..Are you serious AQ was behind Oklamhoma city bombing too... Actually, there is a LOT of cirmcumstantial evidence tht suggests the both AQ and the iraqis were behind the bombings in OK. You havent read our other threads on this, but here you go: http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/35-32545.asp http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/35-32560.asp http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/1678779 http://www.townhall.com/columnists/frankjgaffneyjr/fg20021119.shtml And an interview with the author: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14904 swhitebull - not paranoid conspiracy, but good indepth investigative reporting, UNLIKE CBS.

I agree with you not only does justice need to done - but more importantly it needs to seem to be done. In war of ideas, the persumed failing of Guantanmo bay are likely to be counter productive to American interests and aims in the 'war against terror'. The way that Pentgon has handled the PR side of this situation has not helped. Propaganda is a force multiplier. The way the Guantanamo bay sitution has been handled seems to show a lack of confidence. A legal process that met international standards would be far more effective even if many of those interned were freed- since it would demonstrate the difference between a society based on rule of law and socieites on whims of rulers.

..If AQ claim that dar Islaam should be extended (which also means House of Peace) how are they different from neo-cons who claim that 'democracy' or 'liberal market' should be extended everywhere... Perhaps - in your desire to force a moral equivalence argument here - because the neo-cons dont behead people, fly airplanes into Mecca, shriek death to Muslims at the top of their bloodthirsty mouths, exterminate non-believers from their lands, treat all religions on an equal basis, dont torture their enemies as a matter of religion or policy, treat their women with respect and not as virtual sex slaves, dont poison their children's minds with hatred of the West, of inifidels, and of Jews from the day they are born, and, while Im at it, actually bathe. Your attempt at moral relativism stinks to high heaven. THERE IS Good and Evil in this world - Al Qaeda - and those that support them, are purely evil- and deserve to be eradicated. Manichaeism philosophy IS relevant, and you are on the wrong side of this conflict. swhitebull - disgusting, I hope you get booted for this.

My god man, you really pick and chose things instead of looking at the totallity don't you. International standards that lead to the release of those found to be clear of terrorist taint? BEEN THERE DONE THAT! HAven't you noticed that dozens have been freed? Guess not, or you wouldn't be going down this fallacious line of reasoning. ANd that those dozens have filed suits against the US? Guess not. How many of these guys have been seeing lawyers? Quite a few after the SCOTUS said they needed to. By what international standards have their legal rights not been observed? PR? Okay sorkoi, what's important here: PR or Justice? They don't always go hand in hand, and you have to chose between one or the other. What international standards? That's an empty phrase unless you provide the definition. By Geneva definitions these boys and girls have been treated exactly as 'international standards' have called for..

I know this was addressed to displacedjim, but I guess I kind of started "the declaration of war" bit. "BTW the mighty USA doesn't need to be "declaring war" on a relativly small fry like bin Laden. Or give him and his boyz Geneva, or enemy combatant status! How stupid we would have looked when we failed to net the bait! As it is he's just another fugitive on the lamb -- which the long arm of the US Law will eventually capture or kill. Just like the 1000s of others DOA, or sitting in Gitmo waiting for their ACLU reps." The long arm of US law? How many times have I seen on this board that treating terrorism, especially AQ and OBL, as a law enforcement problem was a mistake. If you treat something as a law enforcement issue, aren't you governed by the constitution and all the rules and protections that entails? Then again, if you deal with terrorism as a military matter under a declaration of war, you are obligated to operate under a different set of rules. The Barbary Pirates didn't sail to our shores and attack our cities. What I seem to hearing here, is that we don't have to operate under any rules. Now, I know who the morally superior side of this conflict is, so do not misunderstand. I am saying that as the morally superior side we should stick to some rules, as that is what makes us morally superior. There may be times when that works against us, but so be it. If we don't operate under our principles, what the heck are we fighting for? A declaration of war would have defined our actions as being under a military set of rules. It would have shown the world just how serious we are about eliminating our enemies and reinforced our own resolve. And, elcid could get his sedition trials.

IMHO, we won't declare war for any one or more of three reasons: 1. Our leaders are chicken s**t and don't think Americans have the stomach to make sacrifices that are clear and defined, guaranteeing they will ask us to make sacrifices that are undefined and constantly questioned, or 2. They know that a declaration of war will make them follow a standard of behaviour they are unwilling to to submit to, or 3. They do not think the reasons for going to war are up to some standard that Americans will accept, ie. as in WWII where we were directly attacked by another nationstate. These reasons can be applied to any of our "wars" since 1945.

So on 12 Sep 01 declare war on the perpetrators of the acts of 9/11, on 5 Oct 01 declare war on Afghanistan as well for failing to cough up the goods, and procede to fight the Afghanistan Campaign in the same awesome way we did. I can see your point about OBL, barbary pirates, etc. and not needing/wanting to give them the legal status of wartime foes, but then why have we confused that issue by apparently being at war with them anyway? Either we are or we aren't, and if we aren't why are so many people in and out of the administration saying we are? I'm guessing the legal debate over the status of the Al Qaeda types we have in custody isn't finished, so why add fuel to the other side's arguments by using terminology that has so many people looking to apply war-time rules to these terrorists. On top of that, while the Taliban were only recognized as the government of Afghanistan by Pakistan and maybe someone else, everyone knows the government of Iraq was Saddam and his Ba'athist Party. It's just not the same thing as going after some extra-governmental, extra-territorial pirate group. Anyone taking a dispassionate look at our invasion of Iraq surely must recognize we waged war on Iraq. We should have been honest about it and declared war on Iraq on 26 Mar 03, and then proceded to wage yet another one of the most incredible campaigns in history. Regarding the insurance costs, I obviously have no idea, nor am I interested in doing the research you suggested. Not only do I not particularly care so far (but would be very interested to learn why I should care), as the cost of doing the right thing doesn't usually dissuade me (at least I'd like to think not), but depending on who's paying what to whom perhaps those are costs that rightfully ought to be borne as part of being responsible for our actions (maybe we could fund them out of reparations from Iraq). However, if you know something about this issue, or even if you don't, and share your knowledge with me--swell; if you don't--swell. Likewise with your suggestion that the Bush administration asked Congress to not declare war--share, or don't. Displacedjim

Gosh. 1. You do not know what side of the conflict I am on. I was not sure that it was condition that one had to have a side. I thought this was forum to discuss issues of strategy - I did not realize I was joining some strange cult where we all had to toe the party line.... 2. You hope that I get booted of the website because you do not agree the arguements- very democratic of you. 3. The argument for what is worth is simply stated that there are few wars that have been fought by the US which have not demonizied the enemy. I am wondering whether demonization of the enemy is such good strategy? 4. It would seem you and OBL do share intolerant Manichaean view of the world which does not allow for dissent from your views and you seem equally convinced you are right. 5. If raising elementary questions bothers you so much than why are in engaged in this discussion forum? Without differences of opinion or view what understand by discussion. 6. If you cannot accept the political nature of this conflict, if you do not believe that history is written by the victors, if you believe that whatever side you are on is on the side of the Angels- that's fine by me. For all know or care you believe in tooth fairy. If however, we are trying to have a discussion it is impossible to conduct in terms of subjective beliefs. To have a discussion requires to make claims that go beyond statements analogous to "I like blue because its the best color in the whole world." Like I said I do not claim to be an expert in this field and I am sure you are better informed than on I on many issues but what good is your expertise when it cannot engage with dissent.

"... internal fighting which killed ALL of the decendents of the Prophet." This would be news to thousand alive in the Muslim world who are decendent from the Prophet. The Sayyids (in the Maghreb they tend to be called Sharifs) throughout the Muslim world are recognizied as direct descendents of the Prophet. As you are probably aware el cid is derived from Sayyid (meaning lord) and used as honorific title to designate all those who are descended from the Prophet.

Quit being an ass. What do you think engaging dissent means? What, not pointing out holes in the reasoning? NOt attempting to explain why the countering view is wrong? That isn't engaging or tolerating dissent. That's capitulation to a differing view. You haven't really presented a full argument, dealing in vageuries instead, and then whine about people hitting you hard? Yes, SP is for discussion of ideas. You've presented yours and been presented with a differing view. Now how is that undemocratic or closed minded? 'bull and I have considered your arguements and eschewed them. Get over it. 'bull has reasons for taking the concept of civillians in NY being 'military targets.' I'm not at liberty to say what exactly, but there is more to it than the most obvious problem with what you are saying in essence: there is only 'total war' and not 'real war' as defined by von Clauswitz. That itself depends on something else you are using: relativism wrt any type of virtue. It all depends on culture, you say; and others absolutes are iffy on those grounds(but, somehow, the absolute of 'international standards' is allowable.) Then why complain about Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Iraq, or whatever? This Marxian/existentialistic arguement(it has elements of both) is tired. It's been done before, and been defeated before. Justice does not just pop up spontaneously. It's worked for. Justice is defined by the rule sets of the society you come from. Yet, you argue that justice is a necessity? Don't you see the paradox you just painted yourself into(or is your definition of justice the absolute/objectivist truth)? The definitin of justice you seem to be using is that defined by Enlightenment Liberalism, and yet you refuse to accept that there is a human cost in having it. You also fault the US for fighting an enemy which intends to expand the sphere of influence of Militant Islam at the expense Democratic Capitalism while making the arguement that they aren't all that different. So why care if the DC side happens to be winning, it's all political/cultural in origin, and since justice is relative it doesn't matter which side wins(using the postulates you've used to date). You're dissent has been engaged in the same spirit of you posting your views here. Defend your thesese, or accept that you are unable to persuade because you've run into superior arguements instead of whinning about closed minds(which mine most obviously is not)..