OSDev.org

@abuashraf: Most of what you're listing are isolated incidents here, that's the problem. I'm not saying they don't occur but they aren't day to day experiences generally. You've brought up Abu Ghraib several times for example, the soldiers involved were court marshalled for their actions there and it was widely publicized. There's plenty of detainment centers where nothing like that happens. Likewise Haditha has gone mostly through trial with one still pending. Keep in mind the US has thousands and thousands of troops in these regions, most doing their jobs without incident. It's also been around 5 years worth of time, statistically there's bound to be a few incidents like this given the sheer concentration of people and time. That doesn't condone it most of these people are put on trial and convicted if there's evidence todo so. It isn't U.S policy for their soldiers todo these things.

There was a case in Iran where a 16 year old girl was hung for adultry after being raped by a man for the third time as well, but I think most people can differentiate an extreme case where mistakes were made to an everyday occurance, it shouldn't be any different for U.S actions. It's not wrong that these issues are brought up or to the attention of the media and all, but it shouldn't be misconstrued as being the norm for US actions in the region because it simply is not.

Likewise with the bombing article you've been talking about, the numbers were given for the initial invasion of Iraq on high priority targets. The man giving them left the military shortly after that operation was done approximately 5 years ago, I'm kind of doubtful that they use that as a day to day tactic for peacekeeping and I don't know that the numbers he gave have even been confirmed by another source. Likewise it didn't say that there was absolutely no oversight, just that if there was the potential for 30 civilians to be killed they'd need direct authorization from the President or Secretary of Defense. These were also high threat targets like Saddam Hussein himeslf as the article mentions. Lastly I need to stress that any military would be put into a difficult situation given what the Taliban and insurgents put them into. They routinely take families hostage and hide behind them launching rockets or firing on troops, they also have no problem killing civilians themselves which doesn't leave many options open with how to deal with them. I don't mind people holding the US military accountable for it's actions, but they really need to realize that the ones putting them into these situations are these extremists.

Conflicts begin when nations meddle in the affairs of other nations.

This specific occurrence started during WW2 when the Brit's decided to give Israel to both the Jews and the Arabs in return for their help. Since then, the west has supported the Jews, and the east (What was the Soviet Union) supported the Arabs. Even after the fall of Communism in the late 80's, the west still supported the Jews. (To whom they literally gave weapons and defense to fight the Arabs.)

Now, some Arabs dislike Jews, because they won't give up Palestine, and America supported the Jews in Isreal, (As they weren't communist.) and thus 9/11 was at least partially caused by this link, which, was initially caused by Britain.

Thus, why don't we all just blame Britain and make peace?

do yo consider this actions as a terrorist acts?

It isn't U.S policy for their soldiers todo these things

I understand that...


but if this actions happened to some American citizens,maybe Bush will start a war
to defened the victimes.

There was a case in Iran where a 16 year old girl was hung for adultry after being raped by a man for the third time as well

This has nothing to do in our discussion ,by the way i hate Iran.(the government)
Iran don't represent niethr the Islamic world nor Arabs.

They routinely take families hostage and hide behind them launching rockets or firing on troops

in case of Taliban most of there fighters belongs to the local people,so they are not hiding
behind the families,they are living with there own families,and the air strikes kill them and
there families.

Also I want to say America now consider Taliban as a terror organization while
in the 1970s they considered as freedom fighters,because they were fighting against Russia
and it also armed them.
I consider Taliban as a national resistance(fighting an occupation troops)

so in my opinion America has alot of political hypocrisy,when it comes to the national politics.

Now, some Arabs dislike Jews.

No,they dislike Israel.which occupying alot of Arabs lands,and killed thousands
of people,using American weapons.

abuashraf wrote:

Now, some Arabs dislike Jews.

No,they dislike Israel.which occupying alot of Arabs lands,and killed thousands
of people,using American weapons.

Sorry for the confusion, my intent was as you said.

abuashraf wrote:do yo consider this actions as a terrorist acts?

There was a case in Iran where a 16 year old girl was hung for adultry after being raped by a man for the third time as well

This has nothing to do in our discussion ,by the way i hate Iran.(the government)
Iran don't represent niethr the Islamic world nor Arabs.

This has todo exactly with what I'm talking about, as it's an example of using an extremely small cross section to represent the actions of a much larger group unfairly. You've basically cited the absolute worst actions of a few soldiers as an example of how the US conducts itself. It's not accurate or objective of the vast majority of military personel in the area.

abuashraf wrote:

They routinely take families hostage and hide behind them launching rockets or firing on troops

in case of Taliban most of there fighters belongs to the local people,so they are not hiding
behind the families,they are living with there own families,and the air strikes kill them and
there families.

Also I want to say America now consider Taliban as a terror organization while
in the 1970s they considered as freedom fighters,because they were fighting against Russia
and it also armed them.
I consider Taliban as a national resistance(fighting an occupation troops)

so in my opinion America has alot of political hypocrisy,when it comes to the national politics.

Now, some Arabs dislike Jews.

No,they dislike Israel.which occupying alot of Arabs lands,and killed thousands
of people,using American weapons.

I don't know that there's any point in arguing this, the fact is more civilians are indiscriminately killed by Taliban fighters in Afghanistan than by US forces. Also the Taliban was proven to be a safe haven for Al Queda leading up to 9/11, no one went in there and provoked them. As you've been so kind to point out, we actually assisted them in their last major conflict. That said once again 20-30 years is enough time for a government to change severely and no one can accurately predict the future, I doubt at the time anyone had some certainty or predicted the Taliban would grant asylum to groups focused on killing civilians under no formal declaration of war. Look at Pakistan, there has been no invasion there (though there have been incidents of cross border attacks), because the Pakistani government has dedicated itself to trying to apprehend and remove terrorist forces there. I'm going to be frank here, I cannot understand for the life of me how so many people in the Arab world can defend groups like this that flat out kill more of their own people than we do. Once again I'm not defending some of the wrong actions has our military/government has committed, but you need to apply the same kind of standards to native people in these areas if you yourself don't want to appear hypocritical.

This has todo exactly with what I'm talking about, as it's an example of using an extremely small cross section to represent the actions of a much larger group unfairly. You've basically cited the absolute worst actions of a few soldiers as an example of how the US conducts itself. It's not accurate or objective of the vast majority of military personel in the area.

I think you're right,but unfortunately this actions happened alot.

but you need to apply the same kind of standards to native people in these areas if you yourself don't want to appear hypocritical.

Fair enough

I cannot understand for the life of me how so many people in the Arab world can defend groups like this that flat out kill more of their own people than we do

Taliban killed alot of Afghani,but most of these people were helping the invasion troops,
such as Afghani troops,afghani police ,made ,trained and are controled by the invasion to fight Taliban,
translater works with the invasion,drivers works with the invasion they drive supply convoys
which support invasion troops, spies...
most of the intelligence on the ground is collected by Afghani spies.

let me tell you I don't like Taliban, they have alot of deviant ideas,
I hate the ways they treat women,they have a huge misunderstanding of Islam,
so they draw a bad picture about it.
anyway America shouldn't consider them as terrors,simply they are national resistance.

The same thing goes in Iraq,most of people killed by armed orgnizations deal and help
invasion troops.but America consider them as terror organizations,while
as I think they are national resistence.

It's a law,you don't deal with invasion you fight it,tell it's out of your country.

abuashraf wrote:

I cannot understand for the life of me how so many people in the Arab world can defend groups like this that flat out kill more of their own people than we do

Taliban killed alot of Afghani,but most of these people were helping the invasion troops,
such as Afghani troops,afghani police ,made ,trained and are controled by the invasion to fight Taliban,
translater works with the invasion,drivers works with the invasion they drive supply convoys
which support invasion troops, spies...
most of the intelligence on the ground is collected by Afghani spies.

let me tell you I don't like Taliban, they have alot of deviant ideas,
I hate the ways they treat women,they have a huge misunderstanding of Islam,
so they draw a bad picture about it.
anyway America shouldn't consider them as terrors,simply they are national resistance.

The same thing goes in Iraq,most of people killed by armed orgnizations deal and help
invasion troops.but America consider them as terror organizations,while
as I think they are national resistence.

It's a law,you don't deal with invasion you fight it,tell it's out of your country.

It's not their objectives alone that tend to lead to this perception. It's the methodology they use in doing it. I'm going to add that in the case of Iraq Saddam's party was allowed to run in elections and hold seats in office if they weren't one of the few going under trial for human right's violations and what not. Likewise Karzai himself has offered Taliban militants and opporunity to hold seats in government to express themselves this way, which they refused. Now look realistically I know where they're comming from and don't expect them to take such offers, but formal offers were made for non violent ways in which they could have a say over the reconstruction and removal of Colalition forces in the area. The path they've taken is only going to prolong the process. The Taliban has also had a history of staging attacks from civilian buildings and attacking aid workers who have little if any affiliation with the military.

I'd also like to state that their definition of aiding US forces is very very broad here, not everyone is a turncoat and spy. They do tend to target military personel but basically anyone who's nearby is at risk, they've attacked things like hospitals just because there was a soldier or two in the area. They also have been using heavily what are traditionally considered terrorist tactics like suicide bombers and have associated with known terrorist groups, which is what got them into this whole mess to begin with. I think there's a distinct line between things like spying and say building a police building becuase you've been hired todo so. You spoke of law here and I'm unsure what you're referring to, is it Islamic law? (I'm not too familiar with it) But generally according to international law these kind of actions tend to be viewed as terrorism meant to send a clear message to anyone affliated with NATO forces in the area that any compliance will not be tolerated under threat of death.

They do tend to target military personel but basically anyone who's nearby is at risk

isn't this what US army dose,they do tend to target Taliban but anything who's nearby is at risk.

they've attacked things like hospitals just because there was a soldier or two in the area

If you look back at the links I gave, US army attacked families in their own homes,
even somtimes the army went to the house,the day before the attack,and they didn't find
anything.

They also have been using heavily what are traditionally considered terrorist tactics like suicide bombers

Tell me which is more dangerous a suicide bomber holding a bomb made by hand,or
air strikes using bombs weighted thousands of tons.

and have associated with known terrorist groups

USA crowd many many countries to fight in Afghanistan,against Taliban.

I think there's a distinct line between things like spying and say building a police building becuase you've been hired todo so

police building that was basiclly established to fight Taliban,and people who made it was hired
by invasion troops.

is it Islamic law?

Absolutely no,but let me tell you after 9/11 till this day there was alot of muslims around
the world,accused in supporting terrorism (Taliban and Alqaeda).
so it's okay with US if the Afghani people help the invasion troops,but
it's not okay if they helped the other team (Taliban),
I think this is very double standards.

The way I see things here,both Taliban and US use the same rules,they don't like to kill
civilians,but it's okay if there's an important military target in the same area.

Taliban kill every one who deals with the invasion troops,while US takes every man who
may(without acussation) supported Taliban to Guantanamo prison.

Taliban cooperate with Alqaeada,while US cooperate with other armies like British army.

US says they are doing this for Afghani people,while Taliban says they are doing this for Afghani people.

But there's two differences,US has technology while Taliban don't.
US army is American,Taliban is Afghani,US army came from overseas to fight them,
so the are defending themselves....that's why I see their case is a fair one.

I feel like we're kind of going in circles here. I understand your sympathy with their perspective, but my major point here is that they hinge on violence as the only solution to these problems, and in the process are going to end up actually prolonging the US presence there and the number of troops in the region. The US tried diplomacy, I agree that it would be better if there was no involvement from from abroad, but that was not an option after the Taliban refused to hand over Osama Bin Laden and other Al Queda members. At the same time I do feel that we could do a better job about showing good will to the people of Afghanistan and solving some of the issues that are allowing them to maintain some following despite of what they're doing. The major one is helping to reshape agriculture so poppy farmers have another source of income, instead of simply burning the fields. I'd also debate how much the people are really interested in Taliban rule, as their elections seemed not to favor that fundamentalist canidates. Ultimately war is war, and while the US hasn't been doing perfectly it's been trying todo things with international and regional support. I'm not sure of the state of the Afghani judiciary, but perhaps having them settle more of the trials for Taliban militants/supporters would be a better option as well. I don't think at this point though the Taliban is really willing to compromise and that pretty much only leaves continued fighting open as an option.

but my major point here is that they hinge on violence as the only solution to these problems

America entered Afghanistan by force,and they would leave only by force.

but that was not an option after the Taliban refused to hand over Osama Bin Laden and other Al Queda members

But till now America didn't get Osama Bin Laden or any other important members,
Do you know that Osama Bin Laden built an university in Afghanistan,and some
other civilian facilities like schools and hospitals.which America didn't.

You shouldn't look to 9/11 as an isolated event,sure Alqaeda killed around 3000 American
civilians,but Also America caused the death of around million Iraqi children,when
it imposed international sanctions begining of 90s,Preventing the arrival of food and medicine.

would you please answer this question:
why do you think Al Qaeda attacked America?

why do you think Al Qaeda attacked America?

They were jealous of how awesome we are.

abuashraf wrote: would you please answer this question:
why do you think Al Qaeda attacked America?

Because they didn't like our support of Israel and likewise our military deployment during the Gulf War. I think in a large way, at least from what I've read, they also feel foreign influence in the region is destructive to what they feel are core Islamic values. Likewise during the Gulf War the use of Bin Laden's forces were refused in favor of the US military forces, which he felt defiled Muslim lands. There was also a lot of fallout over him criticizing the Saudi government based on his views, which cost him his citizenship and family ties. He lost a lot from this and focused the blame solely on the US instead of Saudi government which actually exiled him. That's basically where it's started and it's been sustained by any US military presence in the Muslim world since. As his crusade has continued he's lost more and more support among nations and was likewise exiled from Sudan and so forth.

Regarding catching him, many believe that he might actually be dead. Not from US military actions but from what I believe was a kidney problem he had. We have removed/killed a good number of high level Al Qaeda commanders/leadership though not some of the highest ranking ones, so I wouldn't say it's been totally in vain. We need to improve our reconstruction efforts a bit I think, to make sure a lot of the economic and educational factors that breed the kind of desperation that allows these groups to gain support are remedied. We should be building more schools, power plants, irrigation and infrastructure. Honestly the contracts issued for the bulk of this were grossly mishandled by the US government and did not require many of the companies that won them to actually build things quickly and on budget. There was a lot of stupidity and perhaps corruption in the handling of this that falls squarely on the shoulders of the US. On the brighter side of things though, at least Iraq seems to be through the worst of it and currently has a budget surplus and lowering violence.

I actually agree with you that sanctions hurt a hell of a lot more then they help. They have not in my eyes been effective at removing or reforming the policy of many dictators they're levied against, and usually end up hurting the people more. We've seen this in areas ranging from Korea to Africa, and I really think another approach is needed to deal with these individuals in the UN. Personally I think Saddam Hussein should have been removed from power after the Gulf War, that was his second war of aggression and why he was allowed to stay in power afterwards I'm really not sure of. I think there would have been more support for it from the regional nations and it would have avoided the current war in Iraq. Likewise I don't think sanctions would have been needed after that point and foreign aid could have poured into Iraq to help build it up, instead of heavy sanctions imposed to keep a known dictator in check. The UN and US should have known this policy wouldn't work well after WWI and why it was implemented I'm rather unsure of, but none the less I do agree that it was a horrible solution that punished a great many people for the actions of one man.

Like I've said, the US has made it's mistakes, but I do feel the underlying motivation for a lot of the terrorism in the region isn't for the good of the people there. A lot of it seems to be centered around debates of religious issues and the role Islam should play in government, I'm sure there's a lot of scholars and theologians that confer and debate about these issues in the region. But I believe Bin Laden faces an idealogical crisis after the Gulf War where he was forced to either question his beliefs by either questioning a government that ruled with the kind of strict, fundamentalist interpretation of Islam that he himself advocated or simply blame a foreign power that did not support the same ideas and essentially made what was the easier and more comfortable choice for him. Now if you were to ask me why a man like this who really doesn't have the support of the people at large isn't outright reviled by the population at large, it's probably due to 50-60 years of bad choices in foreign policy on the part of the US. While I don't think we're evil and malevolent as some of the more extreme factions tend to claim, I do think our policy has been poorly thought out and at times rather callous and mechanical in it's functioning.

Because they didn't like our support of Israel

True,why do you support such a country,which has been killing
our people for more than 60 years.using American weapons.

our military deployment during the Gulf War

False,Ben Laden ,never mentioned the Gulf war,but he did mention
alot the existance of the US troops in the Gulf,which (this troops)
support the governments dictatorship in the area(as he thinks and I agree with him
about that).

Likewise during the Gulf War the use of Bin Laden's forces were refused in favor of the US military forces, which he felt defiled Muslim lands. There was also a lot of fallout over him criticizing the Saudi government based on his views, which cost him his citizenship and family ties. He lost a lot from this and focused the blame solely on the US instead of Saudi government which actually exiled him.

Bin Laden never interfered in that war,and he didn't offer his help.
Bin Laden was always opposed to the Saudi government,but when the
war happened America took advantage of it to make a troops permanent existance,
which will protect the governments in the Gulf area,
from this perspective Bin Laden thought the real enemy is the USA,
so America brought that to itself.

Regarding catching him, many believe that he might actually be dead. Not from US military actions but from what I believe was a kidney problem he had.

I don't think so,Al Qaeda would immediately declare about that,
this is not how they work,they don't hide their lost.
so be sure he's 100% alive.

We have removed/killed a good number of high level Al Qaeda commanders/leadership though not some of the highest ranking ones

That's according to the American media and the US military declarations.
But Bin Laden said:around 98% of Al Qaed leaders are alive.

We need to improve our reconstruction efforts a bit I think, to make sure a lot of the economic and educational factors that breed the kind of desperation that allows these groups to gain support are remedied. We should be building more schools, power plants

this efforts after seven years of war are zero,Afghanistan never changed a bit.

Saddam Hussein should have been removed from power after the Gulf War

Am i missing somthing here?but who made America as the world police.

that was his second war of aggression and why he was allowed to stay in power afterwards I'm really not sure of.

The first war was supported by America,(he was fighting Iran)

but none the less I do agree that it was a horrible solution that punished a great many people for the actions of one man.

so who would hold the responsibility about that?
and who is going to make it up to the many many victimes?

Like I've said, the US has made it's mistakes,

so America should pay for this mistakes,or is America above the international law?

but I do feel the underlying motivation for a lot of the terrorism in the region isn't for the good of the people there. A lot of it seems to be centered around debates of religious issues and the role Islam should play in government,

Yes,some of the orgnizations are like what you said,but Al qaeda not of this group.

But I believe Bin Laden faces an idealogical crisis after the Gulf War where he was forced to either question his beliefs by either questioning a government that ruled with the kind of strict, fundamentalist interpretation of Islam that he himself advocated or simply blame a foreign power that did not support the same ideas and essentially made what was the easier and more comfortable choice for him.

No,Bin Laden believed,that America is an ally and a good supporter to the
Saudi government,so if you want to fight this goverenment you have to fight
who's standing behind it(America).
Also Osama Bin Laden is a millionaire so the easy solution would be ,to stay in your home,
and never live this hard life,But he choosed the hard and the right way.

Now if you were to ask me why a man like this who really doesn't have the support of the people at large

He dosn't have the support of the government,but it dosn't represnts the people
in Suadi,many people there support him.

While I don't think we're evil and malevolent as some of the more extreme factions tend to claim, I do think our policy has been poorly thought out and at times rather callous and mechanical in it's functioning.

many people in this area call America the Devil
really I'm not kidding.

I'm very very sure America don't know well about this area(middel east),
and America must never interfere in the issues of this area,(or any other part in the world)
and it shouldn't take the role of the police,because America itself
made alot of mistakes ,so now it's one of the criminals.

There's too much bias in your last post to even cover. You're arguing against statements that Bin Laden publicly made here. Yes it was about the presence of our troops in the region, that's what I was saying. And I didn't say for certain that Bin Laden was dead, just that it's about as possible at this point given his total lack of appearances and announcements for years at this point. You're also blurring the line of international law violations with US foreign policy. The UN handed down rulings in both cases that said he was guilty of starting wars of aggression. No I honestly don't believe that the resolutions provided could have called for the removal of Saddam Hussien either, at most they basically allowed for pushing Iraq out of Kuwait and disarming their military. I'm not sure if the UN can even call for the removal of a head of state honestly. Personally though I think it would have a been a better option than just leaving him in power and sanctioning/disarming him and we could have probably gotten the support todo it.

I don't really care what Bin Laden says to be honest, he's going to say whatever he needs to in order to suit his needs. The fact of the matter is if the US really wanted to waive international law and flat out destroy a nation it could have and would have done it by now. It hasn't, yet here you are telling me it's the US who is misunderstanding everything. Your logic seems to be that because the US cannot provide some ultimately perfect solution it should not interact or intervene in these areas and is thus criminal? That's ridiculous, we may not be perfect, but the bulk of our actions have been far from anything remotely criminal. You might be able to make a bit of a case against the current President and the contexts of the Iraq invasion and possibly some of the CIA's interrogation pratices, but beyond that not a whole bunch. Most of the other parties that have been discussed have a massive list of violations of both human rights and international law, so yeah I'd hardly consider the US the major criminal here. Like I've said we could do more to build up relations with the Arab League and what not to come to better more involved solutions to some of these problems, but we're getting blamed here for those that we do that for too (Gulf War). At the same time very little blame is put with these groups and regimes that actively draw us into the region. This is ridiculous double standard, I really don't mind you having an opinion about it, but at least try to remain objective on the subject.

True,why do you support such a country,which has been killing
our people for more than 60 years.using American weapons.

You can't solely blame the Jews. Both parties are at fault.

Why is it that Jews and Arabs just can't live together in peace? What happened to forgiveness?