Terror alert: Will it affect your attendance?

[westkoast]

Mark me down as a person who does not consider the Oklahoma City bombing "terrorism," but "treason."

Why can't it be both is the point people are trying to make...why is there no 'grey' in your world?

Because legal definitions are not meant to be gray.  A person is guilty or not guilty;  there's no "kind of guilty" or "a little bit guilty."  Offer a shade of gray, and every action can be justified, and with that justification comes a willingness to excuse the conduct.

A person's guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.  If it was just black and white there would be no reason for the words 'beyond a reasonable doubt' to be throw in the mix at all.  To me that is acknowledgement there is some grey area.  I get what you mean, a person is either 'guilty' or 'not guilty' when it comes down to the actual verdict but that doesn't mean there is no grey area in law.  I believe there is a grey area in law and it stems from how one reads and interprets the words of said law.

"Beyond reasonable doubt" refers not to the black and white, but the question of whether the action committed was actually the action committed.  The "grey area" to which you are referring isn't a gray area of the law, but a gray area of whether or not the person committed said action.

On "how one reads and interprets the words of said law" is the gray area that is being created mostly by the media, by corrupting the language so that we get to the point of questioning what "'is' is."  That's the reason we need to be very careful as to the appropriate terms we use when describing something.  "Iraqi insurgents" are different than "Iraqi terrorists."  How you deal with them is different.  What they're trying to do is different.  Who should be dealing with them is different.

It is important to say what you mean, lest someone else not understand you mean what you say.

No Joe, it is not 'created mostly by the media' or else lawyers would not be able to argue cases.  There wouldn't be arguments over supreme court justices because it would be impossible for them to make decisions based on the law that lean one way or another.    Why would there be constitutional law courses at colleges if there was no interpreting of laws?

Sorry but the 'created mostly by the media' is just flat out wrong.

[rickortreat]

Unless the act was meant to terrorize....

Like the Oklahoma City bombing.

Well - treason can be terrorizing and terrorism can be treason.

I don't see that they have  to be mutually exclusive.

Though I'm still bothered by the seeming 'legitimization' of evil in this discussion if it's in the form of a government.

Because you aren't using the terminology properly like Joe!  All war is intrinsically terrorizing! But at least you have an understanding of who is fighting and their rational.

The Taliban are not a political party, they have no organization or leadership. They have a philosophy that hey adhere to, but they disagree all the time about how they interpret that philosophy.  The Afghani government gets it's authority through elections, and as long as the elections are fair, then their authority has that legitimacy.  The Taliban have no respect for democracy or the will of the people. They are thugs who rule through fear and intimidation. When they were in control of the country, all they did was brutalizes their own people, murder them publicly and destroy history with their destruction of giant stone Buddhas, reflective of the Afghani past.

Like Al Quaida and all the other terrorists they are incapable of true leadership: the capacity for compromise or for the moral obligation intrinsic to leaders to support their own people and built a better society- or rather facilitate cooperation between them for their collective benefit.  

People think the ends justify the means. That is incorrect. The means justify the ends and if you obtain power by killing people and repressing them, you are destroying all sense of justice in a society.  Thereby fostering even more violence and corruption!

[westkoast]

Unless the act was meant to terrorize....

Like the Oklahoma City bombing.

Well - treason can be terrorizing and terrorism can be treason.

I don't see that they have  to be mutually exclusive.

Though I'm still bothered by the seeming 'legitimization' of evil in this discussion if it's in the form of a government.

Because you aren't using the terminology properly like Joe!  All war is intrinsically terrorizing! But at least you have an understanding of who is fighting and their rational.

The Taliban are not a political party, they have no organization or leadership. They have a philosophy that hey adhere to, but they disagree all the time about how they interpret that philosophy.  The Afghani government gets it's authority through elections, and as long as the elections are fair, then their authority has that legitimacy.  The Taliban have no respect for democracy or the will of the people. They are thugs who rule through fear and intimidation. When they were in control of the country, all they did was brutalizes their own people, murder them publicly and destroy history with their destruction of giant stone Buddhas, reflective of the Afghani past.

Like Al Quaida and all the other terrorists they are incapable of true leadership: the capacity for compromise or for the moral obligation intrinsic to leaders to support their own people and built a better society- or rather facilitate cooperation between them for their collective benefit.  

People think the ends justify the means. That is incorrect. The means justify the ends and if you obtain power by killing people and repressing them, you are destroying all sense of justice in a society.  Thereby fostering even more violence and corruption!

They have organization and leadership Rick.  Mullah Omar is the leader of the Taliban and has people under him.  There is a hierarchy of leadership.  They are also considered a political party.  One the US had talks with prior to the Afghanistan war.   Just because they disagree on things does not mean they have no organization or leadership.  I mean look at America, we disagree on everything all the time. 

[rickortreat]

But they is no real unity within the Taliban. All they are is thugs who agree that they don't like outsiders. (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) Every tribal chief is a leader with people under him. His group just happens to be the strongest, but if you really drilled down into his relations with other Taliban, I think you would find that others have great ambition and the desire to replace him and only support him because of the current situation on the ground.

If the US tries to deal with the Taliban and make them part of the government, Afghanistan will still be a mess for decades to come. (it may be anyway, Afghani society is remarkably primitive and has already been set back by decades of war) Most are illiterate, there is little infrastucture, electricity, water, roads, sanitation...

If the Taliban did anything for others, other than themselves that is, you might convince me that they have some redeeming qualities.  Any thug can fight a war. Legitimacy comes from others supporting you without coercion.

[westkoast]

But they is no real unity within the Taliban. All they are is thugs who agree that they don't like outsiders. (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) Every tribal chief is a leader with people under him. His group just happens to be the strongest, but if you really drilled down into his relations with other Taliban, I think you would find that others have great ambition and the desire to replace him and only support him because of the current situation on the ground.

I don't think you or I can say what they are or arent.  We are not really in Afghanistan to know for sure, one way or another.  I find it hard to believe a group with no leadership and no unity would be giving the US military so many problems.   Though I cannot say for sure they are singing kumbaya around the camp fire at night.

If the US tries to deal with the Taliban and make them part of the government, Afghanistan will still be a mess for decades to come. (it may be anyway, Afghani society is remarkably primitive and has already been set back by decades of war) Most are illiterate, there is little infrastucture, electricity, water, roads, sanitation...

The US has dealt with the Taliban before.  Prior to the war we met with Taliban leaders.  Just meeting with them gives them legitimacy.  Now I don't know if they will include them in the government, I would imagine no.

Maybe there society is primitive but who are we to judge how people live their lives?

If the Taliban did anything for others, other than themselves that is, you might convince me that they have some redeeming qualities.  Any thug can fight a war. Legitimacy comes from others supporting you without coercion.

I am not trying to convince you they have redeeming qualities.  I am trying to convince you that they have leadership and are a political party.  That is all.

[Joe Vancil]

No Joe, it is not 'created mostly by the media' or else lawyers would not be able to argue cases.  There wouldn't be arguments over supreme court justices because it would be impossible for them to make decisions based on the law that lean one way or another.    Why would there be constitutional law courses at colleges if there was no interpreting of laws?

Sorry but the 'created mostly by the media' is just flat out wrong.

Lawyers do not interpret the law;  judges do.  Lawyers use the language of the law to mislead, and it is a judge's duty to make sure the jury understands exactly what the law says and the meaning behind it, which is why the judge instructs the jury prior to their deliberations.  Most appeals are not appeals of what the law means, but whether 1) the judge instructed the jury properly, or 2) law B conflicts with law A (especially relevant when law A is the Constitution).

What the appeals process and "interpretation of the law" should tell you is that LANGUAGE IS IMPORTANT.  That's why I'm being really picky about it in this thread, and why I'm aghast that some folks have not called me on a few of the slips of my own that I've made (such as using "terrorists" when "insurgents" is the appropriate term in some cases).

The problem is that especially in the setting of the online community, we're getting lazy with the English language.  I'll be the first to admit my vocabulary isn't what it needs to be, but I do try to pick the appropriate word for the appropriate case.  In the event I do not know the appropriate word, I try to dance around the exact meaning, so as to clearly communicate the concept I'm trying to relate. 

[Reality]

The problem is that especially in the setting of the online community, we're getting lazy with the English language.  I'll be the first to admit my vocabulary isn't what it needs to be, but I do try to pick the appropriate word for the appropriate case.  In the event I do not know the appropriate word, I try to dance around the exact meaning, so as to clearly communicate the concept I'm trying to relate. 

Do you read "It Pays To Increase Your Wordpower" in the Readers Digest?

[Joe Vancil]

The problem is that especially in the setting of the online community, we're getting lazy with the English language.  I'll be the first to admit my vocabulary isn't what it needs to be, but I do try to pick the appropriate word for the appropriate case.  In the event I do not know the appropriate word, I try to dance around the exact meaning, so as to clearly communicate the concept I'm trying to relate. 

Do you read "It Pays To Increase Your Wordpower" in the Readers Digest?

Actually, I do.  And while I can recognize a sizable number of the words, they are not necessarily words that I would think of to use when trying to make a point.  Being appropriately descriptive is not one of the finer points of my writing.

[Skandery]

Rick,

westkoast is definitely right!  The Taliban IS a political party in Afghanistan.  It is also a radical, religious movement that spans across the borders in the Asian continent but actually took hold of political power in Afghanistan in the year 1996 after a ground campaign to crush Mujahadeen Warlords.  Taliban is a Pashto (language of Afghanistan) word derived from an Arabic word meaning "Student". 

They were first a religious movement that preferred an extreme, literal, and inflexible interpretation of the Qu'ran.  Much like you would call the Evangelical or Charismatic movement here in the United States.  The people of Afghanistan weary of decades of incessant infighting amongst the Mujahadeen Warlords, welcomed the Taliban and their promises of ridding the country of the violence and corruption perpetuated by these Warlord criminals.  A political party was borne out of the struggle to supress these warlords and they achieved ultimate political power with the successful capture of Afghanistan's capital, Kabul. 

They have stated that their ideological goal is to return the way of life of the Prophet 1400 years ago.  Their hierarchy consists of Mullah Omar as "Commander of the Faithful" and various Mullahs that run the administration ministries (Health, Finance, etc).  These men are of course part of the military leadership and, when called away to fight, leave their administrative posts behind.  The civil services of government are practically non-existent.  Cash to finance Taliban war efforts and government services is collected and dispersed by Mullah Omar WITHOUT bookkeeping.  Their (MIS)interpretation of religious law (sharia's) has lead to the inhuman opression of women.  They allowed "transportation mafia" out of Pakistan to strip abandoned factories for steel and cut down forests of trees (without reforestation) denuding the countryside.  With the destruction of the economy and infrastructure, opium became the number 1 export out of the country.  Afghanistan has become a literal wasteland because of these people.

How did this radical, religous fringe group made up of Southeastern Afghan refugee's and Pakistani students come to wield this power?

Ah the ugly truth.  Military power and training within the Taliban was provided by an organization responsible for military readiness against sovient forces encroaching in the 1980s.  This organization was ran by one Osama Bin Laden and came to be known years later as Al-Quaeda.  Al-Quaeda was a fortuitous discovery made by the United States (Reagan Administration) as it now had a means to fight a proxy war against the Soviets.  By 1987 65,000 tons of U.S.-made weapons and ammunition was entering Afghanistan EVERY SINGLE YEAR.  The phrase, you reap what you sow, comes to mind.               
   

[rickortreat]

But they're not a political party. They don't stand for elections or respect democracy. They recognize no rule of law or any courts.  They target elected leaders. Fight fellow Afghans and intimidate locals in order to keep the country from becoming politically stable. They do this in order to benefit from a lawless society where they can steal, rape and kill at their leasure.

They don't run for election because a non-affiliated Afghan hates them and fears them and would never vote for them without coercion.

They could be called insurgents, but since they predate the elected government they're just an older, illegitimate power structure swept aside by the UN. Afghanistan would be far better off if these people laid down their arms and became citizens, but NO, they are proud of their thug-like existence.

Personally I think people like this are cowards and scum, with no sense of morality or integrity. They would be a scourge in any society, but can only function in a place with a weak government which cannot maintain control.

Pakistan is suffering greatly as the Taliban have ambitions there too. Of course, they are in trouble and desperate as their recent suicide attacks indicate. They cannot withstand assaults by the Pakistani army, anymore than they can US forces. Which is why they fight a guerilla-style war.

It is very important that the US continue to limit their movement inside Afghanistan and in the border regions as the Pakistani military forces them out of their country. It is equally important to stop their funding and ability to procure weapons, as their only source of power is violence.

Yes, the way we handled the Soviet invasion was clearly a mistake and American lives are being lost as a result. It annoys me to no end that we have to spend money and lives there for the sake of people who don't understand us or the concept of rule of law. It says nothing in the Constitution about building other nations, but this is what we're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.  We think that we have a moral obligation to be there, which I understand and respect. I think the rest of the world should also be involved for the same reason.

These people are anti-civilization and would return the Earth to cave-man days.  That they call themselves Muslim is an insult to anyone who sincerely follows that religion.

[Reality]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/15/al-qaeda-ties-exposed-in-nyc-bomb-plot/

reaction?  Poor middle eastern guy who is a victim of sterotyping or brainwashed demon who was going to carry out Al-Kookys orders?

[westkoast]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/15/al-qaeda-ties-exposed-in-nyc-bomb-plot/

reaction?  Poor middle eastern guy who is a victim of sterotyping or brainwashed demon who was going to carry out Al-Kookys orders?

Why would you ask that question if you read the story?