And you're utter dependence upon ad hominem attacks upon me, rather than trying to credibly dispute my logic, is CLEAR sign that when you can't attack the message, you'll attack the messenger..
OK, Hawk you have a point. So here goes, again...:
Anyone with an ounce of common sense understands that terrorist networks cannot be created or continue to exist without state-sponsored tolerance, or at least indifference....Someone has finance them, provide them a place to train, or at the very least provide moral incentive to carry out their acts.
Actually, anyone with a lick of common sense understands just the opposite. There are terrorist networks existing all over the world that are not "state sponsored.. or tolerated." Just use your head here Hawk, if you wanted to create a terrorist network would you have to run around asking for a nation to "help?" If you couldn't find a sponsor would you have to just give up? Of course not. look at the number of terrorist networks that exist in nations that are being attacked by those same networks.
Have you been listening to any of the experts? Haven't you seen any hearings on this issue. One of the most dangerous aspects of terrorist networks is that they DON'T need a state sponsor. They are slippery, shadowy entities that pop up where you least expect them and can act with the cooperation of a small cell. In today's age of internet information they can learn all they need about explosives without meeting a single "trainer" and without any help from any nation.
It's interesting to me that in the language quoted below, you seem to take the contrary view, ie., that:
But the war on terrorism is being fought against non-state entities, Al-Qaeda being one of which. And so long as I am convinced that the countries in which they are seeking refuge or safe haven are currently engaged in using THEIR criminal or military resources to fight, capture, or kill them, then I will be relatively content to support their local efforts..
Nice of you to set yourself up (or is it America) as the final arbiter of what is enough "effort" to fight terrorism. Of course because of our military might, we needn't set international standards bilaterally and if they don't do enough then screw em cause "they're either for us or for terrorism" and we all know what we do when they're for terrorism.
In the real world Hawk, you don't get the kind of cooperation that will stop terrorism at the point of a gun. You get it by using commonality of interests and willing cooperation.
Incorrect. They are only entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention IF, and ONLY IF, their own government is a signatory to that convention. And, if I'm not mistaken, the convention was deliberately written in that manner in order to convince as many nations as possible to have an incentive to sign it.
That two way street you're talking about is not a technical "gotcha." Whether or not our "enemy" has signed the Geneva Convention, I'll bet that if you were a prisoner of the enemy you'd rather we didn't kill, torture and maim our prisoners because bad actions promote retaliatory bad actions.
But that's beside the point; if we laud our adherence to humanity, civilization and a code of ethics that values human rights then we DON'T DO SUCH THINGS. That, Hawk, is how you lead people upward. The fact that YOU can find some thin rationale to justify the assertion that we CAN do it without technically violating the Geneva convention is virtually irrelevant.
And that's what I meant when I said That's a telltale sign of a man that's tied himself emotionally to a position he cannot justify intellectually.
Your thin logic, your positions that shift erratically depending upon which position currently seems to support the Bush stance on Iraq or our past actions there, and your seeming failure to maintain a consistent conceptual point of view on these complex issues, seems to reveal a knee-jerk, blind follower attitude. |
