US attacks syria

[BigRob]

Here is a link to the Dept of State.

Please identify the terrorist groups located and operating from Israel.

The problem will be that Palestinians will simply identify Israel as the terrorist actor, and then point the United States precedence to justify their actions.

It has to be worded differently and set up in a different context should this policy be fully enacted.

 

[GenSeneca]

The problem will be that Palestinians will simply identify Israel as the terrorist actor, and then point the United States precedence to justify their actions.

It has to be worded differently and set up in a different context should this policy be fully enacted.

I'll make it simple... He who initiates the use of force is the terrorist.

Now, does Israel initiate the force, or do they use the force as a response to things like mortar and rocket attacks?

 

[Pandora]

This is the problem with a declaration such as this from the United States, "terrorist" will be a relative term and mean many things to many people.

To make a functional policy, such as you are advocating, it must be worded differently, or established in a different light.

we need a world wide meaning for the word

 

[BigRob]

I'll make it simple... He who initiates the use of force is the terrorist.

Now, does Israel initiate the force, or do they use the force as a response to things like mortar and rocket attacks?

Then it just gets into semantics about the history of the whole situation, which both sides will claim the other started it, and it goes nowhere.

Then you have to define what "force" is. If Israel closes a settlement and Palestinians respond with suicide attacks, which brings a full retaliation from Israel, both of them are going to say the other one started it.

In the case of Israel, it is simply getting into semantics in my view, while I agree Israel acts as they should, the problems of the US just openly stating this as policy opens pandora's box in my view. It can and should be done covertly.

 

[BigRob]

we need a world wide meaning for the word

Well it would be nice, but that is impossible.

 

[GenSeneca]

Then it just gets into semantics about the history of the whole situation, which both sides will claim the other started it, and it goes nowhere.

Not hard at all... The Palestinians allow for the cease fires to be broken every time they are implemented by letting groups like HAMAS launch new attacks. Next cease fire thats broken, the state who initiated the attack is at fault.

Then you have to define what "force" is.

Any use of arms that results in death or destruction.

In the case of Israel, it is simply getting into semantics in my view, while I agree Israel acts as they should, the problems of the US just openly stating this as policy opens pandora's box in my view. It can and should be done covertly.

Oh noooo, we can't do things secretly.... people will call us fascists!

 

[BigRob]

Not hard at all... The Palestinians allow for the cease fires to be broken every time they are implemented by letting groups like HAMAS launch new attacks. Next cease fire thats broken, the state who initiated the attack is at fault.

There is quite a bit more to it than that. The dynamic between the hardline Israelis and the more moderate ones must come into play here as well. Also, Fatah and Hamas are pretty mad at each other at the moment. Most cease fires break down before they even get signed. Even if one is signed, to get both groups on board is a major challenge, and without that, the whole situation is a non-starter.

I do not think you will sell this plan to anyone over there either, given the dynamics between the above groups, which makes it a moot point in my view.

Any use of arms that results in death or destruction.

I doubt you get Palestinians on board with this, they will view oppression by Israel and the closing of settlements as "terrorism." Terrorism also does not have to result in death or destruction, fear will work wonders on its own.

Oh noooo, we can't do things secretly.... people will call us fascists!

Well perhaps we need to work on not letting it leak.

 

[Libsmasher]

Should we aim at Israel then?

Israel attacked us? I missed that - is it on the news?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

if someone kills your kids and you bomb thier house are you a terrorist?

if someone destroys your house , and kills your family, and you bomb them back are you one?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Here is a link to the Dept of State.

Please identify the terrorist groups located and operating from Israel.

the goverment

 

[Libsmasher]

We cannot really "change" international law to say this. We can simply say it and do it, but it really won't mean all that much in terms of international law. I doubt we can put together a treaty that says this either.

I don't get you. We offer it as a new international law. If it isn't accepted (and I suspect it wouldn't be) then it has been made clear that international law is rigged to support islamofascists, and no longer has any credibility.

It also has to much potential to backfire and invite a Russian invasion of Chechnya, or a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

I don't get that either - the russians have already taken over chechnya, and the Republic of China ("taiwan") has never attacked the PRC.

Quote:
If there is no international agreement to this, the US should announce that it is a policy that it will follow.

I think the implications around the world are to great to openly state this. If you want to follow this policy, do it covertly.

Disagree. We've got to end ALL the BS that gives IFs a free ride - that's why I previously said that IFs caught on the battlefield w/o a previously established visible identification should be shot.

Quote:
The US should also warn all civilians that they should stay away from persons warring on the US, whatever country they inhabit, lest they endanger themselves.

Easier said than done in most of these situations.

Once again, I don't get you. Every time the US takes out some top IF, the foreign media says X number of children got killed. Ordinary people have got to understand that sitting under the same roof with al qaeda is sitting next to a military target.

I also have to ask myself if we have fully thought these actions through. From an operational standpoint, there is no doubt we need to be doing this. Not only here, but in Pakistan as well. We cannot win without it.

From a political standpoint, this is a terrible policy to follow.

Disagree once again - no more hiding over the border for IFs. No more harboring of IFs who war on the US w/o consequences.

 

[BigRob]

I don't get you. We offer it as a new international law. If it isn't accepted (and I suspect it wouldn't be) then it has been made clear that international law is rigged to support islamofascists, and no longer has any credibility.

Well, it is not like there is some international law body that will just vote on the law. We either just say we are doing it or not. Most people do not think international law has much credibility as it is right now.

For the US to even push this as an international law, we are basically admitting that we do not have the right to go after who we want in support of our defense. I think it sets up a bad double standard, and in the long run we tie our hands more by trying to get a treaty about this.

I don't get that either - the russians have already taken over chechnya, and the Republic of China ("taiwan") has never attacked the PRC.

The point is any country will simply classify anyone they want to get rid of as a "terrorist" and point to the US precedence of it. To do what you are saying can be done, but it has to be done with much much careful language and with an eye on how other countries are going to take it.

Disagree. We've got to end ALL the BS that gives IFs a free ride - that's why I previously said that IFs caught on the battlefield w/o a previously established visible identification should be shot.

Not saying I completely disagree with you, just that if you broadcast that to the world you open up another whole huge set of problems, and in my view the law of unintended consequences kicks in.

Once again, I don't get you. Every time the US takes out some top IF, the foreign media says X number of children got killed. Ordinary people have got to understand that sitting under the same roof with al qaeda is sitting next to a military target.

I am not one to say collateral damage is bad, there is a trade off depending on the target, but I think most people already get that. The policy makers get it at least.

Disagree once again - no more hiding over the border for IFs. No more harboring of IFs who war on the US w/o consequences.

Like I said, from an operational stand point, this has to be done. I just hope we ran the process of how these other countries will react.

There are always consequences, you have to ask what happens if we do it, but also what happens if we do not. I am not against this persay, I just hope the political consequences where thought out. I also think that we do not need to publicly do any of this. Doing this covertly would be the best way to do, the US would not get killed for it in the press over there, and it still gets the same message to Al Qaeda leaders.

 

[Libsmasher]

Well, it is not like there is some international law body that will just vote on the law. We either just say we are doing it or not. Most people do not think international law has much credibility as it is right now.

No, the international press and the american leftwing blather endlessly of how we "violated" this or that international law. This makes the US look lawless when it is merely opposing islamofascist war criminals. The US has to surface the issue, thereby establishing just international law, or showing it for all time as a joke.

The point is any country will simply classify anyone they want to get rid of as a "terrorist" and point to the US precedence of it. To do what you are saying can be done, but it has to be done with much much careful language and with an eye on how other countries are going to take it.

No, any country can't with credibility make such a claim. That the US ACTUALLY has been attacked by stateless IFs is clear to anyone who saw the 9-11 films.

Not saying I completely disagree with you, just that if you broadcast that to the world you open up another whole huge set of problems, and in my view the law of unintended consequences kicks in.

The law of unintended conequences has ALREADY kicked in with a vengeance. Because the IFs captured in afghanistan didn't wear uniforms, american leftwing IF symps are working to get them sprung from guantanamo. Guantanamo prison for IFs ITSELF is a consequence of the ambiguous legal status of captured IFs. It has also triggered the creation of very bad law from the USSC - the Boumedienne case whereby for the first time in history, habeas corpus is deemed applicable to foreigners captured on a battlefield in foreign countries! The consequence of this is some of these guys could actually be released in the mainland US!

I am not one to say collateral damage is bad, there is a trade off depending on the target, but I think most people already get that. The policy makers get it at least.

Every time this happens, it's more grist for the propaganda mill of US appeasers and arab anti-americans. This would be a formal warning and put the burden of blame of anyone innocent who gets killed where it belongs - on themselves.

 

[BigRob]

No, the international press and the american leftwing blather endlessly of how we "violated" this or that international law. This makes the US look lawless when it is merely opposing islamofascist war criminals. The US has to surface the issue, thereby establishing just international law, or showing it for all time as a joke.

There are times when we use international law to our benefit. I think that it is shortsighted to either validate or eliminate it. I prefer the status quo in this regard to be honest.

Further, yes the United States has taken a lot of heat for the issues you raise, but it is simply a trade off, I think ignoring what we want to ignore, and refusing to sign what we do not like, and enforcing what we want to enforce is the best form of international law at the moment.

No, any country can't with credibility make such a claim. That the US ACTUALLY has been attacked by stateless IFs is clear to anyone who saw the 9-11 films.

I am not disagreeing with you, but it does present a whole host of other problems. If we set the precedence, others are going to follow suit, often times counter to what our interests are. I prefer we simply maintain the status quo.

The law of unintended conequences has ALREADY kicked in with a vengeance. Because the IFs captured in afghanistan didn't wear uniforms, american leftwing IF symps are working to get them sprung from guantanamo. Guantanamo prison for IFs ITSELF is a consequence of the ambiguous legal status of captured IFs. It has also triggered the creation of very bad law from the USSC - the Boumedienne case whereby for the first time in history, habeas corpus is deemed applicable to foreigners captured on a battlefield in foreign countries! The consequence of this is some of these guys could actually be released in the mainland US!

I agree that the decision you speak of was terrible, but it is what it is at this point. I still think it is a minor setback to what we unleash if we simply state to the world this is now the law. It can be done more effectively in less aggressive terms.

Every time this happens, it's more grist for the propaganda mill of US appeasers and arab anti-americans. This would be a formal warning and put the burden of blame of anyone innocent who gets killed where it belongs - on themselves.

No matter what, it will always be a propaganda mill for certain people. What we want to avoid is making it a propaganda mill to people who actually matter. Plausible deniability needs to be maintained as opposed to us simply telling the world, yes we did it, because that will get spun far worse in places like Japan, China, and Europe, than whatever a radical Arab newspaper lays out.

Again, I do not disagree with your overall points, but I think openly stating that to the world creates more problems for us long term than simply doing it and keeping quiet.

 

[Agnapostate]

if someone kills your kids and you bomb thier house are you a terrorist?

No. If someone engages in a campaign of ethnic cleansing, uses cluster munitions against civilian sectors in Lebanon, forcibly annexes the Golan Heights, and constructs settlements in the Occupied Territories to the detriment of Palestinians, would you define that as pure benevolence?

Here is a link to the Dept of State.

Please identify the terrorist groups located and operating from Israel.

The State Department themselves support terrorism.