Shocked reaction
- Thread starter odin
- Start date
kmguru
Staff member
This is so true. So that we can usher in a new age of peace, what do you the members think is the solution? How can we get outraged when a mosque or synagouge gets bombs on our soil?
My solution is to create an organization for peace and understanding with a membership drive that lobbies the government towards such a goal. This organization must be dedicated to peace and be worldwide. Anybody out there wants the leadership?
<i>"My solution is to create an organization for peace and understanding with a membership drive that lobbies the government towards such a goal. This organization must be dedicated to peace and be worldwide. Anybody out there wants the leadership?"</i>
The terrorist would perceive it as being a threat and would work towards its destruction. The only effective peace organization that can fix this problem now is the military.
A solute to our men and women who risk all for our peace and security.
The terrorist would perceive it as being a threat and would work towards its destruction. The only effective peace organization that can fix this problem now is the military.
A solute to our men and women who risk all for our peace and security.
Another point of view
Hi all,
. I had never expected to see the words "peace" and "military" combined in that way. Seriously though, I agree that some sort of military intervention is needed in the struggle against terrorism, but I disagree with the currently proposed ideas.
To go a bit further into this (and this one is for everybody who has ever studied international law - that excludes me):
1. First of all I have some doubts about the legal interpretation the NATO wants to give to the WTC/Pentagon incident. The now famous article 5 has been used to gather political support for a US/NATO military intervention, but I wonder if an organisation - that's after all just what NATO is - claims that a terrorist act classifies as an act of war, that the law makes it so ? The argument has already been raised in this thread, and was countered by saying that the concept of "war" has changed over the past decades. I disagree there: the means of war have changed (high-tech; no more groundtroops, more airstrikes; ...) but the idea remains the same: to commit an act of war, you have to be in a position to do so. A gangfight is not an act of war is it ?
2. If the US/NATO/... alliance decides to attack Bin Laden without consent of Afghanistan, then I think this classifies as a violation of the sovereignty of Afghanistan and that they will indeed have the right to counteract.
The delicate thing about both points is that they are both listed in the NATO founding charter (articles 2 and 5, as was pointed out on a newsgroup here in Belgium). Article 2 mentions that NATO will respect the sovereignty of individual countries, unless ofcourse the country itself is the aggressor (which is not the case here - unless Afghanistan first declares war on the US or any other NATO country). I wonder if NATO is not going beyond its own legal possibilities here.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not an all-pro-law person (I live in a country where cheating on taxes is a national sport for crying out loud - seriously!), but I have the feeling the whole reaction to the WTC/Pentagon attack can be undermined by not properly following international law. Whoever is responsible for this can walk out as a free man when legally not everything is correct.
Anyway, I wonder what Bush exactly is going to say when he addresses the Congress in 40 minutes. If the words "either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists" fall again, I suggest dropping a bomb at 50.9 latitude and 5.4 longitude, my home! I'd rather see whoever's responsible being brought to justice in a fair way than in a quick but legally doubtful way. You can tell a lot of a society by its laws, and I think we should respect them if we still want to call ourselves democractic countries. Terrorists might think they're above the law, but I personally don't want to lower myself to that level.
Bye!
Crisp
Hi all,
. I had never expected to see the words "peace" and "military" combined in that way. Seriously though, I agree that some sort of military intervention is needed in the struggle against terrorism, but I disagree with the currently proposed ideas.To go a bit further into this (and this one is for everybody who has ever studied international law - that excludes me):
1. First of all I have some doubts about the legal interpretation the NATO wants to give to the WTC/Pentagon incident. The now famous article 5 has been used to gather political support for a US/NATO military intervention, but I wonder if an organisation - that's after all just what NATO is - claims that a terrorist act classifies as an act of war, that the law makes it so ? The argument has already been raised in this thread, and was countered by saying that the concept of "war" has changed over the past decades. I disagree there: the means of war have changed (high-tech; no more groundtroops, more airstrikes; ...) but the idea remains the same: to commit an act of war, you have to be in a position to do so. A gangfight is not an act of war is it ?
2. If the US/NATO/... alliance decides to attack Bin Laden without consent of Afghanistan, then I think this classifies as a violation of the sovereignty of Afghanistan and that they will indeed have the right to counteract.
The delicate thing about both points is that they are both listed in the NATO founding charter (articles 2 and 5, as was pointed out on a newsgroup here in Belgium). Article 2 mentions that NATO will respect the sovereignty of individual countries, unless ofcourse the country itself is the aggressor (which is not the case here - unless Afghanistan first declares war on the US or any other NATO country). I wonder if NATO is not going beyond its own legal possibilities here.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not an all-pro-law person (I live in a country where cheating on taxes is a national sport for crying out loud - seriously!), but I have the feeling the whole reaction to the WTC/Pentagon attack can be undermined by not properly following international law. Whoever is responsible for this can walk out as a free man when legally not everything is correct.
Anyway, I wonder what Bush exactly is going to say when he addresses the Congress in 40 minutes. If the words "either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists" fall again, I suggest dropping a bomb at 50.9 latitude and 5.4 longitude, my home! I'd rather see whoever's responsible being brought to justice in a fair way than in a quick but legally doubtful way. You can tell a lot of a society by its laws, and I think we should respect them if we still want to call ourselves democractic countries. Terrorists might think they're above the law, but I personally don't want to lower myself to that level.
Bye!
Crisp
A very thoughtful post, Crisp...
<i>"A gangfight is not an act of war is it ?"</i>
Maybe only when it is directed at the security of a nation(s).
<i>"If the US/NATO/... alliance decides to attack Bin Laden without consent of Afghanistan, then I think this classifies as a violation of the sovereignty of Afghanistan and that they will indeed have the right to counteract."</i>
The Taliban are reconized by only three countries (one of which has turned its back on them.) as being the legitimate government of Afghanistan. It appears that the World doesn't see the Taliban as being <i>sovereign</i>. Do you see the Taliban/Afghanistan as being beyond world law?
<i>"NATO will respect the sovereignty of individual countries, unless ofcourse the country itself is the aggressor (which is not the case here - unless Afghanistan first declares war on the US or any other NATO country). I wonder if NATO is not going beyond its own legal possibilities here."</i>
Does not the act of protecting a terrorist group serve as an act of aggression against other nations?
<i>"Terrorists might think they're above the law, but I personally don't want to lower myself to that level."</i>
I agree. We will watch and see.
<i>"A gangfight is not an act of war is it ?"</i>
Maybe only when it is directed at the security of a nation(s).
<i>"If the US/NATO/... alliance decides to attack Bin Laden without consent of Afghanistan, then I think this classifies as a violation of the sovereignty of Afghanistan and that they will indeed have the right to counteract."</i>
The Taliban are reconized by only three countries (one of which has turned its back on them.) as being the legitimate government of Afghanistan. It appears that the World doesn't see the Taliban as being <i>sovereign</i>. Do you see the Taliban/Afghanistan as being beyond world law?
<i>"NATO will respect the sovereignty of individual countries, unless ofcourse the country itself is the aggressor (which is not the case here - unless Afghanistan first declares war on the US or any other NATO country). I wonder if NATO is not going beyond its own legal possibilities here."</i>
Does not the act of protecting a terrorist group serve as an act of aggression against other nations?
<i>"Terrorists might think they're above the law, but I personally don't want to lower myself to that level."</i>
I agree. We will watch and see.
Hi Bowser,
"Maybe only when it is directed at the security of a nation(s)."
Aha, this is interesting. Even though the attack claimed many lives, I don't think that at any moment, the security or the existence of the US was at stake. I would personally interpret an act of war as either an ultimatum (such as the one given by Bush in his speech to congress yesterday), or as an act of agression of one nation to the other with an underlying statement that endangers the existence of an entire nation. It's a very thin line, I admit it, but in this case, I would rather say that the attack on the WTC and the Pentagon were terrorist attacks, without a deep political statement (other than "we hate the US").
"The Taliban are reconized by only three countries (one of which has turned its back on them.) as being the legitimate government of Afghanistan. It appears that the World doesn't see the Taliban as being sovereign. Do you see the Taliban/Afghanistan as being beyond world law?"
A very good point indeed. This leads us to another thin-line scenario. The first thing we have to ask ourselves is why the world (minus three) does not recognize the Taliban as a legit regime. I think it is because the regime did not fullfil the expectations of the world: once the Russians were driven out in the 80's, the world probably expected a democratic regime to be established (something like a second Israel in the Middle-East). That didn't happen and I somehow think that the rest of the world turned their backs on the - at that time - freedom fighters of Afghanistan. We supported them, aided them and then did not recognize them. A bit of hypocrisy from the West.
The point I try to make is the following: how is sovereignty defined ? Is a nation sovereign from the moment we like it to be that way, or from the moment it claims to be itself ? However, I think I'll agree with Bowser's statement that only three other nations recognize the regime, so in this case it's really a matter of majority (it's not like two world visions clash here - that would be a different situation, there's only one vision in the world)
"Does not the act of protecting a terrorist group serve as an act of aggression against other nations?"
That really depends on the point of view. For the Afghan government, Bin Laden is a guest in their country and they seem to want to take good care of their guests.
Imagine the following situation (try to forget the current US-Afghan conflict for a moment): a US citizen bombs a federal building in Afghanistan. The Taliban arrests that citizen as a terrorist. The US will ofcourse try to do everything to retrieve their citizen and bring him to justice in one of their own courts. Does that mean the US government protects terrorists ? I think not, it is just protective about its citizens. From the Afghan point of view, the US would interfer in internal affairs, and understandably, the Afghans would think that the US is simply trying to save the life of its citizen by asking it to be delivered and then letting it go (which is probably not what would happen, but how do we react now ? We also don't think the Taliban would bring proper justice to Bin Laden if they are allowed to arrest him).
You see, it's really not just a matter of handing over someone who's guilty, it's about protecting your own citizens, or people you recognize to be citizens of your country. I understand the Afghan point of view, and why they are not willing to simply hand over Bin Laden. I don't understand why the US government thinks it is an act of aggression or lack of will to cooperate when the Afghans react in the same way we would if the situation was reversed.
Bye!
Crisp
"Maybe only when it is directed at the security of a nation(s)."
Aha, this is interesting. Even though the attack claimed many lives, I don't think that at any moment, the security or the existence of the US was at stake. I would personally interpret an act of war as either an ultimatum (such as the one given by Bush in his speech to congress yesterday), or as an act of agression of one nation to the other with an underlying statement that endangers the existence of an entire nation. It's a very thin line, I admit it, but in this case, I would rather say that the attack on the WTC and the Pentagon were terrorist attacks, without a deep political statement (other than "we hate the US").
"The Taliban are reconized by only three countries (one of which has turned its back on them.) as being the legitimate government of Afghanistan. It appears that the World doesn't see the Taliban as being sovereign. Do you see the Taliban/Afghanistan as being beyond world law?"
A very good point indeed. This leads us to another thin-line scenario. The first thing we have to ask ourselves is why the world (minus three) does not recognize the Taliban as a legit regime. I think it is because the regime did not fullfil the expectations of the world: once the Russians were driven out in the 80's, the world probably expected a democratic regime to be established (something like a second Israel in the Middle-East). That didn't happen and I somehow think that the rest of the world turned their backs on the - at that time - freedom fighters of Afghanistan. We supported them, aided them and then did not recognize them. A bit of hypocrisy from the West.
The point I try to make is the following: how is sovereignty defined ? Is a nation sovereign from the moment we like it to be that way, or from the moment it claims to be itself ? However, I think I'll agree with Bowser's statement that only three other nations recognize the regime, so in this case it's really a matter of majority (it's not like two world visions clash here - that would be a different situation, there's only one vision in the world)
"Does not the act of protecting a terrorist group serve as an act of aggression against other nations?"
That really depends on the point of view. For the Afghan government, Bin Laden is a guest in their country and they seem to want to take good care of their guests.
Imagine the following situation (try to forget the current US-Afghan conflict for a moment): a US citizen bombs a federal building in Afghanistan. The Taliban arrests that citizen as a terrorist. The US will ofcourse try to do everything to retrieve their citizen and bring him to justice in one of their own courts. Does that mean the US government protects terrorists ? I think not, it is just protective about its citizens. From the Afghan point of view, the US would interfer in internal affairs, and understandably, the Afghans would think that the US is simply trying to save the life of its citizen by asking it to be delivered and then letting it go (which is probably not what would happen, but how do we react now ? We also don't think the Taliban would bring proper justice to Bin Laden if they are allowed to arrest him).
You see, it's really not just a matter of handing over someone who's guilty, it's about protecting your own citizens, or people you recognize to be citizens of your country. I understand the Afghan point of view, and why they are not willing to simply hand over Bin Laden. I don't understand why the US government thinks it is an act of aggression or lack of will to cooperate when the Afghans react in the same way we would if the situation was reversed.
Bye!
Crisp
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't understand why the US government thinks it is an act of aggression or lack of will to cooperate when the Afghans react in the same way we would if the situation was reversed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do we take it from the above that if Belgium actively supported training camps for Terrorists, you would not expect to be responsible if that is the case??????
I don't understand why the US government thinks it is an act of aggression or lack of will to cooperate when the Afghans react in the same way we would if the situation was reversed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do we take it from the above that if Belgium actively supported training camps for Terrorists, you would not expect to be responsible if that is the case??????
Last edited:
Hi odin,
"Do we take it from the above that if Belgium actively supported training camps for Terrorists, you would not expect to be responsible if that is the case?????? "
That depends. I don't think I would personally support such kind of activities, so I don't think I should be blamed in that case. I would agree that sanctions against my government would be justified. But there's a difference between "sanctions" and "military intervention that will devastate an entire country".
But what I tried to say was simply that there could be reasons other than "let's annoy the US and not deliver Bin Laden" reason you hear in the media.
Cheers,
Crisp
"Do we take it from the above that if Belgium actively supported training camps for Terrorists, you would not expect to be responsible if that is the case?????? "
That depends. I don't think I would personally support such kind of activities, so I don't think I should be blamed in that case. I would agree that sanctions against my government would be justified. But there's a difference between "sanctions" and "military intervention that will devastate an entire country".
But what I tried to say was simply that there could be reasons other than "let's annoy the US and not deliver Bin Laden" reason you hear in the media.
Cheers,
Crisp
Hi everyone,
Maybe it's not just on line, but if you wonder if why Afganistan is not accepted by most of the coutries, please read the article by Robert Fisk:
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=95487
IvanKruk
Maybe it's not just on line, but if you wonder if why Afganistan is not accepted by most of the coutries, please read the article by Robert Fisk:
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=95487
IvanKruk
It's been six years since the tragic events of Sept 11, 2001. I thought I'd resurect an old thread from that day to give us some perspective.
Some perceptive comments posted just a day or two after 9/11/01:
wow, James....that's some pretty erie shit.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
How about all the innocent lives sacrificed to Mohammed and Moslem God by the terrorist who continue to practice their abomination of the Islamic Religion, they even kill Innocent Moslems because they get in the way.
kmguru
Staff member
Wow...6 years later...would a new President make peace? We have already started new war fronts in Africa, looking for a base of operation. Africa still has a lot of resources. Fighting stateless and religious groups with military power has its limits. Troubled days are ahead.
While spectacular terrorism attacks may not happen on US soil, the threat hanging over, loss of freedom, economic instability, are themselves the objective of the terrorists.