'ath Party to power, and Saddam Hussein back from exile to be head of the secret service.

PANAMA l964 Troops Panamanians shot for urging canal's return.

INDONESIA l965 Command operation Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1965-66 Troops, bombing Marines land during election campaign.

GUATEMALA l966-67 Command operation Green Berets intervene against rebels.

CAMBODIA l969-75 Bombing, troops, naval Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos.

OMAN l970 Command operation U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.

LAOS l971-73 Command operation, bombing U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside.

.

MIDEAST 1973 Nuclear threat World-wide alert during Mideast War.

CHILE 1973 Command operation CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president.

CAMBODIA l975 Troops, bombing Gas captured ship, 28 die in copter crash.

ANGOLA l976-92 Command operation CIA assists South African-backed rebels.


Source; http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/gros...rventions.html



Prior to 9/11, the US never believed they would be attacked on your home-land. 9/11 not only woke you up but also recruited more extremists to the cause of Al-Qada after the US and the UK Illegally Invaded a Soveriegn Nation of Iraq.

The pilots in the planes of 9/11 were Saudi not Iraqi or Afghan. The US military can not and will not find Bin Laden. All the time your are In iraq and Afghan, you will recruit more extremists to the cause to attack you on your home-land.

You want me to put figure on my prediction that you will be attacked agin on your home-land? I predict there will be another serious attack such as Fort Hood within a year. Possibly another 9/11 within 3 years. God forbid, I don't want to see It happen but your Country is not prepared and Is not capable of dealing with It. Many of the foiled attempts by Al-Qada on your home-land Is down to British Intelligence. Why do you think we have never had a 9/11 or a Lockerbie? Although Lockerbie happened to come down over Scotland when the belief Is, it was planned to go down at sea. The attacks will keep coming and If you really think they won't, then you need help.


:wah:

I'm not going to bother responding to any of this as you once again have projected your anger and now added defensiveness. Perhaps if you come back to this after some time and decide to respond appropriately reasonable I may continue to engage you, otherwise, Oscar, please don't bother me.

[gmc]

Ahso!;1286819 wrote: "More and More Al Qeada attacks?" Really! put that into some kind of perspective for me, will you? Are you saying that there will come a time when the U.S. will be attacked so often by Al Qeada that it will happen monthly, weekly, daily or hourly? Give me something a little more concrete than what you said.

The minute Bush picked up that bull horn in NYC, this thing was essentially over from a military and intellectual standpoint. America's military is its number one asset - its a machine. People have no idea of its capabilities. When I was in the military in the mid 70's it was spectacular with the very limited amount that I got to see, today it must be truly something else. You as an outsider haven't even had the view I've had. I'm telling you, Al Qeada doesn't stand a chance unless the American people call the dogs off, and that too appears to have been dealt with pretty effectively at this point.

You'd be much better served making a different argument instead of one betting against the American military..


This isn't a conventional war. If it were the us military would win hands down. But all the taliban have to do is bide their time and take over when the foreign troops go. They will be defeated but only by the Afghans themselves when they decide they have had enough and take action against them. Look at Iran-there are clear signs the fundamentalists are losing their grip-left alone moderates will eventually win out-they always do. But people will unite behind any government when attacked from outside I would suggest Bush has helped sustain rather than counter iranian extremists.

Iraq will have it's civil war when all the foreign troops leave and sort out their own problems-which arguably they should have been left to do in the first place. It will be a religious war along sunni/shia lines with extremists on both sides setting the pace initially. The kurds want independence so you will see a three way conflict with Turkey chiming in because don't want the kurds getting independence-guess where all the oil is. Turkey should make life interesting-a nato ally with a large military and fighting it's own battle to keep the state secular. Some conflicts need to be fought to their conclusion, europe did it and you did it as well in the 1860's we're not really that much more civilised when it comes right down to it. Maybe the middle east need to have own wars to sort things out without interference from former colonial powers and cold war antagonisms getting in the way.

It's your foreign policy that has caused all the animosity against the states in the middle east the notion that al-Qaeda want to destroy your way of life might have some validity but the notion that they have any chance of actually doing so is silly. How likely are Americans to vote for an islamic government?

Never mind the hows and wherefores of it all the best way to defeat terrorists is to cut off the finance. That is down to Saudi Arabia who do little of anything to cut the flow of funds to extremists. But then why should they-their main rivals in the middle east have been so weakened they are not a problem any more.

It's all a mess, unfortunately military force is not the answer however much you would like it to be.

Pakistan is a bit more serious than the situation in iran, china shares a border with pakistan and afghanistan-how do you think they will react to a fundamentalist, nuclear armed pakistan? It's not likely india will sit still for it either-they also have nuclear weapons and can afford aircraft carriers which is more than we can nowadays.

I think Bush and Blair had some kind of demented religious fervour governing their actions which is why the invasion of iraq makes no sense. It's really hard to conceive of someone doing things for irrational reasons so you end up convincing yourself they must be right in some way when you know it is insane I think that's what happened in both our countries. You look for a rational reason-can't find one and rationalise things anyway. Blair as good as admitted his religious belief in a crusade against islam was guiding him.

But at least they are both in places where they can't do much harm any more but what a mess we let them get us in to.

posted by oscar

Firstly, I have read many of your posts since you returned here and I found you Un-Patriotic at times. Here you are know In fighting talk.


In a free country criticising your government doesn't make you unpatriotic. He's probably proud to be an american which they all seem to be. Not being an American is a blessing they can't appreciate:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl (no offence intended just couldn't resist saying that)

[Oscar Namechange]

Ahso!;1286855 wrote: :wah:

I'm not going to bother responding to any of this as you once again have projected your anger and now added defensiveness. Perhaps if you come back to this after some time and decide to respond appropriately reasonable I may continue to engage you, otherwise, Oscar, please don't bother me. :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

In other words.. You have absolutely no way of answering my post.

I really didn't expect you to actually come back after my post and debate your history of failed Interventions on foriegn soil but I was looking forward to at least seeing how you'd get round the long line of dismal failures your country has had regarding your Military machine, but you don't have the Intellect you think you have, to do It, do you? Your reply to my post is what the British term as 'A cop out'. :yh_rotfl

There you go Ahso... Oscar knows a heck of alot more about your countries military record than you thought eh? :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl



Watch this in full Ahso......... awwwww, you must be so proud !!!

[Ahso!]

oscar;1286929 wrote: :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

In other words.. You have absolutely no way of answering my post.

I really didn't expect you to actually come back after my post and debate your history of failed Interventions on foriegn soil but I was looking forward to at least seeing how you'd get round the long line of dismal failures your country has had regarding your Military machine, but you don't have the Intellect you think you have, to do It, do you? Your reply to my post is what the British term as 'A cop out'. :yh_rotfl

There you go Ahso... Oscar knows a heck of alot more about your countries military record than you thought eh? :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotflThis will be the last time I address you on these terms, Oscar. When you decide to calm down, be respectful, read the thread and converse appropriately, I will also respond in kind.

That goes for this thread and all others. As long as you behave as the adult you are, you will be rewarded in kind, otherwise your posts will here forward be ignored.

[Oscar Namechange]

Ahso!;1286930 wrote: This will be the last time I address you on these terms, Oscar. When you decide to calm down, be respectful, read the thread and converse appropriately, I will also respond in kind.

That goes for this thread and all others. As long as you behave as the adult you are, you will be rewarded in kind, otherwise your posts will here forward be ignored.
My My My... To us another well known British term...'You quite Fancy yourself don't you?' Rewarded by You? Goodness me, that will be the day.

OK then Ahso... let's see you Intellectually debate the failed missions I quoted you In my earlier Post.

Why do you think the US Military were Unable to defeat The Việt Cộng and what do you believe the US gained from that Intervention? Let's start there shall we? Nice easy questions that a man of your Intellect should have no trouble answering.

[Ahso!]

gmc;1286870 wrote: This isn't a conventional war. If it were the us military would win hands down. But all the taliban have to do is bide their time and take over when the foreign troops go. They will be defeated but only by the Afghans themselves when they decide they have had enough and take action against them. Look at Iran-there are clear signs the fundamentalists are losing their grip-left alone moderates will eventually win out-they always do. But people will unite behind any government when attacked from outside I would suggest Bush has helped sustain rather than counter iranian extremists.It will be interesting to see whether or not the U.S. accepts this possible mediated settlement the UN claims has been brought up. But I think I've recently seen headlines that the Taliban is denying it anyway. I think the U.S. would prefer it that way. I really don't think the U.S, will be leaving Afghanistan anytime soon or even in the near future. Anyway, the Taliban isn't really the concern of America, they've just been made to look like the bad guy's by our media to keep the American people focused on what a repressive regime they were so to give way to staying.

The American military is right where its wants to be right now. Lets not forget they chose Iraq and Afghanistan, not the other way around. And they chose those two countries as was stated earlier in the thread because both countries were vulnerable and vile enough that the military knew even though it would take some work from a marketing standpoint, the American people would buy into both conflicts eventually, which is what we are now seeing more of although it has to do with complacency and distraction. For all we know this entire financial crisis may have been fabricated in order to distract the American people so to stay engaged in these two theater's. I'm not saying it is, but its not beyond possibility.

gmc;1286870 wrote: Iraq will have it's civil war when all the foreign troops leave and sort out their own problems-which arguably they should have been left to do in the first place. It will be a religious war along sunni/shia lines with extremists on both sides setting the pace initially. The kurds want independence so you will see a three way conflict with Turkey chiming in because don't want the kurds getting independence-guess where all the oil is. Turkey should make life interesting-a nato ally with a large military and fighting it's own battle to keep the state secular. Some conflicts need to be fought to their conclusion, europe did it and you did it as well in the 1860's we're not really that much more civilised when it comes right down to it. Maybe the middle east need to have own wars to sort things out without interference from former colonial powers and cold war antagonisms getting in the way.Perhaps you're correct about Iraq, You guy's are closer and probably have info we don't. But I don't think the American military cares about that anymore. That is the trade off for exiting earlier than Bush wanted.

gmc;1286870 wrote: It's your foreign policy that has caused all the animosity against the states in the middle east the notion that al-Qaeda want to destroy your way of life might have some validity but the notion that they have any chance of actually doing so is silly. How likely are Americans to vote for an islamic government?I agree with you about our forign policy being the instigator here but Al Qaeda should have never done what it did. Nineteen people killed 2973 American in one day not to mention all those that have died or will die from the consequences of the attacks. That is a lot of Americans per each hijacker.

gmc;1286870 wrote: Never mind the hows and wherefores of it all the best way to defeat terrorists is to cut off the finance. That is down to Saudi Arabia who do little of anything to cut the flow of funds to extremists. But then why should they-their main rivals in the middle east have been so weakened they are not a problem any more.The money supply is also being dealt with, but America wants these people dead, period.

gmc;1286870 wrote: It's all a mess, unfortunately military force is not the answer however much you would like it to be.Military force is exactly what will be the answer if the American military and government has its say.



gmc;1286870 wrote: I think Bush and Blair had some kind of demented religious fervour governing their actions which is why the invasion of iraq makes no sense. It's really hard to conceive of someone doing things for irrational reasons so you end up convincing yourself they must be right in some way when you know it is insane I think that's what happened in both our countries. You look for a rational reason-can't find one and rationalise things anyway. Blair as good as admitted his religious belief in a crusade against islam was guiding him.

But at least they are both in places where they can't do much harm any more but what a mess we let them get us in to.Theres not much doubt in my mind Bush believed his presidency had divine intervention and has basically said so if I remember correctly. He believes his God made him president because the attacks were coming. Don't know about Blair, but something had to be moving him.

[Oscar Namechange]

Ahso!;1286950 wrote: It will be interesting to see whether or not the U.S. accepts this possible mediated settlement the UN claims has been brought up. But I think I've recently seen headlines that the Taliban is denying it anyway. I think the U.S. would prefer it that way. I really don't think the U.S, will be leaving Afghanistan anytime soon or even in the near future. Anyway, the Taliban isn't really the concern of America, they've just been made to look like the bad guy's by our media to keep the American people focused on what a repressive regime they were so to give way to staying.

The American military is right where its wants to be right now. Lets not forget they chose Iraq and Afghanistan, not the other way around. And they chose those two countries as was stated earlier in the thread because both countries were vulnerable and vile enough that the military knew even though it would take some work from a marketing standpoint, the American people would buy into both conflicts eventually, which is what we are now seeing more of although it has to do with complacency and distraction. For all we know this entire financial crisis may have been fabricated in order to distract the American people so to stay engaged in these two theater's. I'm not saying it is, but its not beyond possibility.

Perhaps you're correct about Iraq, You guy's are closer and probably have info we don't. But I don't think the American military cares about that anymore. That is the trade off for exiting earlier than Bush wanted.

I agree with you about our forign policy being the instigator here but Al Qaeda should have never done what it did. Nineteen people killed 2973 American in one day not to mention all those that have died or will die from the consequences of the attacks. That is a lot of Americans per each hijacker.

The money supply is also being dealt with, but America wants these people dead, period.

Military force is exactly what will be the answer if the American military and government has its say.



Theres not much doubt in my mind Bush believed his presidency had divine intervention and has basically said so if I remember correctly. He believes his God made him president because the attacks were coming. Don't know about Blair, but something had to be moving him.
hmm So lets' ask the expert another question here. besides what did the US actually gain from the Vietnam war, perhaps you could tell us what the US has benifited by, so far In Afghanistan?

[K.Snyder]

Ahso!;1286147 wrote: I'm not going to admit the claim that the Bush administration knew more than we know because thats just speculation. It may be correct speculation, but its unproven speculation just the same.


The simple fact of the matter is that American Airlines and United Airlines failed to keep the people of America, as well as others, safe. Everybody is divinely obligated to make the most moral choice in any given situation and they failed to do it. It's that simple.

There have been other attacks in America but what failed the people on that day was capitalism at it's "finest":yh_sick!

This logically, related to moral intelligence, demands a police action! Every immoral act demands a police action!

[gmc]

posted by ahso

I agree with you about our forign policy being the instigator here but Al Qaeda should have never done what it did. Nineteen people killed 2973 American in one day not to mention all those that have died or will die from the consequences of the attacks. That is a lot of Americans per each hijacker.


No they shouldn't and you should have gone after them mob handed. That you didn't and went in to iraq instead is a great disservice that bush has done for his country that in time the american people might understand more clearly. had you gone after bin laden in Afghanistan the whole world would have cheered you on instead all the very genuine sympathy and support bush pissed up a wall managing to antagonise all your allies in the process. The long term damage is still working itself out and it's also bankrupting your country.

posted by ahso

For all we know this entire financial crisis may have been fabricated in order to distract the American people so to stay engaged in these two theater's. I'm not saying it is, but its not beyond possibility.


It's right wing economic and foreign policy to blame. it always fails-your economy is no longer a capitalist one bit a corporatist one-something both Roosevelt and Eisenhower warned about the dangers of. (just found our recently that roosevelt gave the same warning) I think you will eventually sort things out but it will be interesting.

posted by ahso

The American military is right where its wants to be right now. Lets not forget they chose Iraq and Afghanistan, not the other way around.




Did they really? I thought the civilians told them what to do. No military wants to get involved in a long war of attrition if they can help it. They US military are superbly trained for fighting another equally well prepared nation state and blasting them to bits. war against terrorists/insurgents using ied's and the like is a whole different ball game and is far harder to train troops to cope with it. You can't win unless the people support you wholeheartedly and you can't get that support if you keep killing them as collateral damage and the most powerful air force and army in the world is the wrong tool. Better not to have got in to it in the first place. Getting out of it won't be a simple military solution.

[Oscar Namechange]

gmc;1287054 wrote: posted by ahso



No they shouldn't and you should have gone after them mob handed. That you didn't and went in to iraq instead is a great disservice that bush has done for his country that in time the american people might understand more clearly. had you gone after bin laden in Afghanistan the whole world would have cheered you on instead all the very genuine sympathy and support bush pissed up a wall managing to antagonise all your allies in the process. The long term damage is still working itself out and it's also bankrupting your country.

posted by ahso



It's right wing economic and foreign policy to blame. it always fails-your economy is no longer a capitalist one bit a corporatist one-something both Roosevelt and Eisenhower warned about the dangers of. (just found our recently that roosevelt gave the same warning) I think you will eventually sort things out but it will be interesting.

posted by ahso



Did they really? I thought the civilians told them what to do. No military wants to get involved in a long war of attrition if they can help it. They US military are superbly trained for fighting another equally well prepared nation state and blasting them to bits. war against terrorists/insurgents using ied's and the like is a whole different ball game and is far harder to train troops to cope with it. You can't win unless the people support you wholeheartedly and you can't get that support if you keep killing them as collateral damage and the most powerful air force and army in the world is the wrong tool. Better not to have got in to it in the first place. Getting out of it won't be a simple military solution.:yh_clap:yh_clap:yh_clap:yh_clap Well said.