Contrary to popular belief, entire populations do not hate the western world.

That’s what I said. Your remarks were targeting (pun intended) terrorists, as were mine. TERRORTISTS are the fundies, not entire populations.

Now, the problem becomes how do we deal with those fundies who are developing and encouraging terrorists? Those fundies KNOW what they are doing, even if their followers do not, or are programed to ignore the evidence. I submit the likelihood of eliminating such fundies is very remote.

I heard a remark this week that makes a lot of sense to me: “This world is ruled by the aggressive use of violence.” I don’t like the statement, but I have to agree with its wide application. I’m hoping to find some way to raise a generation that does not require the perpetuation of this rule. 

you do realize you’re dealing with True Believers™? WE ARE WHAT THEY THINK WE ARE. They are thinking wrong. DUH!

Well… no.  They obviously need someone to “connect the dots” for them or they wouldn’t need to keep preaching their bullshit.  A few religious fanatics (or clever secularists) are using the religion to CREATE other fanatics.  Contrary to popular belief, entire populations do not hate the western world.  They need to be told to hate us and provided with incentives to fight us.  We need to go after those potential recruits and make it clear to them that they do not need to risk or give up their lives just to kill us in order to improve the lives of their people.

Make no mistake, there is little difference between those fanatical Muslims and people like the Westboro Baptists except the standard of living we have here in the U.S.  If our country was wracked with poverty and continually kicked around politically by people from some other region on Earth, you can bet those Baptists will be able to find quite a few religious people who have nothing left to lose by fighting or even dying for some stupid cause the the WB’s convince them is worth it, but they won’t be fanatics until the WB’s get a hold of them.

The only way to combat terrorism is to show them we are not what they think we are.  The sooner we come to grips with that uncomfortable reality the faster we can start dealing with the problem of “terrorism” effectively.  Until we do, the body count will just keep going up.

Ummm – you do realize you’re dealing with True Believers™? WE ARE WHAT THEY THINK WE ARE. They are thinking wrong. DUH! 

Aside from all humanitarian issues, it’s just bad tactics.

A pity that it would even be necessary to make any other case than humanitarian.  But the bad tactics aspect is exactly what Gen. McChrystal was saying.

Yep.  The way we’re going at it, we’re making enemies faster than we can kill them.  Aside from all humanitarian issues, it’s just bad tactics.

First of all, keep in mind that they are (hopefully) closing Gitmo, but not releasing or promising to get on with trying any of the prisoners there.  They’re getting rid of the symptom, but I haven’t seen any movement on the cause.

Secondly, why did it take 7 years to figure out this guy wasn’t a terrorist?  Was this something that Obama started or was it something in the works that just took 7 years to produce results?  Either way, we deserve an explanation.

And of course the ever popular (but no less important) “Why aren’t we charging the remaining prisoners with crimes or setting them free?”

I can’t help but wonder…

When this guy saw the Twin Towers collapse. Did he see it as progress, or a shame.

Did you, Paul?  The people that blew up the Trade Towers were no more Muslim than a serial killer telling people that God talks to him is a Christian.  They are deluded, or being used by people who are deluded, or worse being used by people who don’t even believe in Allah.  There are only a few “guilty” terrorists in the world, and none of them are in custody.  The rest are victims as surely as the 3,000 who lost their lives on 9/11.  The War on Terror is not going to be won in places like Gitmo.  It’s not going to be won in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.  You kill a terrorist, more will take his place.  You accidentally kill a civilian, or arrest the wrong people, or hold people without trial, you create ten, maybe a hundred, maybe a thousand more terrorists.  The only way to combat terrorism is to show them we are not what they think we are.  The sooner we come to grips with that uncomfortable reality the faster we can start dealing with the problem of “terrorism” effectively.  Until we do, the body count will just keep going up.

GITMO has to go.  Secret trials have to go.  Any trial has to be as public as we can make it and open to scrutiny by the most skeptical among us.  If we can’t make the charges stick in that kind of environment, then we shouldn’t be arresting these people.  We keep making up the rules as we go and dumping our ideals whenever we get frightened, we make the terrorists right.

DOF, that’s a good 60 Minutes segment. Here’s the first part:

Watch CBS Videos Online

There’s more at the 60 Minutes website.

Paul writes…

I disagree that a US Federal Judge has jurisdiction over a suspected enemy combatant. That is the job of the Defense Department to oversee these issues. And it’s not like they lack the ability, or are completely blind to justice.

This man has been locked up for seven years on what appears to be the flimsiest of evidence. The Defense Department has had plenty of time to do something about it yet they did not. Are you seriously suggesting this guy should be left rotting in Gitmo until the DD gets around to figuring out he’s innocent of the charges? How long would be too long?

Don’t want the judicial branch getting involved? Fine, declaring them prisoners of “The War On Terror™” and handle it per the Geneva Conventions like we should have from the start. Declaring them “Enemy Combatants” and then holding them indefinitely is complete bullshit. If any other country tried to do that to an American we’d be rattling our sabers so hard you’d be able to hear it from the moon.

If anything they understand the issue on a deeper level. An Attorney who is selected to represent the accused is a regular Attorney. Who could if he so decided. Could work in the same Federal Courthouse where these cases are being heard.

So what makes the difference ?

The seven years it took to bring about this man’s release is what makes the difference. It seems clear to me that the Department of Defense was of the opinion there was no pressing need to address this case.

Fianlly..Well maybe not finally. Innocent people are going to be damaged and harmed. That’s what makes war hell. Children not being given a chance to grow up. People learning to hate on a level than cannot be comprehended.

Yes, innocent people are going to be damaged and harmed. The fact that that is inevitable doesn’t mean we don’t try to help the innocent whom we accidentally harmed as quickly as we can. We gain nothing by ignoring the plight of the innocent in our zeal to get the enemy. It makes us look callous, selfish and arrogant and it makes a mockery of the ideals we claim to be protecting.

Paul- the problem is that BushCo stated that those captured were outside the auspices of the Geneva Convention, and not PoWs- hence the invention of “Enemy combatants”.  The second that the detainees are confirmed as PoW, Bush becomes a war criminal.  I could believe that Obama has been advised against military tribunials for this reason- Spain tried to extradite Pinochet, and the intervention of That Bitch stopped it. While I doubt the US would ever give up Bush, Cheney et al, it could then fall foul of the international rules it introduced about sheltering war criminals.  Nothing would happen- the US is still too powerful, but it would certainly find less co-operation when it tried to use such treaties against its enemies.

Paul, (and everybody) I hope you’re watching 60 Minutes this evening, their report on Gen. McChrystal in Afghanistan.  If not, maybe catch it online tomorrow.  If anybody knows about the strategic effect of collateral damage, or even of overwhelming force, it’s him.