News Message to Terrorists: "You Don't Scare Me

[franznietzsche]

\
The gravity of electing single issue campaigners is enormous, and can only logically come to horrific conclusions if the people in charge are immovable irrational biggots. This terror situation should be an alert for the respective electorates. Both Europe and the US have been offered a truce by Bin Laden, and both declined instantly as a show of strength against terror. This may have been a great show of strength but it was an awful show of wisdom and intellect.

So if Ted Bundy offered a truce to the FBI, they should have just let him go?

Hmmm...

Bin Laden is just another two-bit murderer. Nothing more.

 

[Gokul43201]

Bin Laden is just another two-bit murderer. Nothing more.

How many "two-bit murderers" do you know who enjoy the unflinching support of millions around the world and at least the half-hearted sympathy of hundreds of millions?

 

[Yonoz]

How many "two-bit murderers" do you know who enjoy the unflinching support of millions around the world and at least the half-hearted sympathy of hundreds of millions?

I can think of a few. As time passed people realized it was better to deal with them harshly before they got so powerful.
Let us not repeat our mistakes.

 

[Anttech]

How many "two-bit murderers" do you know who enjoy the unflinching support of millions around the world and at least the half-hearted sympathy of hundreds of millions?

Millions?

I think you will find that *millions* agree with the fact the US foreign policy is hurting millions. They would also agree that the US needs to remove itself from the ME, and Iraq.

*But* it doesn't follow that because of this, millions support him. The Arabic world has been bombed by Bin Laden or his duplicate through the 70's and 80's. They don't want terrorism, really its true!

 

[Gokul43201]

I can think of a few.

Wow! And what term do you then use to describe hopelessly lagging slashers like Bundy and Sobhraj?

 

[Anttech]

IMHO the Neocons, and there ideology is as powerfully bad as the Islamists ideology, talk about being stuck between a hard place and a rock.

Things will change in the next 12 months as T.Blair leaves office in the UK. His successor will *not* cuddle up to the neocons like Blair did. Bush's one true friend (outside of Isreal) is leaving, and the global politcal landscape will change somewhat. I am not asserting that the US government really gives a rats about a little island of Europe, but it will have an impact as far as Europes stance is.

 

[Kurdt]

So if Ted Bundy offered a truce to the FBI, they should have just let him go?

Hmmm...

Bin Laden is just another two-bit murderer. Nothing more.

There is no way you can compare that to Ted Bundy.

 

[Anttech]

I mean Europe has evolved into its current form under unique conditions mentioned more explicitly in Jared Diamond's book, giving birth to its current moral system. Societies in other regions developed under different conditions and therefor have different value systems. Any critique on the norms of such societies must take into account the ways by which these norms came to be.

Why the use of the word laboratory?

I think you are stating the obvious in that all cultures are based on unique conditions. Anyway yes you are right, to criticize a *culture* it would be prudent to understand that culture first. How liberal of you

 

[Gokul43201]

Millions?

I think you will find that *millions* agree with the fact the US foreign policy is hurting millions. They would also agree that the US needs to remove itself from the ME, and Iraq.

*But* it doesn't follow that because of this, millions support him.

But I made no such argument. Currently, I'd imagine that at least a billion or two are strongly against the present US administration.

Afghanistan and Pakistan alone have a combined population of about 200 million people. What fraction of these people, do you imagine, wouldn't feel honored to have the opportunity to help bin Laden? What kind of loyal support must he have that incredible bounties have yielded no information on his location in the last five years? What kind of popularity and power does it take for al Qaeda to be able to recruit hundreds or thousands of members each year.

 

[franznietzsche]

There is no way you can compare that to Ted Bundy.

Why? Because Bin laden is a more efficient murderer? He's nothing but a murdering thug all the same.

 

[Yonoz]

Wow! And what term do you then use to describe hopelessly lagging slashers like Bundy and Sobhraj?

I was being sarcastic, I'm sure history's greatest murderers were at some point viewed by outsiders as "two-bit murderers".

 

[Anttech]

But I made no such argument. Currently, I'd imagine that at least a billion or two are strongly against the present US administration.

Afghanistan and Pakistan alone have a combined population of about 200 million people. What fraction of these people, do you imagine, wouldn't feel honored to have the opportunity to help bin Laden? What kind of loyal support must he have that incredible bounties have yielded no information on his location in the last five years?

I think you will find a very very small fraction of people in these regions follow the islamist ideology. They may *prefer* Laden over Bush, but they wouldn't be supporters of him (Bin Laden). My 2 cents.

 

[Kurdt]

Why? Because Bin laden is a more efficient murderer? He's nothing but a murdering thug all the same.

Because you fail to realize that its not Bin Laden you're fighting. You're fighting an idea and a way of life as described in the Quran (or certain versions of it) and Bin Laden is itself appointed defender and is doing what he (and many others) believes is correct. He has sanctioned the murder of other people but in a completely different way to people like Ted Bundy. The murder of the Al Qaeda leader in Iraq is proof that if you remove one there will be others to step up. The US and its Allies have no idea who the new man in Iraq is but the bombings and acts of terror there have not stopped. You can't fight an idea by removing the people that promote it and you can't stop the violence by treating the leaders as murderers like Ted Bundy.

 

[franznietzsche]

Because you fail to realize that its not Bin Laden you're fighting. You're fighting an idea and a way of life as described in the Quran (or certain versions of it) and Bin Laden is itself appointed defender and is doing what he (and many others) believes is correct. He has sanctioned the murder of other people but in a completely different way to people like Ted Bundy. The murder of the Al Qaeda leader in Iraq is proof that if you remove one there will be others to step up. The US and its Allies have no idea who the new man in Iraq is but the bombings and acts of terror there have not stopped. You can't fight an idea by removing the people that promote it and you can't stop the violence by treating the leaders as murderers like Ted Bundy.

I'm sorry, I had to laugh. Its out of my system now.

You've entirely missed my point. Its ok, I forgive you.

The problem in the middle east is the same, IMO. The culture is one such that the will of the people means roughly nothing. In iraq, the different religious factions will not recognize each other as legitimate. Culturally, the region is not capable of democracy because it is not a culture that recognizes the equality of all people, it does not recognize that all people are equally unfit to rule any others. The religion of islamic terrorists is kinda like Calvinism--everyone else is scum. Go forth and slaughter, and enslave.

Terrorists are nothing but murderers. They may have had valid political complaints--but they forfeited any and all rights to have those heard and addressed when they chose to murder civilians. The only right they have now, is to rot in prison, for the rest of their lives--if that much.

 

[wolram]

Ask yourself one question, would you kill yourself for a cause, and kill inoccent people in doing so, i think terrorist are are the lowest form of humanity, and certain people should reflect that they supported it, it has to be stopped now, with global approval , (any) organisation, power, individual supporting terrorism should be quashed , and that includes the most powerful nation on earth.

 

[Yonoz]

Why the use of the word laboratory?

I was using the phrase "laboratory conditions" to underline that while European nations were wreaking havoc on foreign lands, they laid the foundations inside their safe little home for their current successful incarnations. Jared Diamond describes how various conditions gave Europeans advantages that allowed them to conquer even some of history's strongest and most advanced civilizations.

I think you are stating the obvious in that all cultures are based on unique conditions. Anyway yes you are right, to criticize a *culture* it would be prudent to understand that culture first.

It may be obvious but it is quite evident from some of the posts the difficulty westerners face when trying to emulate what goes on in the minds of simple everyday folk from other societies. I was trying to simplify the problem, perhaps I was presenting my view too plainly.

How liberal of you

I try to keep an open mind.

 

[Kurdt]

I agree that peple that have comitted terrorist acts should be punished for what they have done. What I was saying is that if you take out one terrorist then there will be another to replace him/her and you're in a never ending cycle. When you are then offered a truce and a chance to discuss the issues and ignore it then to me that is unforgivable.

 

[Gokul43201]

I think you will find a very very small fraction of people in these regions follow the islamist ideology. They may *prefer* Laden over Bush, but they wouldn't be supporters of him (Bin Laden). My 2 cents.

I'm fairly certain you are grossly mistaken. The Washington Post reported about a couple of years ago about an internal Saudi poll that suggested that something like 4% of the population wanted bin Laden to rule their country (Saudi Arabia). 4% of 27 million people is over a million.

I couldn't find that article, but in searching for it, I found this one from a year ago:

The survey found only 2 percent of the people polled in Lebanon and 7 percent in Turkey expressing confidence that bin Laden would "do the right thing regarding world affairs." The proportion that expressed confidence in the al Qaeda leader dropped from almost half to about a quarter in Morocco, and from 58 percent to 37 percent in Indonesia. Bin Laden's standing went up slightly in Pakistan, to 51 percent, and in Jordan, to 60 percent.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/14/AR2005071401030_2.html

Pakistan and Indonesia have a combined population of over 500 million.

 

[franznietzsche]

I agree that peple that have comitted terrorist acts should be punished for what they have done. What I was saying is that if you take out one terrorist then there will be another to replace him/her and you're in a never ending cycle. When you are then offered a truce and a chance to discuss the issues and ignore it then to me that is unforgivable.

Wrong. Accepting a truce with a murderer, implies letting him off the hook. Not going to happen. Period.

 

[Kurdt]

Negotiating with someone does not imply that you are lettiung them off the hook, nor does it make you look weak. Well we'll have to agree to disagree. I just think that it would be easier to address the wider issues that's all. If you wish to continue suffering terrorist attacks then fine.

 

[Math Is Hard]

It may be obvious but it is quite evident from some of the posts the difficulty westerners face when trying to emulate what goes on in the minds of simple everyday folk from other societies. I was trying to simplify the problem, perhaps I was presenting my view too plainly.

I don't think any of us view terrorists and their supporters as simple everyday folk. The way I see it, terrorist groups are twisted extremest subcultures that emerge in many societies. The U.S. is not immune to the phenomenon. I can't understand an overseas subculture that rewards and cherishes martyrdom and the slaughter of innocents any more than I can understand the violent gang rituals of South Central Los Angeles. Cultural bias? Yeah, maybe. Guilty as charged.

 

[franznietzsche]

Negotiating with someone does not imply that you are lettiung them off the hook, nor does it make you look weak. Well we'll have to agree to disagree. I just think that it would be easier to address the wider issues that's all. If you wish to continue suffering terrorist attacks then fine.

I'm not talking about looking weak, but thank you for trying to put words in my mouth.

So, since you seem to think this is possible, tell me how you negotiate with someone without dropping the condition that they are going to rot in prison for the rest of their natural life?

 

[wolram]

I don't think any of us view terrorists and their supporters as simple everyday folk. The way I see it, terrorist groups are twisted extremest subcultures that emerge in many societies. The U.S. is not immune to the phenomenon. I can't understand an overseas subculture that rewards and cherishes martyrdom and the slaughter of innocents any more than I can understand the violent gang rituals of South Central Los Angeles. Cultural bias? Yeah, maybe. Guilty as charged.

#
Over seas? i think every nation on Earth has supported terrorism in some shape or form in the past, we have an oppertunity to make it illegal by public vote, terrorism could be stopped now, if funds were stoped, so shoot the bloody financers

 

[Kurdt]

I wasn't putting words in your mouth I merely remebered from a previous post when I was talking about negotiating and looking weak and put it in by mistake. Apologies for that.

Well perhaps for the greater peace you may have to offer a pardon or some other means to reach amicable relations. It worked here in the UK with the IRA in which we released a lot of its members from prison early. Not exactly the same sort of situation with Bin Laden but I have seen no great progress the way we're going now.

 

[DaveC426913]

In my book, that's the definition of slime.

These people are completely mentally warped.

Bin Laden is just another two-bit murderer.

These attitudes are what doom us to an eternity of fighting. Treating people like non-humans frees us from having to understand them.

Only when those of us - too full of blind anger to try to understand them as people - are dead and buried, will be be able to begin to communicate and perhaps negotiate some peace.

 

[franznietzsche]

I wasn't putting words in your mouth I merely remebered from a previous post when I was talking about negotiating and looking weak and put it in by mistake. Apologies for that.

Well perhaps for the greater peace you may have to offer a pardon or some other means to reach amicable relations. It worked here in the UK with the IRA in which we released a lot of its members from prison early. Not exactly the same sort of situation with Bin Laden but I have seen no great progress the way we're going now.

So it does imply you're are letting them off the hook? Make up your mind.

 

[Yonoz]

I don't think any of us view terrorists and their supporters as simple everyday folk.

There is strong support for terrorist attacks such as suicide bombings among Muslim populations around the globe, see the 2002 PEW survey results below.

Cultural bias? Yeah, maybe. Guilty as charged.

I'm not judging you, and if I were - well, let me just say you're at the good end of the spectrum in my book, quite far from proud mothers of suicide bombers.
However, we have a saying: "it's better to be smart than to be right" - we need to make something of this mess. If a clash is necessary, we need to specify goals that will bring a decisive victory and ensure that terrorism is abolished. If we are to learn to coexist with terrorism somehow, we need to identify its causes and minimize them. Either way, we need to stop mothers from raising suicide bombers, and that will be achieved by shedding whatever sense of "normal" and "skewed" when dealing with this problem.

 

[Kurdt]

So it does imply you're are letting them off the hook? Make up your mind.

I said perhaps. There have been cases where people have freely handed themselves in but I don't see Bin Laden doing that as he sees himself as a sort of freedom fighter.

I think DaveC makes a valid point also. From what I have seen of most of the posts there is a blind desire for revenge without considering the implications of the proposed actions. none of them really solve the problem which brings me back to my initial point that you are fighting an idea with supporters and a lot of them more than ready to step up to the plate in the absence of others.

In a world with more than one philosophy you will always have conflict as long as at least one of those groups will blinker themselves and remain at their guns defending their beliefs to the death. This is what I see in this 'war on terror' situation and why i was not pleased that an attempt initiated by Bin Laden to make some sort of contact was just thrown out by two very angry and very biggoted leaders. I'm not saying they don't have the right to be upset over the actions Bin Laden took and I'm not defending Bin Ladens actions but I'm criticising the handling of the whole situation on our behalf because frankly I thought we were cleverer than that.

 

[Pythagorean]

Kill pro-abornists! WTF?

I just stopped in and this is what I read. I'm pro-abortion, so I guess it is my mission to kill you first.

do a pre-emptive strike!

 

[Pythagorean]

on topic:

'Terrorists' (the collective) didn't bring the war to our soil, a certain terrorist organization (or a network of them) did.

I think, sometimes there can be a thin line between terrorism and violent rebellion, and I don't think they're the same. Violent rebellion can be justified.

 

[J77]

I can't believe what I'm hearing.

You're saying that terrorism is the result of the US invasion of Iraq? Were you born yesterday?

WE got drawn into this fight BY THEIR ATTACK on our soil!

People such as yourself, who fail to see the situation as it really is, are the reason we will lose this war. As soon as more attacks on our soil come, such people will cry out "Oh please mr. terrorist, please don't hurt us! spare us our snivelling pathetic lives! We'll do whatever you want! We'll make our women walk 5 paces behind us, we'll chop off hands for theft, we'll leave women in their house to die if we can find 4 witnesses to testify to their lewdness"

Yes - the invasion of Iraq does result in terrorism. It makes people afraid of other countries/religions just through what they're broadcast on TV. Therefore, it strikes terror in them and subsequent fear.

Who's attack?

Wars are lost because people shouldn't have started them in the first place - and it seems to be the instigators who lose recent wars.

edit: anyway, back to the OP - something about what could be said: the best words I heard on the radio this morning came from one of Ghandi's family. To do with being better than simply fighting, to open a dialogue. It may take a long time but talking works. Just look at Northern Ireland.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Appropriate for the day

...Terrorists like bin Laden and others go beyond classical Islam's criteria for a just jihad and recognize no limits but their own, employing any weapons or means. They reject Islamic law's regulations regarding the goals and means of a valid jihad—that violence must be proportional and that only the necessary amount of force should be used to repel the enemy; that innocent civilians should not be targeted; and that jihad must be declared by the ruler or head of state. Today, individuals and groups, religious and lay, seize the right to declare and legitimate unholy wars in the name of Islam.

At the same time, Islamic scholars and religious leaders across the Muslim world—such as the Islamic Research Council at al-Azhar University, regarded by many as the highest moral authority in Islam—have made strong, authoritative declarations against bin Laden's initiatives: "Islam provides clear rules and ethical norms that forbid the killing of non-combatants, as well as women, children, and the elderly, and also forbids the pursuit of the enemy in defeat, the execution of those who surrender, the infliction of harm on prisoners of war, and the destruction of property that is not being used in the hostilities."2 [continued]

http://bostonreview.net/BR27.1/esposito.html

 

[Zantra]

Because you fail to realize that its not Bin Laden you're fighting. You're fighting an idea and a way of life as described in the Quran (or certain versions of it) and Bin Laden is itself appointed defender and is doing what he (and many others) believes is correct. He has sanctioned the murder of other people but in a completely different way to people like Ted Bundy. The murder of the Al Qaeda leader in Iraq is proof that if you remove one there will be others to step up. The US and its Allies have no idea who the new man in Iraq is but the bombings and acts of terror there have not stopped. You can't fight an idea by removing the people that promote it and you can't stop the violence by treating the leaders as murderers like Ted Bundy.

I think you hit the nail on the head as did a few others. The bottom line is that you can kill Bin Laden, even kill every man woman and child in the middle east, and the BELIEF still remains. It's easy to snuff out a human life. Killing a belief is almost impossible. As someone said, you kill Bin Laden, and there will be always someone standing in line to take his place. He is a figure head for an ideal, not the ideal itsself. The only way to truly change things, and to end terrorism is to change people's way of thinking-to change the belief itsself. You can't "kill them all" because as long as there is a young mind willing to listen, a belief has an inexhaustable supply of followers. Short of extreme measure such as nukes or genocide, there is no means by which to easily rid the world of terrorism. It very well may be an unwinnable war.

 

[franznietzsche]

on topic:

'Terrorists' (the collective) didn't bring the war to our soil, a certain terrorist organization (or a network of them) did.

I think, sometimes there can be a thin line between terrorism and violent rebellion, and I don't think they're the same. Violent rebellion can be justified.

Violent rebellion is not justifiable, it is the duty of the people under certain conditions. Or maybe I'm the only person still around who believe Jefferson was right. However, the murder of civilians is not justifiable under any conditions, and any who committ murder must be brought to justice.

I said perhaps. There have been cases where people have freely handed themselves in but I don't see Bin Laden doing that as he sees himself as a sort of freedom fighter.

The problem I have with people like you, and by that I mean people who take your stance of 'we should negotiate with terrorists' is your lack of intellectual consistency, either intentional or through incapacity.

Negotiating with someone does not imply that you are lettiung them off the hook

Well perhaps for the greater peace you may have to offer a pardon or some other means to reach amicable relations

Make up your bloody mind at least.

 

[Quadruple Bypass]

did anyone watch the discovery channel thing with ted koppel? when they showed the polls about making arab-americans (aka all muslim people) wear IDs or having IDs showing that they're muslim, it was pretty much split 50/50... now what good can that do? honestly...ps: does anyone know when they're going to show that again?

 

[Evo]

when they showed the polls about making arab-americans (aka all muslim people) wear IDs or having IDs showing that they're muslim

Please tell me you're not serious. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of.

 

[Kurdt]

There are many negotiation scenarios depending on your objectives. All I was saying that negotiating does not necesarrily imply that you're letting them off the hook as in a lot of cases lower members of the organisation will sell out the top guys that you're after. Then again there is the situation where you MAY have to consider other alternatives in the cause of the greater good. You just have to decide whether petty revenge is more important than dealing with the real problem.

But I say again that an implication of letting them off is not a logical necesity when negotiating or at least hearing the guy out.

 

[Anttech]

did anyone watch the discovery channel thing with ted koppel? when they showed the polls about making arab-americans (aka all muslim people)

So Mohammad ali was an arab?

 

[Evo]

So Mohammad ali was an arab?

That's just typical of the American mindset.

 

[Astronuc]

With respect to the last few posts, the US government has detained 70 people in the US under the "Material Witness Law". All but one were Muslim, and several (many?), who are US citizens, were put in maximum security prison for weeks or months, without charge and without due process. Many (perhaps most) were subsequently released, some with an apology, but they do not know why they were arrested and detained.

Anyone (including US citizens) can be arrested and detained without due process under the "Material Witness Law" with little recourse. Many legal experts maintain that the Bush administration is abusing this law. From some interviews of the victims, it would appear that the FBI has 'terroized' a few people.

Some background and details -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31438-2002Nov23
Material Witness Law Has Many In Limbo
Nearly Half Held in War On Terror Haven't Testified

http://www.rcfp.org/secretjustice/terrorism/materialwitness.html
http://www.rcfp.org/secretjustice/terrorism/gainingaccess.html

Human Rights Groups: Law Misused in Fight Against Terrorism
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4719653

Material Witness Statute Abuse is Founded on a Misreading of the Law
http://www.discourse.net/archives/2...se_is_founded_on_a_misreading_of_the_law.html

III. Misuse of the Material Witness Law to Hold Suspects as Witnesses
http://hrw.org/reports/2005/us0605/5.htm
http://hrw.org/reports/2005/us0605/8.htm

I heard an interview by BBC reporter Michael Buchanan with Tajammul Bhatti and Abdullah al-Kidd. It is absolutely unbelieveable what these guys went through. They were harassed, initimidated, arrested and thrown in maximum security prison, but they were never charged or deposed. The evidence was circumstantial and would never have held up in normal court, and I doubt a judge would have issued a warrant based on circumstantial evidence. And Bush wants more flexibility.

Bhatti had a name of a Pakistani nuclear scientist and periodically contacted him. To the FBI, that was suspicious. It turns out that the nuclear scientist is a childhood friend. According to Bhatti, he thinks the FBI believed he was part of a sleeper cell, despite the fact that he has been in US more than 30 years and has had US citizenship since 1970.

Abdullah al Kidd, a US native and former University of Idaho football player, was arrested by the FBI at Dulles International Airport en route to Saudi Arabia. The FBI arrested three other men in the Idaho probe in weeks prior to March 16, 2003. And the FBI was examining links between the Idaho men and purported charities and individuals in six other jurisdictions across the country. Al-Kidd was never charged with anything. He was enroute to Saudi Arabia to begin a doctoral program. Mueller claimed his arrest as a success in the counter-terrorism part of the "War on Terror" - in reality it is an unmitigated failure on the part of the Bush administration to ensure 'due process' and uphold basic human and civil rights. This is exactly why we need oversight on the government's domestic surveillance. If someone were to steal one's identity and commit some questionable act, the Bush administration could haul one away without charge, without trial, and basically trash one's life.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8359249/site/newsweek

July 4 issue - Since 9/11, the Justice Department has used a little-known legal tactic to secretly lock up at least 70 terror suspects—almost all of them Muslim men—and hold them without charges as "material witnesses" to crimes, in some cases for months. A report to be released this week by two civil-liberties groups finds nearly 90 percent of these suspects were never linked to any terrorism acts, resulting in prosecutors and FBI agents issuing at least 13 apologies for wrongful arrest.

The post-9/11 decision to aggressively use "material witness" warrants to detain suspects has been defended by Justice officials as a legitimate tool to root out possible terror cells. (A federal law, though used sparingly in the past, permits detention of witnesses who might have "material" info about a crime—even with no evidence they committed any crimes themselves.) The practice has been shrouded. Citing national security, Justice has refused to disclose virtually any info about these cases, not even figures on how many have been detained. By combing court records and interviewing defense lawyers, researchers for Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union say they have assembled the most comprehensive look yet at the practice—and conclude it may have produced the most civil-liberties abuses of any post-9/11 policy. Out of the 70 "material witness" arrests the groups were able to document, only seven suspects ended up charged with terror-related crimes.

Of the rest, 42 were released with no charges at all and another 20 were charged with unrelated crimes, such as credit-card fraud. (Two, Jose Padilla and Ali al-Marri, were named "enemy combatants" and thrown into military brigs.) The report cites instances in which agents used what it calls "flimsy" evidence to make arrests. A 68-year-old Virginia doctor named Tajammul Bhatti was arrested by the FBI in June 2002 after neighbors found magazines about flying and a phone number of a Pakistani nuclear scientist in his apartment. It turned out he had served in the U.S. Air Force National Guard and the Pakistani scientist was a childhood friend. Another "tip" led to the arrest of eight restaurant workers in Evansville, Ind., who were shackled and taken to a detention facility in Chicago. The FBI later apologized—but never disclosed the basis for their detention. "The law was never designed to be used this way," says Anjana Malhotra, the prime author of the report. Justice spokesman Kevin Madden called "material witness" detentions a "critical" tool to thwart crimes and cited recent testimony from a top official, Chuck Rosenberg, noting that every material-witness arrest warrant must be based on "probable cause" and approved by a federal judge. "Justice cannot unilaterally arrest someone as a material witness," Rosenberg said.

—Michael Isikoff

None of this really matters, does it? Unless it's you or someone you care about.

 

[kyleb]

Make up your bloody mind at least.

Respect the bloody fact that there is options and not everything has to be chizzeled in stone at least.

Anyway, George Soros chimes in with some wise words on the subject:

HE FAILURE OF Israel to subdue Hezbollah demonstrates the many weaknesses of the war-on-terror concept. One of those weaknesses is that even if the targets are terrorists, the victims are often innocent civilians, and their suffering reinforces the terrorist cause.

In response to Hezbollah's attacks, Israel was justified in attacking Hezbollah to protect itself against the threat of missiles on its border. However, Israel should have taken greater care to minimize collateral damage. The civilian casualties and material damage inflicted on Lebanon inflamed Muslims and world opinion against Israel and converted Hezbollah from aggressors to heroes of resistance for many. Weakening Lebanon has also made it more difficult to rein in Hezbollah.

Another weakness of the war-on-terror concept is that it relies on military action and rules out political approaches. Israel previously withdrew from Lebanon and then from Gaza unilaterally, rather than negotiating political settlements with the Lebanese government and the Palestinian authority. The strengthening of Hezbollah and Hamas was a direct consequence of that approach. The war-on-terror concept stands in the way of recognizing this fact because it separates "us" from "them" and denies that our actions help shape their behavior.

http://www.georgesoros.com/article-blinded-8-31-06

 

[franznietzsche]

Respect the bloody fact that there is options and not everything has to be chizzeled in stone at least.

On the contrary, you either think there are conditions under which its acceptable to let him go scot-free, or you don't. So make up your damn mind. That covers all the nuanced possibilities you mgiht like, because I was not in anyway specific about what those conditions might be.

 

[Quadruple Bypass]

Please tell me you're not serious. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of.

nah man, I am dead serious. this wasnt the first time i heard this too...its pretty sad

 

[kyleb]

On the contrary, you either think there are conditions under which its acceptable to let him go scot-free, or you don't. So make up your damn mind. That covers all the nuanced possibilities you mgiht like, because I was not in anyway specific about what those conditions might be.

Conditions are conditions, and that is contrary to scot-free.

 

[Burnsys]

I just can't believe how do you all talk about terrorists this terrorists that, but you don't even realize you have terrorists in your own government (Proved.)
Why don't you start by cleaning your own country of terrorists before talking about others?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=115264

 

[kyleb]

Why do you think the thread was locked? We don't lilke talk about stuff like that.

 

[Pythagorean]

Violent rebellion is not justifiable, it is the duty of the people under certain conditions. Or maybe I'm the only person still around who believe Jefferson was right. However, the murder of civilians is not justifiable under any conditions, and any who committ murder must be brought to justice.

I agree. My point was that terrorism wasn't justifiable, and that sometimes, justifiable (or dutiful) rebellion is labeled 'terrorism' by the government needing overthrowing.

I don't believe that's the case with the Al Qeda, but I do believe these are terrorists we helped create in the first place.

And yes, I absolutely believe Jefferson was right, I'm actually a libertarian.

 

[Math Is Hard]

There is strong support for terrorist attacks such as suicide bombings among Muslim populations around the globe, see the 2002 PEW survey results below.
I'm not judging you, and if I were - well, let me just say you're at the good end of the spectrum in my book, quite far from proud mothers of suicide bombers.
However, we have a saying: "it's better to be smart than to be right" - we need to make something of this mess. If a clash is necessary, we need to specify goals that will bring a decisive victory and ensure that terrorism is abolished. If we are to learn to coexist with terrorism somehow, we need to identify its causes and minimize them. Either way, we need to stop mothers from raising suicide bombers, and that will be achieved by shedding whatever sense of "normal" and "skewed" when dealing with this problem.

Thank you for posting that informative poll. I am curious about where it came from and what people were thinking in response to the question: Is suicide bombing in defense of Islam justifiable? It seems like that could mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. I have been dismayed that even though so many Muslims don't advocate these actions, neither do they come out against it publicly.

Out of my five closest friends, two are women originally from Iran, of Islamic faith, and they think (like me) that suicide bombing is unjustifiable craziness. We all want it to stop. But they seem to think that there can be no "meeting of the minds" in this problem. Obviously, they understand this much better than I do. What should we do if there is no hope of understanding each other? Or is it too soon to make that judgement?

 

[Anttech]

Terrorism is the Big Boogie man, it will go away with the next political cycle. There is no need for a clash of civilisations.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

Is this like some sort of way to like express built up frustrations over current world issues? Or some other thing having to do with some psychological and deep meaning? Because I honestly doubt any terrorists are going to read this stuff. So attempting to insult them (which in the end is what they want, they want a reaction so they know they've affected you) is really just redundant.