|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 03/27/2003 : 13:23:49 [Permalink]
|
To many Muslims there is but one nation of all Muslims which is their point. The British drew up those borders. You are trying to force your own view of the world on them which is part of why al-Qaeda formed in the first place. They want us out of their business. You may not see the world the way the Muslims do and don't expect them to conform to yours.
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
 |
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2003 : 13:43:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Military/militia stage attacks to cause an area to come exclusively under their control and they intend to supplant/support the lawful government of that area. Criminal organizations do not. Al Queda, drug cartels, and the Mafia stage attacks meant to intimidate the local governments into ignoring their criminal activity and adhere to their agendas both political and economic.
I would however argue that Al Queda does desire to supplant existing governments and install their own form of Islamic fundamentalists governments. I do believe their primary goal is to overthrow non-Islamic governments and supplant them with their own Islamic governments, thus their motives are political and thus they are interested in governance. All such movements whether successful or not start out with no "home" country.
quote:
Al Queda is a criminal organization that seeks influence over areas through violence and intimidation of the lawful authority in that area. All criminal organizations seek this kind of influence.
So does every military/milita as well including our own right now in Iraq, unlawfully (both by U.S. and international standards) trying to destroy and intimidate the authority in a foreign area.
quote:
One of the major criteria I have for a military/militia is that they must be interested in governance.
Again as I stated above Al Queda is very interested in governance and that is their main motive.
#1. They are not doing it just because its fun.
#2. They are not doing it to make money (although certain individuals may be in it for that reason).
#3. They are doing it to try and achieve several political goals.
How does that differ from what our army is doing now in Iraq? We are over there now illegally killing Iraqi's with our own brand of terrorism we like to call "Shock and Awe". (We can come up with such cool catchy names for our terrorism, we wouldn't dare call it "Terrorize and Kill").
So it seems that by your own definitions Al Queda qualifies as a miltia as opposed to a criminal org. It seems that your only reason for labeling them as a criminal org. is that you do not like their methods (or you say as such because they have not yet been able to occupy their own country). |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2003 : 14:25:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by jmcginn
quote:
Military/militia stage attacks to cause an area to come exclusively under their control and they intend to supplant/support the lawful government of that area. Criminal organizations do not. Al Queda, drug cartels, and the Mafia stage attacks meant to intimidate the local governments into ignoring their criminal activity and adhere to their agendas both political and economic.
I would however argue that Al Queda does desire to supplant existing governments and install their own form of Islamic fundamentalists governments. I do believe their primary goal is to overthrow non-Islamic governments and supplant them with their own Islamic governments, thus their motives are political and thus they are interested in governance. All such movements whether successful or not start out with no "home" country.
quote:
Al Queda is a criminal organization that seeks influence over areas through violence and intimidation of the lawful authority in that area. All criminal organizations seek this kind of influence.
So does every military/milita as well including our own right now in Iraq, unlawfully (both by U.S. and international standards) trying to destroy and intimidate the authority in a foreign area.
quote:
One of the major criteria I have for a military/militia is that they must be interested in governance.
Again as I stated above Al Queda is very interested in governance and that is their main motive.
#1. They are not doing it just because its fun.
#2. They are not doing it to make money (although certain individuals may be in it for that reason).
#3. They are doing it to try and achieve several political goals.
How does that differ from what our army is doing now in Iraq? We are over there now illegally killing Iraqi's with our own brand of terrorism we like to call "Shock and Awe". (We can come up with such cool catchy names for our terrorism, we wouldn't dare call it "Terrorize and Kill").
So it seems that by your own definitions Al Queda qualifies as a miltia as opposed to a criminal org. It seems that your only reason for labeling them as a criminal org. is that you do not like their methods (or you say as such because they have not yet been able to occupy their own country).
I would disagree. Al Queda is not interested in governance by itself nor by a specific group. They are looking for governance by the particular brand of fundamentalism (much like Jerry Falwell) that they subscribe to. Al Queda does not satisfy my own definition of a militia.
I understand your three criteria for a militia. I don't agree with it.
@tomic, It doesn't matter what the boundaries are, Al Queda is not interested in direct governance of the emerging fundamentalist state or acting as it's military. They take no orders but their own. As such, they are a criminal organization.
As for the US engaged in an internationally illegal military action, you have no arguement from me. They have specifically ignored the UN international law by opening up hostilities against a sovereign nation without UN sanction and without a compelling reason of self defense. In war, people die. This is a failure of the US government, not the military. The deaths are on the head of one President George W Bush. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2003 : 14:56:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
They take no orders but their own. As such, they are a criminal organization
Ummmmm, this could apply to the Continental Congress and all those criminals that waged war against the British back in 1776. Sort of an American mafia wasn't it? I don't get this special status you want to impose on one group so specifically. You don't just hate Muslims do you?
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2003 : 15:28:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I would disagree. Al Queda is not interested in governance by itself nor by a specific group. They are looking for governance by the particular brand of fundamentalism (much like Jerry Falwell) that they subscribe to.
You contradict yourself from one sentence to the next! You say Al Queda is not interested in governance by any specific group but then say they are interested for governence by a brand of fundamentalism. A brand of fundamentalism is a specific group of people, adherents to that fundamentalism. It still comes down to the fact that they are waging a war on behalf of political goals and those political goals primarily entail Islamic fundamentalism rule of all of the Middle East, removal of Israel, and all western influence.
In fact one of their main goals is liberation of the Middle East especially Palestine from invaders, in their minds they are fighting in defense. Under your distinctions as @tomic pointed out our own revolutionary heroes were part of a criminal org. not a militia.
quote:
I understand your three criteria for a militia. I don't agree with it.
I just wish you would offer consistent criteria to justify your distinction, so far you have not.
quote:
@tomic, It doesn't matter what the boundaries are, Al Queda is not interested in direct governance of the emerging fundamentalist state or acting as it's military.
Hogwash. Al Queda is a part of the fundamentalists movement in the Middle East and is directly inrested in setting up a new ruling government for the whole region of which they will be a part. They are just as interested in ruling the whole area as our own revolutionary fighters were in ruling America. This point goes in direct contradiction to the facts and stated goals of this group and with its ties to numerous Islamic fundamentalists.
By your own reckoning you would label American revolutionaries as a criminal org. Is this correct? If not then why the difference between them and the Al Queda? If you say they are the same then your logic is at least consistent, but your definitions quite bazaar, however if one is a criminal org. and the other is not then your logic is irreconciable. |
|
|
|
LordofEntropy
Skeptic Friend
USA
85 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2003 : 19:03:19 [Permalink]
|
In the immortal words of Rodney King:
*sniff*
"Can't we all just get along?"
*sniff*
|
Entropy just isn't what it used to be.
|
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2003 : 00:54:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by @tomic
Since the USA has invaded Iraq illegally it follows that Iraq can label US soldiers as illegal combatants and just execute them if they see fit as the US does.
No it does not and no they can not.
I suspect that you are not interested in facts but see the Hague Convention(s) and the Geneva Convention(s) for the principal conventions governing prisoners of war.
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2003 : 07:28:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by @tomic
quote:
They take no orders but their own. As such, they are a criminal organization
Ummmmm, this could apply to the Continental Congress and all those criminals that waged war against the British back in 1776. Sort of an American mafia wasn't it? I don't get this special status you want to impose on one group so specifically. You don't just hate Muslims do you?
@tomic
Where in the sam-holy-fuck do you get that I hate Muslims?
I don't hate Muslims. I have defended Islam in several posts here and other places when some twit claims that the Qu'ran is inherently violent and advocates the murder of non-believers. I have studied the religion in detail and found a lot of parrallels to other major religions.
The Continental Congress did, in fact, take over governance of the colonies to that end they staged civil disobediance and formed a militia. The "special status" you claim I am applying is actually a distinction between legitimate rebellion interested in direct governance or a militia acting at the behest of such a group and an organization that does not care about direct governance nor acting as a militia. Al Queda acts only as a force for change. Hit fast, let the government form as it may as long as it follows the type of extremist views they hold, and move on to the next place while striking out at the infidel.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2003 : 07:41:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by jmcginn
quote:
I would disagree. Al Queda is not interested in governance by itself nor by a specific group. They are looking for governance by the particular brand of fundamentalism (much like Jerry Falwell) that they subscribe to.
You contradict yourself from one sentence to the next! You say Al Queda is not interested in governance by any specific group but then say they are interested for governence by a brand of fundamentalism. A brand of fundamentalism is a specific group of people, adherents to that fundamentalism. It still comes down to the fact that they are waging a war on behalf of political goals and those political goals primarily entail Islamic fundamentalism rule of all of the Middle East, removal of Israel, and all western influence.
In fact one of their main goals is liberation of the Middle East especially Palestine from invaders, in their minds they are fighting in defense. Under your distinctions as @tomic pointed out our own revolutionary heroes were part of a criminal org. not a militia.
quote:
I understand your three criteria for a militia. I don't agree with it.
I just wish you would offer consistent criteria to justify your distinction, so far you have not.
quote:
@tomic, It doesn't matter what the boundaries are, Al Queda is not interested in direct governance of the emerging fundamentalist state or acting as it's military.
Hogwash. Al Queda is a part of the fundamentalists movement in the Middle East and is directly inrested in setting up a new ruling government for the whole region of which they will be a part. They are just as interested in ruling the whole area as our own revolutionary fighters were in ruling America. This point goes in direct contradiction to the facts and stated goals of this group and with its ties to numerous Islamic fundamentalists.
By your own reckoning you would label American revolutionaries as a criminal org. Is this correct? If not then why the difference between them and the Al Queda? If you say they are the same then your logic is at least consistent, but your definitions quite bazaar, however if one is a criminal org. and the other is not then your logic is irreconciable.
Perhaps I am not being clear enough.
Al Queda is not interested in the form of government as long as it conforms to their brand of extremism. They are interested in destroying the infidel and destroying non-Muslim and non-extremist Muslim governments so that a brand of their fundamentalism can take power. They are not interested in taking orders from this government like a militia would. They just move on to the next place. They don't work for a specific governance power. As you and @tomic miss the point, the revolutionaries were interested in direct governance and formed a militia. They had both a political and militant arm of their structure. Al Queda only has a militant arm. Just like the Mafia and drug cartels.
Whether you agree with my assessment or not, my statements are not self contradictory under my assessment, under yours they are. I do not agree that militant organizations with just a political agenda are always a militia/military. I advance that it must work in concert with a specific political organization and take orders from that organization. Al Queda does not. Therefore, it is a criminal organization. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2003 : 08:21:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Al Queda is not interested in the form of government as long as it conforms to their brand of extremism. They are interested in destroying the infidel and destroying non-Muslim and non-extremist Muslim governments so that a brand of their fundamentalism can take power.
Now you managed to contradict yourself in the same sentence. Their brand of fundamentalism is a specific form of government, ask the Taliban, a government they helped establish and helped keep in power. The Taliban is a perfect example of the type of government they want ruling the entire Middle East as one large Islamic nation. The Islamic rule they hope to establish is very specific much of which they get directly from the Qu'ran.quote:
They are not interested in taking orders from this government like a militia would. They just move on to the next place.
Bull crap. They want to establish a government in the region where they can be in power or at least a part of the power structure, high up the chain. They are very interested in setting up a government with them at the top of the chain and then why in the world would they just move on? You make it sound like they are just a rogue band going around killing people for the fun of it.quote:
As you and @tomic miss the point, the revolutionaries were interested in direct governance and formed a militia. They had both a political and militant arm of their structure. Al Queda only has a militant arm. Just like the Mafia and drug cartels.
This does not agree with the facts at hand. The fact is they have a political arm, the Taliban was part of it and their pure goals are political.
Are own revolutionary fighters took no orders from any specific governance power when they did their dirty deeds. They attacked as a militant uprising and then after receiving freedom from Britain they then set out to establish a body of governance. Al Queda hopes to do the exact same thing and in fact they did it in Afganistan. Their goals for the entire region were not complete so they continued their operations.quote:
I advance that it must work in concert with a specific political organization and take orders from that organization. Al Queda does not. Therefore, it is a criminal organization.
So again our own revolutionary fighters were a criminal org. by your definition. They did not work with a specific political org. nor take orders from any org. other than themselves. I still do not know how you can make a distinction between the two rationally by your own definitions.
1. Al Queda fights for political goals of governance of the entire Middle East.
1a. American revolutionaries fought for political goals of governance of America.
2. Al Queda is not part of any national government at this time, but hopes to establsih one when they win their war.
2a. American revolutionaries were not part of any national government at the time of their fighting but hoped to establish one when they were done.
3. Al Queda does not take any orders from any political governing body as they are in the middle of their revolution.
3a. American revolutionaries did not take any orders from any political governing body as they were in the middle of their revolution.
4. Al Queda is essentially self-governing as they wage their war.
4a. American revolutionaries were essentially self-governing as they waged their war.
5. Al Queda performs attrocities against humanity including attacking civilians in the quest for their goals.
5a. American revolutionaries performed attrocities against humanity including attacking civilians in the quest for their goals.
Now where in the hell is the difference that makes you label one a militia and the other a criminal org.?
Your comaprisons to the mafia and drug cartels is a red herring. Neither group is interested in political control of whole regions other than to pursue their main goal of money. They do not have a political agenda beyond more money. In fact if something is costing them money to do they will stop doing it, however Al Queda is willing to pay a price for its political agenda. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2003 : 13:04:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by jmcginn
quote:
Al Queda is not interested in the form of government as long as it conforms to their brand of extremism. They are interested in destroying the infidel and destroying non-Muslim and non-extremist Muslim governments so that a brand of their fundamentalism can take power.
Now you managed to contradict yourself in the same sentence. Their brand of fundamentalism is a specific form of government, ask the Taliban, a government they helped establish and helped keep in power. The Taliban is a perfect example of the type of government they want ruling the entire Middle East as one large Islamic nation. The Islamic rule they hope to establish is very specific much of which they get directly from the Qu'ran.quote:
They are not interested in taking orders from this government like a militia would. They just move on to the next place.
Bull crap. They want to establish a government in the region where they can be in power or at least a part of the power structure, high up the chain. They are very interested in setting up a government with them at the top of the chain and then why in the world would they just move on? You make it sound like they are just a rogue band going around killing people for the fun of it.quote:
As you and @tomic miss the point, the revolutionaries were interested in direct governance and formed a militia. They had both a political and militant arm of their structure. Al Queda only has a militant arm. Just like the Mafia and drug cartels.
This does not agree with the facts at hand. The fact is they have a political arm, the Taliban was part of it and their pure goals are political.
Are own revolutionary fighters took no orders from any specific governance power when they did their dirty deeds. They attacked as a militant uprising and then after receiving freedom from Britain they then set out to establish a body of governance. Al Queda hopes to do the exact same thing and in fact they did it in Afganistan. Their goals for the entire region were not complete so they continued their operations.quote:
I advance that it must work in concert with a specific political organization and take orders from that organization. Al Queda does not. Therefore, it is a criminal organization.
So again our own revolutionary fighters were a criminal org. by your definition. They did not work with a specific political org. nor take orders from any org. other than themselves. I still do not know how you can make a distinction between the two rationally by your own definitions.
1. Al Queda fights for political goals of governance of the entire Middle East.
1a. American revolutionaries fought for political goals of governance of America.
2. Al Queda is not part of any national government at this time, but hopes to establsih one when they win their war.
2a. American revolutionaries were not part of any national government at the time of their fighting but hoped to establish one when they were done.
3. Al Queda does not take any orders from any political governing body as they are in the middle of their revolution.
3a. American revolutionaries did not take any orders from any political governing body as they were in the middle of their revolution.
4. Al Queda is essentially self-governing as they wage their war.
4a. American revolutionaries were essentially self-governing as they waged their war.
5. Al Queda performs attrocities against humanity including attacking civilians in the quest for their goals.
5a. American revolutionaries performed attrocities against humanity including attacking civilians in the quest for their goals.
Now where in the hell is the difference that makes you label one a militia and the other a criminal org.?
Your comaprisons to the mafia and drug cartels is a red herring. Neither group is interested in political control of whole regions other than to pursue their main goal of money. They do not have a political agenda beyond more money. In fact if something is costing them money to do they will stop doing it, however Al Queda is willing to pay a price for its political agenda.
Contradiction? Where?
You claim that Al Queda gave rise to the Taliban. Horseshnockers. They were contemporary groups during the Soviet-Afghanistan war. They existed apart from one another. The Taliban, after gaining power over the government, placed their own militia as the military of Afghanistan. There is the fact which invalidates your critism.
As for American revolutionaries, what would you call the Continental Congress? A chess club? It was the political arm of the American revolution and had as its militant arm the Minuetmen. The Minuetmen took orders from the Continental Congress. There is your difference which makes one a militia and one a criminal organization.
Were there war crimes committed by the Revolutionary army? Yes. I don't think there has ever been a conflict where both sides did not commit war crimes of one form or another.
Their brand of fundamentalism requires strict adherence to the dogma by the entire population. Whatever political group comes up and does that is not opposed by Al Queda. Whatever rival group which comes up and does not adhere to the dogma of their brand of fundamentalism is opposed by Al Queda. Al Queda still operates independantly from the government. Lack of military strikes against a governance organization does not imply that Al Queda takes orders from that organization.
Al Queda in Afghanistan did not interfere with the Taliban's governing of the country unless it pertained directly to them. At that point, the Taliban political arm and military lacked the force to impose their will on Al Queda. The Taliban asked Osama Bin Laden to leave Afghanistan but lacked the means to enforce that request. These are the actions of a criminal organization.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2003 : 14:20:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Contradiction? Where?
I already pointed them out, but again, you said Al Queda is not interested in the form of government but are interested in overthrowing existing governments to replace them with their own form of Islamic government. I hope that the contradiction is not that hard to see.
quote:
You claim that Al Queda gave rise to the Taliban.
I absolutely did not. Please read my statement again, I said helped them to establish power and helped them stay in power. The Taliban didn't rise into power until the mid 90's after almost a decade of civil war and warlords fighting it out after the Soviets withdrew in 88/89.
http://www.afghan-web.com/history/chron/index4.html
Osama and Omar were buddies from the revolution against the Soviets and continued to be buddies during the Taliban's emergence and growth. To deny that Osama and his merry men didn't help the Taliban is to ignore history.
quote:
As for American revolutionaries, what would you call the Continental Congress?
It was the body of revolutionaries that could be thought of as the think tank that started the revolution. Many of the numerous Islamic fundamentalists including Osama can be thought of in the same vein as the Contienental Congress.
quote:
There is your difference which makes one a militia and one a criminal organization.
And Al Queda takes orders from its revolutionary leaders. What in the hell is the difference? There is none, why do you keep making up differences when there are none?
quote:
Were there war crimes committed by the Revolutionary army? Yes. I don't think there has ever been a conflict where both sides did not commit war crimes of one form or another.
I totally agree.
quote:
Their brand of fundamentalism requires strict adherence to the dogma by the entire population. Whatever political group comes up and does that is not opposed by Al Queda. Whatever rival group which comes up and does not adhere to the dogma of their brand of fundamentalism is opposed by Al Queda.
So what??? That is the goal of Al Queda, to overthrow all local non Fundamentalism governments and replace them with their fundamentalists government. The goal of our revolutionaries was to overthrow the British government and replace it with our own government. What in the hell is the difference? There is none?
quote:
Al Queda still operates independantly from the government.
And so did our own revolutionaries!!! Gosh man there was no government for them to take orders from because they wanted to overthrow the existing government and replace it with their government. Al Queda wants to overthrow all existing Middle Eastern governments and create one big happy fundamentalists government. They just like our own revolutionary leaders take no orders from any government but do have their own ruling structure in place. What in the freaking hell is the difference. You keep saying there are differences when there are none.
quote:
Al Queda in Afghanistan did not interfere with the Taliban's governing of the country unless it pertained directly to them. At that point, the Taliban political arm and military lacked the force to impose their will on Al Queda. The Taliban asked Osama Bin Laden to leave Afghanistan but lacked the means to enforce that request. These are the actions of a criminal organization.
Yes Al Queda used Afganistan as a base area, so what? I really doubt that the Taliban ever sincerely asked him to leave, he was their guest as they put it. How are those the actions of a criminal org? These look like the actions of revolutionaries, although maybe not very successful ones, but still revolutionaries still trying to carry out their master plan.
A quick look at Dictionary.com's definitions:
Revolutionary:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=revolutionary
It appears that Al Queda fits the definitions of revolutionary to the T.
Bringing about or supporting a political or social revolution: revolutionary pamphlets. or A militant in the struggle for revolution..
In fact after reading up on some history of the Mafia I would conclude that originally they also were revolutionaries trying to overthrow Italian government, but since then they have degraded into a criminal org. no longer seeking political or social change but simply trying to illegally accumulate wealth. Al Queda is still trying to bring about social and political change for the entire Middle Eastern region, that was their original goal and that remains their goal today.
Now what in the hell is the difference between them and our own revolutionaries? |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2003 : 14:51:16 [Permalink]
|
VD, your main problem is that your are trying to force your western values on a civilization with a different set of values. It won't work. Would you like to see humans visit an alien world some day and go around complaining about how wrong everyone there is because they don't do things the way we do? Your take on this is part of what the world hates about Americans I am sorry to say.
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2003 : 10:32:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by jmcginn
quote:
Contradiction? Where?
I already pointed them out, but again, you said Al Queda is not interested in the form of government but are interested in overthrowing existing governments to replace them with their own form of Islamic government. I hope that the contradiction is not that hard to see.
quote:
You claim that Al Queda gave rise to the Taliban.
I absolutely did not. Please read my statement again, I said helped them to establish power and helped them stay in power. The Taliban didn't rise into power until the mid 90's after almost a decade of civil war and warlords fighting it out after the Soviets withdrew in 88/89.
http://www.afghan-web.com/history/chron/index4.html
Osama and Omar were buddies from the revolution against the Soviets and continued to be buddies during the Taliban's emergence and growth. To deny that Osama and his merry men didn't help the Taliban is to ignore history.
quote:
As for American revolutionaries, what would you call the Continental Congress?
It was the body of revolutionaries that could be thought of as the think tank that started the revolution. Many of the numerous Islamic fundamentalists including Osama can be thought of in the same vein as the Contienental Congress.
quote:
There is your difference which makes one a militia and one a criminal organization.
And Al Queda takes orders from its revolutionary leaders. What in the hell is the difference? There is none, why do you keep making up differences when there are none?
quote:
Were there war crimes committed by the Revolutionary army? Yes. I don't think there has ever been a conflict where both sides did not commit war crimes of one form or another.
I totally agree.
quote:
Their brand of fundamentalism requires strict adherence to the dogma by the entire population. Whatever political group comes up and does that is not opposed by Al Queda. Whatever rival group which comes up and does not adhere to the dogma of their brand of fundamentalism is opposed by Al Queda.
So what??? That is the goal of Al Queda, to overthrow all local non Fundamentalism governments and replace them with their fundamentalists government. The goal of our revolutionaries was to overthrow the British government and replace it with our own government. What in the hell is the difference? There is none?
quote:
Al Queda still operates independantly from the government.
And so did our own revolutionaries!!! Gosh man there was no government for them to take orders from because they wanted to overthrow the existing government and replace it with their government. Al Queda wants to overthrow all existing Middle Eastern governments and create one big happy fundamentalists government. They just like our own revolutionary leaders take no orders from any government but do have their own ruling structure in place. What in the freaking hell is the difference. You keep saying there are differences when there are none.
quote:
Al Queda in Afghanistan did not interfere with the Taliban's governing of the country unless it pertained directly to them. At that point, the Taliban political arm and military lacked the force to impose their will on Al Queda. The Taliban asked Osama Bin Laden to leave Afghanistan but lacked the means to enforce that request. These are the actions of a criminal organization.
Yes Al Queda used Afganistan as a base area, so what? I really doubt that the Taliban ever sincerely asked him to leave, he was their guest as they put it. How are those the actions of a criminal org? These look like the actions of revolutionaries, although maybe not very successful ones, but still revolutionaries still trying to carry out their master plan.
A quick look at Dictionary.com's definitions:
Revolutionary:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=revolutionary
It appears that Al Queda fits the definitions of revolutionary to the T.
Bringing about or supporting a political or social revolution: revolutionary pamphlets. or A militant in the struggle for revolution..
In fact after reading up on some history of the Mafia I would conclude that originally they also were revolutionaries trying to overthrow Italian government, but since then they have degraded into a criminal org. no longer seeking political or social change but simply trying to illegally accumulate wealth. Al Queda is still trying to bring about social and political change for the entire Middle Eastern region, that was their original goal and that remains their goal today.
Now what in the hell is the difference between them and our own revolutionaries?
I'm afraid that you, @tomic and I will have disagree on this subject. How I am trying to force western values on any culture is beyond me by classifying an organization which does not conform to the definition of a militia/military is beyond me. One cannot logically say that Al Queda is a governing body. A violent instrument of change, but not a governing body nor a military/militia. As such, it is a criminal organization engaged in the wholesale murder of civilians and intimidation so that their goals are unopposed. Even in the region, this form of conflict is unusual.
I still maintain that Al Queda does not take orders from any specific organization interested in direct goverance of a country or region.
Criteria to be a militia/military per VD
1) Must take orders/be under direct control from a specific organization interested in direct governance of a country or region.
a) US Revolutionaries took orders from the Continental Congress which was interested in becoming the direct governance of the colonies.
b) Al Queda takes orders only from their own hierarchy. Opposes all political groups that does not conform to their view of Islam and Islamic law. Does not interfere with governance by a political group. Will attack that political group if it strays outside thier religious views.
Hopefully, this clears up the confusion.
I in no way deny that the actions of |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2003 : 12:19:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'm afraid that you, @tomic and I will have disagree on this subject.
I guess so.
quote:
How I am trying to force western values on any culture is beyond me by classifying an organization which does not conform to the definition of a militia/military is beyond me.
I never said you were, I am just saying you are either 1) misapplying the definition or 2) inconsistently applying it.
quote:
One cannot logically say that Al Queda is a governing body.
One also cannot say the U.S. revolutionaries nor the Contienental Congress were either until they won their war.
quote:
A violent instrument of change, but not a governing body nor a military/militia.
A violent instrument of change in the current governments of the region??? Sounds just like the definition of a revolutionary militia. As such it still fits the definition of militia much better than criminal org.
quote:
...engaged in the wholesale murder of civilians and intimidation so that their goals are unopposed. Even in the region, this form of conflict is unusual.
So what??? I didn't say their methods were wholesome or common, but their goals are those of a revolution in the entire Middle East not making a load of cash illegally.
quote:
I still maintain that Al Queda does not take orders from any specific organization interested in direct goverance of a country or region.
As far as I can tell Al Queda takes its orders from the leaders of Al Queda. Just like U.S. revolutionaries took their orders from the leaders of the U.S. revolution.
quote:
1) Must take orders/be under direct control from a specific organization interested in direct governance of a country or region.
The leaders of the Al Queda fit this description of this org. to a "T".
quote:
a) US Revolutionaries took orders from the Continental Congress which was interested in becoming the direct governance of the colonies.
And who were the members of the Contiental Congress???? They were the leaders of the U.S. revolutionaries. U.S. revolutionaries who were the leaders of the U.S. revolution made up the Contiental Congress and all members of the C.C. were members of the U.S. revolution. You keep trying to make the C.C. seem like some totally distinct group from the U.S. revolution that were simply giving orders. The leaders of the Al Queda including Osama play the role of C.C. in our comparison. I still don't see the difference.
quote:
b) Al Queda takes orders only from their own hierarchy. Opposes all political groups that does not conform to their view of Islam and Islamic law.
Right and U.S. revolutionaries only took orders from their own freaking hierarchy, we just give it a distinct name, the Contienental Congress. So what if they oppose all political groups but their own, the American revolutionaries opposed all governments ruling over America except for the one they hoped to install.
quote:
Does not interfere with governance by a political group. Will attack that political group if it strays outside thier religious views.
What their current activities are do not reflect their goals, which is one big giant Islamic government over all of the Middle East. They are having a hard time at success so they do they what they can.
quote:
Hopefully, this clears up the confusion.
Sadly it does not. I still cannot see how you can take any definitions of militia and criminal org. and apply one to the U.S. revolutionaries and another to Al Queda unless those definitions include one is the U.S. and the other is not.
quote:
Whether they fit the title "revolutionary" is immaterial. The question is do they fit the title militia or military.
Sadly they fit the definition of militia to a "T". A militant in the struggle for revolution. These are militants and they are in a stuggle for revolution. Your ability to discern a difference between them and other groups that have struggled for revolution via violence baffles me. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
