Maybe I could be me, but isn't the use of truth drugs in essence the same as forced ingestion of toxic chemicals?



Although I fully understand your feelings, I think nobody, not even the worst terrorists, should surrender their 'human rights'. Death penalty ok, but we should always treat others how we would like to be treaten ourselves; as human beings.



It won't really bother me I suppose, if Osama would be tortured. But what I feel is not the ultimate criteria. He should be judged by standards laid down in various international laws and human rights.



Again I understand your feelings, but condoning torture the way you are doing now, is a really tricky path and can create dangerous precendents. Ever heard about the Juvenalis-dilemma? Who will guard the guardians?

Edit: correct quote of Juvenalis is; "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?": Who will watch the watchers / who will guard the gaurdians. (Decimus Iunius Juvenalis, Satires, IV)

I have previously expressed my complete disapproval of torture for both moral and practical reasons. I find it particularly distressing to see acts of torture defended by some who have, in the past, accussed people like me of being moral relativists. If someone can't regard this as a moral issue that crosses the line, I'm afraid I can't find any respect for their claim of moral principles on other issues.

Here are a couple of good articles on this subject: Baltimore Sun Article and Molly Ivins Commentary.

The former Secretary of State's chief of staff has now pointed his finger at the Vice President for providing the "philosophical guidance" that allowed the use of torture by US forces. (See Wilkerson).



If we ever want to earn the respect of others again, it is essential that we put a red line around such activities, pursue this issue wherever it leads, and hold those responsible accountable. We can start by pressuring the Congress and the President to assure that the McCain language remain intact in the appropriation's bill.

P.S.
Isn't it remarkable how the Rasputin like countenance of the Vice President keeps showing up in all of the administration's scandals: secret meetings on energy policy, stove piping intelligence to promote a war, leaking Plame's CIA connection, and (of course) prisoner abuse and torture.

Finally the E.U. is also openly questioning the secret CIA camps and the extraordinary renditions performed by specially trained U.S. forces.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle....TY-EU-JAILS.xml



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4403166.stm


From the same article:


The political pressure is building up fast. I wonder how Bush and his administration will deal with the European critics.

None of these links or articles prove that these camps/torture existed. I'm not sure how this exudes political pressure, as at this time there is no proof that any of this happened.

In the event that it did happen, and that these camps did exist, I would presume that the thread will take a sharp turn. However, we're debating pure conjecture in reference to this situation.

I would hope that in the event that they were doing this, that the CIA was professional enough to cover their tracks...

I am sure that they did. That's part of the whole problem. Knowing that they did it is not sufficient if all the evidence has been removed secretly. The fact that these rumors of secret CIA detaining camps have reached the E.U. government and resulted in an official investigation is evidence that the accusations cannot be dismissed that easily.

The U.S. is walking a thin line. Maybe this case will also lead to nothing (due to lack of evidence), but the accusations and evidence are mounting and sooner or later the U.S. will fall flat on its face. I do not hope that this will happen, but it will if the U.S. doesn't change her policies and attitude anytime soon.

In the event that this is true, I hate to tell ya, but the CIA is not only protecting the United States from terrorist threats, but rather the entire free world. The US wasn't/isn't the only country that has been attacked by Muslim extremist terrorists... in addition, secret camps w/ detainees are nothing new to this world, but rather a part of our history (both US and European).

The EU government really has no bearing on the opinions of most Americans. The idea that the US "will fall flat on its face" based upon how the European Union (in its obscurity) feels is rather pompous. Your economies are still largely dependant upon our industry, multiple EU nations still have US military bases on their soil, and a little controversy about a CIA camp in Spain isn't going to cause any international boycott of US products... I'm sure Levis and Coca-Colas won't be wantonly abandoned in lieu of any EU findings... even as I don't believe anything will be found...

Do not try to convince me of the fact that the CIA is protecting the entire free world. It's not true. The only task for the CIA is protecting the U.S. of A., period!




I am tempted to respond to this non-sense, but I rather would not go off-topic.
Maybe it will suffice to say that this is exactly the attitude why America is loosing popularity fast.

We should not use torture but rather use ALL effective means of getting information up to the limits set by the Geneva Convention.

In doing this we DO NOT have to supply lawyers for captured terrorist combatants, and we do have to make them “comfortable” in our holding facilities. These are people who would gladly torture/murder every man woman and child in this country and I see no need to accord them any protections beyond those required by international law.

I agree with the first paragraph, but in your second paragraph you have made some errors.

Not everyone being held in these prisons is a terrorist in the sense you are describing (as in wanting to "torture/murder every man woman and child in this country"). In Afghanistan, many prisoners were taken. Some of these were Al Qaeda operatives, some were Taleban fighters, and others were turned in by warlords in order to get the bounties we were paying. Of those three groups, it is certain that not every one of them would "torture/murder every man woman and child in this country" if they had the chance. Many were people ordered to repel invaders. Some were terrorists or Qaeda sympathizers. Some are innocent men picked up and shipped to Cuba. Without due process, how can we know who is who? Should we determine who is who by subjecting them all to "aggressive interrogation?" That wouldn't work, for obvious reasons.

Assigning them all some murderous label only makes it easier for us to accept the kind of inhumane and, frankly, morally abhorrent behaviour which has been systematic in these prisons. If we can convince ourselves that these are all people who would "torture/murder every man woman and child in this country," then we can sleep better at night, knowing they are only getting what they deserve.

Even the England trial was just a way for us to whitewash what has been going on. When abuses could no longer be denied, it was convenient to pin them on 'rogue' soldiers acting on their own. Never mind the fact that the specific abuses matched exactly earlier neocon position papers describing the best way to humiliate and interrogate Muslim men. But I guess that was just a coincidence.

My second statement may have been a little broad but it was not intended to justify anything. Torture is not justified – period, but my point is that we should not feel we have the need to treat detainees as anything but prisoners of war. If we feel they have valuable information capable of saving American lives we should use all means to get it from them within the limits of the Geneva Convention.

Even the Dutch, one of the most loyal supporters of the U.S., are questioning the secret CIA detention centers in Eastern-Europe and the extra-ordinary rendition policies.

Our secretary of Foreign Affairs Ben Bot is demanding to hear all the background information of the extra-ordinary rendidition program and is threathening to withdraw Dutch support in the U.S. War on Terror if the U.S. do not stop their inhumane treatment of prisoners.


http://www.nu.nl/news.jsp?n=631639&c=10&rss


http://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/113289...html?source=rss

Translation for all those non-Dutch speakers in the world:





Next week the Dutch parlement has te decide if they are going to send 1100 soldiers to Uruzgan, a southern province in Afghanistan, but if the U.S. continues to use tactics that are in conflict with international laws and human rights it can influence the decission negatively.

The U.S. is loosing support all over the world, but when even loyal supporters like Holland is openly questioning Bush's policy and is threatening to withdraw their support, that should be a clear sign that things have to change! Don't you agree?

Renger, you have provided a perfect example of why the administration's past facilitation of torture and prisoner mistreatment and current defense of secret facilities and regulations allowing such practices to continue are such a failure from a practical foreign relations point of view. Obviously, they are morally repugnant as well. Those that continue to defend such acts and policies should be given no credibility on any issue of right and wrong.

We have discussed the mistreatment of prisoners by "coalition" forces in a manner tantamount to torture, the out-sourcing of torture to third countries, and the existence of CIA secret prisons that may conceal this barbaric practice. What we haven't discussed is the out-sourcing of torture to the Iraqis themselves. There have been several articles on the discovery of 169 prisoners held incommunicado and tortured in an unambiguous fashion. Here is a link to the reproduction of several article on the subject.

I voted Other. My first problem with this debate is the definition of the word 'torture'. Most people, including myself, think of torture as extreme physical abuse. However, there are those within this debate who define torture to include any coercive tactic. For example I've heard it said that forcing someone to stand up for four hours straight or having a dog bark at them would also be defined as torture. And this article essentially calls someone who is forced to go without clothes during interrogation as 'brutalization'. If we are going to debate torture, let us first agree upon what it is.

As for the article, it is not a fair and balanced piece. I believe I found one comment from someone who quasi-defended Rendition. Everything else consisted of torture details being carried out by foreign nations. Being spoon fed a single opinion by the MSM requires me to have faith which I don't have in an organization that I already don't trust.

[quote]Why, if they have suspicions, don’t they question people within the boundary of the law?”[/quote]

[/quote]
In civil police situations the exact rule of law should be followed unless some liberal has created a loophole to allow a guilty person to go free. In such case use instant justice if you cannot be prosecuted.

In war everything is fair and rules of war are designed for those who follow the rules, a rather gentleman thing to do. Reality check the Japanese were brutal with our soldiers in WWII and their familiesdeserved the nukes that fell on the like kind including women and children.

With the war on terror where people gladly blow themselves up for the cause killing an enemy not wearing a uniform and cut the throats of those they capture place themselves in the Japanese warrior category. If given the opportunity I would question them by simple means of asking the necessary questions and if they didn't cooperate then threaten to kill their family... Still no cooperation then let them bob for catfish in the nearest lake from a cable suspended from a blackhawk... still no answers kill their family and allow them to watch as you slowly killed their comrades to reconsider their position.

I was faced with such a dilemma in the 70's and the two black guys who held a strait razor to an off duty MP on the back of a bus full of drunks were detained by me. The incident went unreported as did the apprehension of the suspects who would undoubtedly go free due to lack of witness... instead they got a broken pool queue driven home up their rectums. People are not born with a gene that demands "do unto others as you would have them do to you"... or are they? Play by the rules and be treated by the rules... otherwise don't harm someone I care for. For, what happened to the two blacks didn't happen as the act they perpetrated on the back of the bus. It just didn't fall into the "do unto others" category... well with more thought I guess it did! Behave as a respectful human if you don't want tortured.

Ol' Sarge

I don't post here much, but I find your entire diatribe to border on sociopathic.

Anal rape with a pool cue is alright with you?

Nuclear destruction of children is deserved?

"In civil police situations the exact rule of law should be followed unless some liberal has created a loophole to allow a guilty person to go free. In such case use instant justice if you cannot be prosecuted."

Wow. I pretty certain that you are saying homocide is just fine, as long as YOU are sure the person is guilty. Read, YOU, not a jury of ones peers. You know, what our criminal justice system is founded upon.

Again, wow.

Anal rape with a pool cue is alright with you? If a person, a human person held a strait razor to your throat and robbed you and forced you to give oral sex and there were no witnesses then a crime has not been committed just like if you suddenly have power over the two animals that performed the act and return the favor of like treatment. Afterall, the law says the two guys are free, no witnesses just like the law says you go free if there are no witnesses. Do you suggest my friend should just chuck it up to a lesson learned not to ride on a bus without a witness? Or, are you suggesting he should get used to being abused at the will of inhuman beings around him if the law isn't on his side?


Nuclear destruction of children is deserved? Yes the Batton death march justified the killing of innocent Japanese. Our soldiers were systematically killed and tortured... If someone, some race or group uses unhuman treatment in solving a difference in their view of the world then like justice is their right. Make their parents wish they had never concieved them!

Yes, I know what our criminal justice system is based on... Christian values of right and wrong... Acts of terror or the Japanese, or the two blacks that would go unpunished were undeserving of any treatment due a person not welcoming "do unto others" rule. Our system of justice is a refined version of being drawn and quartered, a French method of punishment. The point is there is crime and then there are acts outside of human expectation that causes one to revert back to French thinking.

Torture should be defined. Interrogation of terrorist forces attacking sovereign democratic-republics should be defined by the government and be classified by the elected officials of the government.

As our soldiers lose many of their constitutional rights on active duty by demand of the requirements of protecting the republic. Citizens lose constitutional rights when the government declares Marshal Law in times of emergency. Terrorist by nature simply lose their rights to be treated as equal human beings because of their stated goal of destruction of our government and way of life.

The primary purpose of a government is to survive and the primary method of survival is a strong military, a force with fewer rights than promised by the constitution. The military loses its constitutional rights voluntarily meeting the requirements of the republic to protect itself.

Again, the primary purpose for government is to protect “its citizen’s” rights and to continue as a government. We have no treaty with terrorist because we do not negotiate with terrorist for there is no negotiation with a terrorist since our destruction and submission is their demands is their only objective.

Personally, I would treat a terrorist in any manner I thought would save lives from other of his associates without remorse. It is a “republic” thing... protecting a way of life, our nation and our government. Terrorist have no right to exist any more than they think we and our way of life has a right to exist. The government democratically elected officials should assign the exact limits of interrogation by our interrogators and classify these methods for our government to know and for terrorist to find out when they are captured.

That is probably the most repulsive post I have ever seen on AD. Brutal physical torture - and outright murder - driven by revenge, frustration, etc. ad nauseum are the acts of criminals, and in no way represent the methods by which military and law enforcement professionals carry out their day-to-day jobs.

I've worked in various aspects of this field for about two decades. As I stated before, conducting interrogations in support of counterterrorism, with sources who may be trained to varying degrees in methods of counterinterrogation, is far more complex than your standard military PW interrogation or law enforcement interview. That is why you see this slippage into questionable methods - which includes rendition to locations where there is an implicit understanding that the host nation will use methods of "physical coercion" against the detainees. Torture, rendtion, et al, are an admission of failure by the interrogator, and a clear indicator of a leadership failure by his superiors, in both supervision and training. Regarding rendition, the leadership failure goes as high as the individual who authorizes the transfer of detainees. But the interrogation problem is a situation that can be fixed at the organizational level, given good leadership and proper training. Unfortunately, there seems to be a serious shortage of the former to drive the latter.

That is probably the most repulsive post I have ever seen on AD. Brutal physical torture - and outright murder - driven by revenge, frustration, etc. ad nauseum are the acts of criminals, and in no way represent the methods by which military and law enforcement professionals carry out their day-to-day jobs.

I've worked in various aspects of this field for about two decades. As I stated before, conducting interrogations in support of counterterrorism, with sources who may be trained to varying degrees in methods of counterinterrogation, is far more complex than your standard military PW interrogation or law enforcement interview. That is why you see this slippage into questionable methods - which includes rendition to locations where there is an implicit understanding that the host nation will use methods of "physical coercion" against the detainees. Torture, rendtion, et al, are an admission of failure by the interrogator, and a clear indicator of a leadership failure by his superiors, in both supervision and training. Regarding rendition, the leadership failure goes as high as the individual who authorizes the transfer of detainees. But the interrogation problem is a situation that can be fixed at the organizational level, given good leadership and proper training. Unfortunately, there seems to be a serious shortage of the former to drive the latter.

[/quote]
I’m pleased my post got your attention... Is bobbing for catfish torture or an investigative tactic? The outright murder you mention did occur... History clearly records the Japanese were excellent warriors and routinely murdered and enslaved captured soldiers. While I honestly don’t believe the attacks on mainland Japanese civil communities were retaliation for the murders it did make the decision easier to make. The estimate was 1,000,000,000 American soldiers lives were saved by using firestorm bombing killing hundreds of thousands of civilians prior to the dropping of two nuclear bombs. The estimate of civil casualties had a mainland invasion of Japan without the fire and nuclear bombing would have been about the same. This isn’t about Japan or their people it is about the ideology the leader held at the time. The use of the Japanese in comparison with terrorist was merely noting American history indicates Americans did take extreme action against an enemy refusing to surrender even when overwhelmed militarily. The Japanese wore uniforms and terrorist does not. Terrorist are not deserving of recognition in any form of human rights since they establish they do not respect any human rights.

The gray area is what is torture? I don’t see bobbing for catfish as torture but merely persuasive encouragement to cooperate. I wouldn’t agree to such treatment of a civil law violator but a terrorist would definitely fall in the category.

There are numerous methods that could cause discomfort and result in cooperation when dealing with terrorist. You could feed them sawdust enriched with vitamins and minerals to support life while housing another Muslim in the next cage feeding him the prisoners dream meals. You could threaten to mix pig blood in their shower water or threaten to inject Jewish blood into their veins if they don’t cooperate. Keep them awake 24-7. Reward good behavior.

Or, we could read them their rights give them a pamper treatment as the administration allows in Cuba? I think a live terrorist serves no purpose if he isn’t talking and they should be told upon detention there is no possibility of them ever seeing freedom and their life can be hell on earth or very comfortable. I have no problem with a cooperative terrorist that will remain in jail living in luxury if his cooperation saves lives. Likewise, I see no reason to provide him comfort so other Muslims won’t be angered. A non-terrorist Muslim should see terrorist as the people in Jordan.

The argument seems to be based on treaties causing our soldiers to be placed into jeopardy in future conflicts... The answer is quite simple, simply state to the world what I’ve written... terrorist do not qualify for treaties since they do not respect the law of warfare.

How do you define interogation and torture? Are the examples I offered torture?

I assume you think terrorist should be treated as criminals violating civil crime in full protection of the US Constitution and Justice system... am I wrong?

Answer as if the terrorist were bombing American elementary schools and then bombing the funerals of the students parents.

I heard a view I'd not heard before yesterday during Rush's show. An Army mojor called to tell Rush why he was wrong supporting torture(Rush is spouting the Cheney line).

This guy said our enemies should know we treat them well and all this torture business is making thier lives more difficult. The premise is, is that if an enemy combatant knows he will be treated well, they surrender more and they surrender quicker. Otherwise they stand and fight which gets more people killed.

Therin lies the problem.

It seems that you are more than willing to decide who is a "terrorist" and treat (torture) them accordingly.

However, are all the captives at Gitmo terrorists? Or were some innocents rounded up and handed over for the big cash bounties given out by the US?

Are you going to torture them all in order to decide who is who?

I approach the issue of terrorist as prime subjects, persons who were found with a bomb factory in their living room, a vehicle bomb that was stopped before exploding, a terrorist plot discovered before completion. While there is possibility that some in Gitmo are there for wrong reasons we have released several that have rejoined the fight.

I find very few valid reasons for persons to be on a battlefield if they are not terrorist, in Afghanistan for example, and would interrogate them as I stated... I don't consider the methods I speak of as torture and if an interrogator is convinced of a captives innocense then investigate... we have people on the ground that can do the verifying...

So, in short to answer your question if I would decide... I would assume anyone on a battlefield or driving a bomb truck or with bombs in their home to be a terrorist. If someone could convince me they were a human shield or were just making money selling coffee to soldiers then I would verify.

If someone is stopped with a concrete turck full of explosives outside of a US school would you consider him or her as a criminal or a terrorist?

Well, now, you certainly do seem to have strong opinions...



How about a soldier? Call me crazy, but rightly or wrongly, the US did INVADE their country, are they terrorists for fighting back? Personally, I agree with the US invasion of Afghganistan, in theory at least, though it has been appaulingly executed, but I still have difficulty understanding your deciding how people guilty of 'fighting back when you invade their country' are terrorists.



Thats fine, if you dont consider them torture, then you have no objection to those tactics being used on you whenever the police find you in a suspicious situation. After all, its not torture, right?



Firstly, I assume you meant a million dead, rather than a billion dead. Secondly the estimate was not a million dead, it was a million casualties, of which 1/4 would be dead. Thirdly, that number has been utterly debunked, not the least by the man who made it who admitted he made it up on the spot.

Not that any of this matters, I personally agree with the sad decision to nuke Japan in 1945, but I agree because it was militarily necessary and likely saved lives on both sides, not because 'they deserved it'. The rest of your argument literally boils down to the schoolyard 'he started it' argument.



The question was not directed at me, but I will give my answer, no I expect the US to respect treaties it signed, and treat POWs as POWs. Otherwise I suggest you realise that you have just given up legal protection for your troops if they ever get captured by, say Iran or North Korea or China in a hypothetical future conflict. After all, they can just use your 'they started it' argument just as well as you can...



No.
The terrorists are not bombing US schools or US funerals, they are bombing US troops in the process of invading and occupying THEIR country.

You do not get to invade a nation and then cry 'unfair' when they fight back.

Your view of torture is based as far as I can tell on thinly disguised bloodlust. Thats not exactly a good reason.

Update from the Netherlands.....

A few posts earlier I wrote that because of the rumours regarding torture, extra-ordinary rendition and secret CIA camps in Eastern Europe, the Dutch are seriously wondering if we should support the U.S. any longer. These doubts and the distrust plays a big role in the question whether Holland should send 11000 speciallly trained commando's, under guidedance of Nato, to the south of Afghanistan for a period of two years. (The region known as Uruzgan is considered a dangerous area were fighting still continues)

As I feared the debate is certainly being negatively influenced by the recent rumours of U.S. prison abuse in their War against Terror.

http://www.nu.nl/news/634375/11/Kabinet_ne...tan-missie.html





Again, a translation for those "few" people who do not understand the beautiful Dutch language.






My guess for the moment is that Holland will NOT send out his 1100 troops to Afghanistan. Distrust towards the U.S. (what happens with our prisoners of war when we hand them over to the U.S.?) and the dangers of the mission (our troops will not receive U.S. back-up according to Rumsfeld) are the two most-heard arguments against participation. Almost our entire parlement has serious doubts or just rejects the whole mission. This attitude will certainly not change in a few days.

If Holland decides to step back from the "War on Terror" this could have serious consequences for U.S. support in Europe. The Netherlands are a small country (tiny even compared to the U.S.) but we relatively have a lot of influence in Europe (just ook at the reaction of Europe after Holland decided to vote against the European Constitution) and, together with Belgium and Luxemburg (Benelux) and Germany, is recognized as one of the founding countries of the E.U.. We always had warm and intimate relations with the U.S. (our 'own' Jaap de Hoop-Scheffer is secretary-general of the Nato) and can be considered as one of your most loyal allies. The fact that Holland is forced to publicly taking a stance against the U.S. is not a good sign for Bush's WOT and it will negatively influence the attitude of other countries in Europe towards the U.S. ("France, Germany okay, but if even Holland is questioning the U.S. then there has to be a good reason!")

People, again, if you want to win the war against international terrorism, you have to stop these horrendous torture practises so that nobody ever again can charge your country with these accusations. Torture does not only violate human rights or results in questionable information, it is also undermining the U.S. position in the world and is alienating Americans from the rest of the world.

It is time to change things!

   

We did not, I repeat did not invade their country. Iraq invaded Kuwait and a US led coalition removed him from Kuwait and agreed to a cease fire in ongoing hostilities based on disarmament of Iraq to prove Iraq would not be a threat to its neighbors. The most recent overwhelmingly yes vote to authorize the President to return to hostilities if Saddam refused to live up to the cease fire agreement was a vote of CONFIDENCE and not authority. The authority for hostilities was the vote for Desert Storm. Clearly the President has no federal money other than the Executive budget so he required the confidence of Congress, who must pay for the prosecution of hostilities. There was no question what was being voted on in Congress... just before the vote the President of the House and Senate clearly state, “the question is on the words written on the paper ling on the table”. What were the words written on the paper ling on the table? There were no amendments offered requiring the President to return to Congress prior to RESTARTING hostilities.

Allow me to explain good guys and bad guys... When in hostilities a person who shoots at the military force in opposition is a bad guy. Governments establish Armies to defend their government and citizens. Let’s take your view of “are they terrorist for fighting back?” and look at it in another light. Who is fighting back? Let’s say America were Iraq in reverse situation and Saddam was the leader of the Chinese, Afro, Mexican American minority and was deposed, the Army fought back and lost and then the Chinese or whatever minority began fighting back as terrorist. Would that be a proper right to fight back or would all other citizens of America be allowed to chose the “new leadership/” Simply they are TERRORIST and have employed outside terrorist to help them.

This is not a civil action it is war.

We have no treaty with terrorist, captured soldiers are POW’s, captured terrorist are not. I don’t see how the US government gave up anything, simply state to the world terrorist are not considered a legal fighting force and therefore will not be acknowledged the same rights.

We did not invade... we restarted hostilities “for cause”. Democratic republics have the right to protect their governments. We have that right and the interim government of Iraq has that authority and it is our responsibility to assist them until the are able to stand alone.

I suppose you speak of my view of interrogation since I do not see the actions mentioned as torture.

Wow, you completely missed that one.

I stated the simple fact that you invaded their country, you responded with a long winded, (and of questionable accuracy) claim of how your justification for the invasion was valid.

Let me make myself clear, firstly, we were talking about Afghanistan, not Iraq. Secondly, I personally do not think the invasion of Iraq was justified, but that makes NO DIFFERENCE to this argument. Rightly or wrongly, the US invaded Afghanistan, and the US invaded Iraq.

They may have had ample cause and reason to do so, they may not, IRRELEVANT to this debate. You took your armies and attacked another state, fighting on their soil, bombing their cities, occupying their streets. That is an invasion.

So, these people who you call 'terrorists' are people fighting back against a US invasion of their own soil. You are happy to dismiss them all as 'terrorists' arbitrarily, though you gave no justification for how you can POSSIBLY conclude that everyone in Iraq or Afghanistan who opposes YOUR invasion of THEIR country is a 'terrorist'...



You need to get your facts straight. According to US military estimates, less than 8% of the people currently engaged in active insurgency in Iraq are 'foreign fighters' the remainder are all domestic Iraqis resisting US occupation. They are not terrorists, any more than US troops during the revolution who fought using unconventional tactics were 'terrorists'.

I am not making any value judgements as to wheither these people are on the side of the angels or not, frankly one could not make such a comment as they have widely varying motivations, and from what I have seen in my studies, certainly a large percentage of their motivations would certainly NOT put them on the side of the angels. That is however irrelevant. My point is simply the factual statement that they are resisting a foreign invasion in their home country, and by this act you summarily designate them all as 'terrorists'.




Except you arbitrarily designate everyone who opposes you in two countries you invaded to be terrorists right? Neatly ignoring established international treaties which define what is and what is not a soldier while doing so...



Yes, you did invade, look up the word in a dictionary.

And, could you please explain to me exactly how Iraq was ANY threat whatsoever to the democratic US government prior to this latest invasion?

Look “terrorist” up in a dictionary. Look up the word “Army” also.

Iraq is not Sunnistan... it is Iraq, just as America has Chinese, Japanese and Iraqi populations... to consider one of these minorities held dictatorship power over the entire nation and was removed would not categorize a Chinese, Japanese or Iraqi as a country freedom fighter because the majorities of the population supporting a democratic nation are the subjects of their abuse along with the outside security force. Do you think if the Chinese citizens of Canada took dictator power of Canada then got kicked out of power and then attempted to regain power using even the imported even 1% foreign terrorist they would qualify as freedom fighters if they were killing members of the Canadian majority?
.
Please advise me of what specific international treaty defines what is and is not a soldier. Look up the word soldier and terrorist in the dictionary and think.

Picky... picky...yes we invaded Afghanistan for cause after diplomacy broke down. Iraq, on the other hand did invade Kuwait causing the invasion of Kuwait and Iraq to remove them... Again, there was a cease fire contract between the opposing forces agreed to by Saddam... the burden was on Saddam and not the world to prove he had lived up to the contract to prevent restart of hostilities. It doesn’t matter if he was a threat to the US or not... we and most nations of the world did believe he was a threat.

Well, think about what a terrorist is for a while... it is 89F with 79% humidity here and the mosquitoes under the computer desk won't leave me alone... I'll respond later in the evening when it's not so hot.