Active Users:313 Time:02/05/2024 08:43:46 PM
enemy combatants and terrorists imlad Send a noteboard - 23/11/2009 08:03:25 PM
I have issue with the whole concept of trying "enemy combatants."

This just doesn't make sense to me.

What I am referring to is the fact that we are trying combatants that are captured on the battlefield fighting against our troops. Go ahead, capture them. But try them in court?

Seriously? Did why try all the soldiers we caught during WWII? Did we put the rankers on trial for fighting against us? No we didn't. As a matter of fact, many of those (surviving) German and Italian and Japanese soldiers are free. Free to travel to and in the US even.

But the fighters we capture in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't treated the same way. Why? Probably because they are Third Worlders, muslims and brown. The whole concept of trying an enemy combatant is just ridiculous.

And don't even try throwing out the word "terrorist." That word is a quagmire if you ask me. There are so many definitions of that word it is beyond reason.

One group will say a terrorist is somebody who uses terror as a political tool (hmmm...sounds like the Bush/Cheney administration always talking about "the smoking gun coming in the form of a mushroom cloud" ). Another will claim it is a person who takes violent actions against "soft targets" (non-military). I can buy that. That makes the people who bomb buses and cafes terrorists. As well as the people who hijack airplanes. But that definition also catches our own military: we sure as hell blew up plenty of soft targets when we bombed the shit out of Baghdad. And that definition would also catch the Israeli Defense Force (who have bombed residential neighbourhoods all over Lebanon, not to mention all the refugee camps the IDF has bombed). But that definition doesn't make the people who bombed the Marine barracks in Beirut back in 1983 terrorists: that is a military target. As is the Pentagon; thats another legitimate military target during a war (and we are definitely at war). That definition wouldn't make that whack-job Army officer down at Fort Hood a terrorist. Some try to define a terrorist as a militant who does not belong to a national army. Well then, the Reagan Administration supported terrorists (ie: the Contras) back in the 80s, and one of the lead guys in that treason is a celebrated hero to the right wing nuts in American (talking about the terrorist supporter known as Col. Oliver North).

So terrorist is a bad word to try to use. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. And the same can be said of "insurgents." Hell, America's heroes in the Revolutionary War were frakking insurgents! And the British army sure as hell could have defined out troops (many of whom were NOT uniformed soldiers for a long time) as terrorists when they would hide behind trees sniping red-coat officers. That was a major violation at the time of the "rules of war."

I do not agree with the motives nor the methods of al-Qaeda or the Taliban, but I understand them. They are fighting an overwhelming force the only way they have. That was part of the point that the producers of Battlestar Galactica was making during the whole storyline revolving around New Caprica. And they have a very real fear that American and the rest of the West is EVIL. I don't think we are, but from their standpoint, that view is understandable. Just as I don't think bin-Laden is EVIL, I do think he is COMPLETELY WRONG. He is doing what he sees as necesarry to protect his faith and serve his god they (wrong-headed) way he believes.

This is part of why the whole idea of a "Global War on Terror" is both stupid and un-winnable. Not to mention the fact that for every single person we kill in this "war" we only recruit MORE "terrorists" from their surviving friends and families. Our "War on Terror" makes more "terrorists."

Now, for another way to show you the fallacy of the term terrorist, I direct you to an amazing op/ed piece I read a few years ago. (Sure, it is about a piece of fictional work, but I think it might make you think a bit). Follow the link below to a thread I just started on this board.

Oh yeah, and I'm sure you've all seen this scene from "Clerks" between Randall and Dante:

RANDAL You know what else I noticed in Jedi?

DANTE There's more?

RANDAL So they build another Death Star, right?

DANTE Yeah.

RANDAL Now the first one they built was completed and fully operational before the Rebels destroyed it.

DANTE Luke blew it up. Give credit where it's due.

RANDAL And the second one was still being built when they blew it up.

DANTE Compliments of Lando Calrissian.

RANDAL Something just never sat right with me the second time they destroyed it. I could never put my finger on it-something just wasn't right.

DANTE And you figured it out?

RANDAL Well, the thing is, the first Death Star was manned by the Imperial army-storm troopers, dignitaries- the only people onboard were Imperials.

DANTE Basically.
RANDAL So when they blew it up, no prob. Evil is punished.

DANTE And the second time around...?

RANDAL The second time around, it wasn't even finished yet. They were still under construction.

DANTE So?

RANDAL A construction job of that magnitude would require a helluva lot more manpower than the Imperial army had to offer. I'll bet there were independent contractors working on that thing: plumbers, aluminum siders, roofers.

DANTE Not just Imperials, is what you're getting at.

RANDAL Exactly. In order to get it built quickly and quietly they'd hire anybody who could do the job. Do you think the average storm trooper knows how to install a toilet main? All they know is killing and white uniforms.

DANTE All right, so even if independent contractors are working on the Death Star, why are you uneasy with its destruction?

RANDAL All those innocent contractors hired to do a job were killed- casualties of a war they had nothing to do with.

(notices Dante's confusion)
All right, look-you're a roofer, and some juicy government contract comes your way; you got the wife and kids and the two-story in suburbia-this is a government contract, which means all sorts of benefits. All of a sudden these left-wing militants blast you with lasers and wipe out everyone within a three-mile radius.


So, who were the terrorists in Star Wars, eh?
Death to the Regressives of the GOP and the TeaParty. No mercy for Conservatives. Burn them all at the stake for the hateful satanists they are.
A different take
Reply to message
No need to interrogate Osama bin Laden? - 20/11/2009 12:48:27 AM 997 Views
oO uhm, what? - 20/11/2009 12:54:13 AM 482 Views
Yeah, a lot of people were fuzzy on that till this started. - 20/11/2009 09:30:39 AM 509 Views
on the other hand, we're more than willing to take them out back with a confession. - 20/11/2009 06:34:12 PM 506 Views
As it seems we will. - 24/11/2009 09:41:18 AM 485 Views
New York is now asking for $75 MILLION for the KSM trial - 20/11/2009 01:43:26 AM 437 Views
Its to salve their conscinse - 20/11/2009 01:55:08 AM 439 Views
That's exactly the problem! - 20/11/2009 01:58:37 AM 464 Views
If this trial were being held in any other country - 20/11/2009 01:56:07 AM 465 Views
It's a terrible precedent no matter how you look at it. - 20/11/2009 02:13:46 AM 493 Views
It IS a terrible precdent, hence you and others are citing it 65 years after WWII ended. - 20/11/2009 09:23:45 AM 379 Views
Spare me the bullshit. - 20/11/2009 01:57:16 PM 375 Views
I will if you will. - 20/11/2009 02:55:30 PM 464 Views
No, you won't. You never will. - 20/11/2009 06:14:30 PM 361 Views
You're putting your cart before your horse is the problem. - 23/11/2009 05:40:46 AM 462 Views
No, that's not right. You don't read very closely. - 23/11/2009 02:21:54 PM 376 Views
In this case my reading comprehension is more than adequate. - 24/11/2009 09:16:39 AM 421 Views
You don't think this is a military struggle? Wow. - 20/11/2009 02:52:26 PM 417 Views
Allow me to point out... - 20/11/2009 03:02:33 PM 398 Views
Well, Timothy McVeigh was in OUR Army. - 20/11/2009 03:55:18 PM 515 Views
That's the thing, they aren't a terrorist group - 20/11/2009 04:54:31 PM 440 Views
It would help if you would offer any argument in favour of your stance. - 20/11/2009 08:43:08 PM 385 Views
I only use the word army cause I can't think of a better one - 21/11/2009 04:32:01 AM 398 Views
Yes. "Terrorist group". - 21/11/2009 12:02:04 PM 475 Views
Yeah I guess you're right - 22/11/2009 01:34:34 AM 387 Views
Military struggles involve militaries. - 20/11/2009 03:23:14 PM 551 Views
Once again, bullshit. - 20/11/2009 06:09:31 PM 521 Views
Aaaah, I see; it's a question of who's the master, is it? - 23/11/2009 07:47:43 AM 527 Views
You're wasting your time - 23/11/2009 02:24:57 PM 423 Views
This is wrong - 20/11/2009 07:41:35 PM 422 Views
We're a long way from the shore of Tripoli. - 23/11/2009 05:59:19 AM 469 Views
Nevertheless, uniforms or a nation is not a requirement - 23/11/2009 03:09:22 PM 431 Views
Rightly or wrongly, I disagree. - 24/11/2009 08:48:25 AM 477 Views
That is bad - 21/11/2009 12:31:04 AM 410 Views
You're not going far enough, man. - 20/11/2009 11:03:08 AM 457 Views
Blah blah blah blah blah *NM* - 20/11/2009 01:57:39 PM 193 Views
I just can't imagine how they expect to get a fair trial. - 20/11/2009 03:17:28 AM 383 Views
The Code of Conduct - 20/11/2009 07:23:02 PM 488 Views
The mention of God is interesting. *NM* - 21/11/2009 05:24:14 AM 307 Views
Your little diatribe in the beginning only makes me glad... - 22/11/2009 05:32:57 AM 543 Views
I understand your "jihadist narrative" - 22/11/2009 06:36:41 PM 527 Views
enemy combatants and terrorists - 23/11/2009 08:03:25 PM 498 Views
They're not different because from the Third World, but because terrorists. - 24/11/2009 08:09:13 AM 618 Views
not every soldier in history has worn a uniform - 24/11/2009 11:00:34 PM 293 Views
One example would be Ethan Allen and his Green Mountain Boys - 25/11/2009 06:23:08 PM 469 Views
Just for fun, let's call them fundamentalist vigilantes. *NM* - 24/11/2009 11:12:09 PM 167 Views
Works for me. - 01/12/2009 09:12:29 AM 449 Views

Reply to Message