Comments on: What you lose about Islamic terrorism when you read only the headlines

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:38:03 +0000

If a person’s actions are outside his/her control, it’s unjust to consider him/her guilty of evil doing.

The courts don’t decide good or evil. They decide whether something happened: the facts of the case. Did you or did you not kill exhibit A over here. Did you or did you not hack off the husband of that family over there, then eat the remains? Did this happen or did this not happen. And then you are pronounced innocent or guilty of the charge. But as you noticed already, people don’t want to face the facts of life. Denial is much easier. Especially when the victims belong to families you don’t care about.

If somebody wants to claim that ’somebody else’ did it, that some other personality lived inside that guy’s head, then that is what is called aiding and abetting a federal crime. You allowed your body and mind to be used by the criminal, you gave him safe harbor, and now you want immunity from the law for having done so or having failed to report the existence of that criminal’s actions.

That doesn’t make you innocent of the crime, only an accessory. Of course, the Left has become so often an accessory to the crimes of mass murderers in human history that they would naturally, simply for reasons of self-preservation, seek to deny the ‘accessory’ charge of others.

In my view an Act of War can justify a retaliation utilizing nuclear launches targeting capitals, military complexes, and various munitions industries. Thus an Act of War carries with it greater space for counter-attacks than terrorism does. When a nation declares war, everybody in that nation takes the risk of death, direct or collateral, because the nation’s industry becomes tied to war. When a terrorist group declares war, all you can legitimately kill on the battlefield are the terrorists, and any collateral damage is on your hands, with no other nation state to take responsibility. But because of that restriction, if they surrender or you capture them, you can execute them unlike the uniformed soldiers of a nation one is at war with. This was an attempt to make the fight less asymmetrical.
Asymmetrical war is nasty because without equal bases to protect, one side can attack more ruthlessly than the other. In a symmetrical fight like the Cold War, less invasive methods were used because both nations had something they wanted to protect from the other’s attacks. An Asymmetrical fight implies that one side has little to lose from attacking the other side’s civilians. It’s a natural force multiplier and advantage. That means the war is prolonged and more people die.

Also don’t believe the Left that the Islamic fighters care nothing about their own lives. The Palestinians will trade 2 dead Jews for 500 Palestinian fighters. They do care for their own lives, if only because that allows them to kill more Jews and Americans. So you never want to keep an Islamic fighter alive, because he can always be used as a propaganda tool to justify kidnapping and other terrorist attacks, real terrorist attacks. Hasan also had connections to real terrorists, meaning Islamic advocates for attacks against American civilians. That connection is not erased regardless of what Hasan personally did nor did not kill.

Israel is always and has been in some state of war.

Israel’s restriction of their counter-attack levels means that Israel is in a state of restricted or limited warfare. That’s very different from a state of total war, a war to the knife. This has political implications.

How do we succeed and survive with a code of honor, while our enemies do not acknowledge nor adhere to the same rules of engagement.

If Israel wants to win, they would attack with everything they got and obliterate their enemy. If they believe in a Palestinian state, then destroying the ability of the civilians and soldiers, of that state, to wage war will reduce the support for war against Israel. Any other way to ‘win a war’ will get Israel just what they have. Decades of perpetual cycle of violence and civilian deaths, for no reason whatsoever. And no advancement of real peace, either.
My point is that we are not obeying our own code of honor, strictly by the letter. Our own rules for war have already legitimatized punitive and massive retaliation strikes, which Bush and other leaders have simply refused to do. The enemy cannot control all of our military actions. It is rather, we that do that. And given the evidence of American wisdom with the election of obama, don’t count on very wise and enlightened actions pertaining to the War on Terrorism soon.
BTW, if we were truly serious about a War on Terrorism, we’d nuke NOrth Korea and go into black ghettoes and make them learn how to defend themselves from criminals (Chicago) and their “Reverends”.

By: Ariel

Ariel — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:36:09 +0000

Suek #23,
I have always had mixed emotions regarding both the Death Penalty and life in prison. I would have no problem flipping the switch on someone who’s guilt was beyond the shadow of doubt (notice I dropped reasonable). Dahmer would be an example, Hasan is an example upon conviction. But not on lesser proof. Life imprisonment is, to me, less merciful than death.
Yes, society has the right to maintain “prisons” for the criminally insane. And I agree that too many times psychiatry excuses what was really a choice. Although the Twinkie Defense should have been upheld…I used to go crazy if I didn’t get my Twinkie fix.

By: suek

suek — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:12:42 +0000

>>“Virginia will execute a severely mentally ill man who also suffered from Gulf War Syndrome the day before Veterans Day.”>>

Here’s a relevant article – the meshing of the concepts of mentally ill and evil:
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2009/11/particular-american-madness.html

It’s a problem. Mental illness is real. If a person’s actions are outside his/her control, it’s unjust to consider him/her guilty of evil doing. At the same time, society has a right to protect itself – no matter what the cause of aberrant behavior. Personally, I think a lot of the “excusing” has to do with a desire to avoid taking a position and carrying though whatever is necessary, especially when what is necessary is unpleasant, meets with resistance, and there is a viable alternative. _Someone_ has to throw the switch, and most “normal” people don’t want to be the one to do so.
I think that was the problem in the Catholic Church when it realized it had a problem with homosexual/pedophilic priests. Instead of condemning them for their sin and tossing them out of the priesthood, they forgave them their sins and listened to the voices of psychiatry which would negate even the possibility of sinfulness. “It wasn’t their fault – they were born that way”. And I think that’s true – there are people out there who are defective, and it’s not their fault. They’re still poisonous, harmful people and society needs to destroy them or neutralize them. Generally, I prefer destroying them – it’s permanent – but I can live with neutralization. Though I wonder how people can consider themselves “merciful” by giving someone a life senctence.

By: Ariel

Ariel — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:45:51 +0000

Sadie #20,
Only quibble is the “nation with defined borders”, we frankly haven’t had that in many portions of the world since day one. Europe is still working it out, I haven’t seen Yugoslavia in awhile, have you? The map of Europe circa 1913 is near unrecognizable. That turmoil of borders will always be with us. As for the rest, I pretty much agree.

One thing that frosts me is this statement: while our enemies do not acknowledge nor adhere to the same rules of engagement. Every time I hear a European, or American or Canadian for that matter, go on about the Geneva Conventions I want to scream. You have to follow the Conventions to get their protections, and that doesn’t mean that one has to follow them while the other ignores them. The Conventions weren’t written to give advantage to those who don’t follow them, but Europeans apply them unilaterally, stupidly, and self-righteously. I’m going to stop now or I’ll really rant.

As for Hasan the martyr, if he wears that mantel without death, then he can wear it just as well in death. However, I think the Marine Guards would make him wish he were dead. I may be a staunch civil libertarian, but I deserve the right to be flawed. Some deserve Justice best served cold. Very cold.

By: SADIE

SADIE — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:43:16 +0000

Ariel
“saboteur and traitor” with a “jihadi” modifier it is, but let’s just throw in an old fashioned murderer as well to give the prosecution all the terms they need except crazy.

By: SADIE

SADIE — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:37:57 +0000

Muddy definitions and references are exactly where we are in our post WWII world.
Afghanistan presents a real dilemma – nothing internally is defined other than by war lords, opium fields and corruption up to and including the border with Pakistan, which is another can of biological warfare worms. It has become increasingly more difficult (impossible) to distinguish between a nation with defined borders and military, when they themselves have not sorted out this from that (Hindu Kush region comes to mind).
There is the act of declaring war and there is part b) doing something about it. Declaring so and so an enemy is less costly. Israel is always and has been in some state of war. Some pauses are longer than others, but she knows, who her enemies are and stays prepared.
The restraints on western nations have given their enemies free range. They do not acknowledge borders, not when their goal is a caliphate. So, here we are with two distinctly different sets of rules and regs. How do we succeed and survive with a code of honor, while our enemies do not acknowledge nor adhere to the same rules of engagement.
A good choice of words ‘massacre’ at Ft. Hood. I don’t agree that we shouldn’t execute him. He has already claimed the mantel of martyr dead or alive – so death would be literally and figuratively a post-mortum. I subscribe to cause and effect. Carnage comes with a price tag. It does not go on sale for even one life time.
p.s. disjointed replies are not always ‘child induced’. Mine come with age.

By: Ariel

Ariel — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:02:43 +0000

Sadie,
Ymarsakar’s “saboteur and traitor” is probably the best way to look at Hasan, but I would add the jihadi modifier.

By: Ariel

Ariel — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:47:53 +0000

Sadie,
I’ll give you Lockerbie, and Hezbollah certainly has at least some direction from Iran. The exploding of a plane and the indiscriminate dropping of rockets are definitely acts of terrorism, fitting my two components, but if those acts are directed or performed by an organization that is an actual arm of another nation, it is moreover an Act of War. I would consider Lockerbie an Act of War by Libya, as should Israel Iran if Iran actually directed the attacks of Hizbollah.
The reason I left out other nations is twofold: one because we are overall currently dealing with organizations that aren’t an arm of any particular nation’s government and we need to focus on them, and two if they are organizations of another government the act of terrorism becomes an Act of War. We need to distinguish between the acts of nations and those of organizations that are extra-national, if that is the right term. As I said, the definitions are muddy, but I will stick by my two-component requirement for it to be an act of terrorism. Anything of mine past that is simply an attempt to focus between nations and groups, and is fluid. I am not, however, prepared to go to war with every country that has possibly supplied a terrorist group. Two fronts are enough. And we are not financially capable of more at this time.
I don’t consider the supplying of arms as “direction”, the world of arms dealing (any dealings of fissionable or radioactive materials, or biological, I do not consider arms dealing in this context) and supplying is a murky one. We have supplied and funded, the two can be interchangeable, groups that were less than desirable also.
Regarding Hasan, if execution makes him a martyr, I don’t want him executed. I would prefer 13 consecutive life terms at hard labor directed by Marine guards with parole available after serving, oh, I don’t know, maybe 10 life terms. And, yes, I am sick of the obvious attempts to ignore any link to extremist Islam. The attack at Fort Hood was not a tragedy (such a passive term to avoid the why), it was a massacre at the hands of a jihadi. He acted from the same perspective as 19 guys on planes, just didn’t take the time for flying lessons, but wasn’t aiming to kill civilians.
Sorry for the disjointed reply, but children interfere with coherence. And you don’t have to bite as there was no bait.

By: pst314

pst314 — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:17:19 +0000

“feared that the kidnappings would discourage others from teaching underprivileged youths in Muslim areas.”
Underprivileged? We cannot say poor, because “poor” leaves open the question of why they are poor. Instead we must use a word which implies that their poverty is entirely a matter of victimization. And especially we must not ask if Muslim hostility to education might have something to do with their poverty.

By: SADIE

SADIE — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:21:37 +0000

Arial
You bring up the ‘other’ word jihadist, carefully edited and bleached along with Islam (no link there-riiiight). Okay, I’ll bite, it was an cowardly jihadist treasonable attack and he will be tried in a military court. I don’t know the last time a military court sentenced anyone to death, but here’s hoping it’s an option.
It is done by groups not acting at the direction of another nation’s government.
Except, when it is funded and at the direction of another nation (Lockerbie, Scotland and arms from Iran to Hezbollah via Egypt as two quick examples).