Are Radical Muslims an Enemy?

[Accountable]

Bear with me. I'm challenging my own opinions.

Right now it's really ambiguous who we're at war against, if anyone at all, so for the sake of this conversation, let's agree to say we're at war against radical/extremist Musims. If that goes against your grain, please let it go for this thread, because that's not the conversation I wish to have.


Our gov't and military have traditional definitions for traditional enemies. This list is not official; it's my own.

• The enemy is an entire nation, or at least a nation's government.
• That nation possesses land and has political borders we can find on a map.
• The enemy has military forces with trained professional soldiers.
• These soldiers wear easily identifiable uniforms.

Our current situation does not fit a single criterion of a traditional enemy, but we were definitely attacked. Were we attacked by someone on whom we can declare war? Were they international versions of people gone postal? How should we define them?


I searched my mind for another group that might fit the same general description as the radical Muslims so I could draw a parallel. The group I came up with was Latin American drug traffickers. While they're definitely not identical, I think we can agree that both:

• are citizens of a country, but don't represent that government.
• are well-armed and trained in military tactics to a comparable level of professional soldiers.
• do not honor political rules or boundaries.
• do not wear uniforms.
• have no single centralized leadership.
• have no problem at all killing citizens of their own country or ethnicity.

Imagine that drug traffickers in Mexico decided to attack and destroy all the customs facilities (or whatever they're called) along the Mexico/US border, in an effort to disrupt and intimidate, making it easier for them to smuggle more drugs into the US.

Would we react similarly to how we have reacted to the 9/11 attack? Would we attack Mexico and replace their government? Would we call captured traffickers prisoners of war or would we give them Miranda rights?

 

[Alien Allen]

not the best example there ACC

Your example appears to indicate we captured them in the act at the border. Or are you talking about us invading Mexico to go get them?

If you mean we capture them inside of Mexico then I doubt Mexico would settle for us doing that. Seems like in the mideast we bullied our way in.

This is an interesting take. Makes one think

 

[dt3]

Here's article 4 of the Geneva Convention on the subject of lawful combatants:

Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews [of civil ships and aircraft], who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Just a little extra food for thought. Under these rules, neither example of yours qualifies as a lawful combatant.

 

[Tim]

Ever since the beginning I have believed that you cannot wage a true war on terror. Primarily due to the fact that the people we are fighting against are not acting under a government.

The war on terror and the war on drugs is a very good parallel. Neither are a war and neither can be won.

 

[dt3]

Ever since the beginning I have believed that you cannot wage a true war on terror. Primarily due to the fact that the people we are fighting against are not acting under a government.

The war on terror and the war on drugs is a very good parallel. Neither are a war and neither can be won.

The way you phrase it, you're right. You can't fight "terror" and "drugs". But you can damn sure fight terrorist organizations and drug cartels. The problem is that it isn't as "easy" as declaring war on a state or foreign power. If a drug cartel is in Colombia and a terrorist organization is in Pakistan, we don't want to go after them because we don't want to "offend" the host countries. Well, in my opinion it shouldn't matter. Al Qaeda attacked us. If somebody wants to allow Al Qaeda to operate within their borders, then they have no right to complain when we go in and take them out. I think Bush was on the right track when he said that if you're not with us you're against us, but even he bitched out about going into Pakistan. It shouldn't matter where these fucks are hiding, we should have the political will and national backbone to go after them wherever they are. Until we do, you're right, we'll never win. And I'm sure we'll never wipe out radical Islam, it's an impossibility. But we can definitely wipe out any organization that tries to attack us.

 

[Tim]

The way you phrase it, you're right. You can't fight "terror" and "drugs". But you can damn sure fight terrorist organizations and drug cartels. The problem is that it isn't as "easy" as declaring war on a state or foreign power. If a drug cartel is in Colombia and a terrorist organization is in Pakistan, we don't want to go after them because we don't want to "offend" the host countries. Well, in my opinion it shouldn't matter. Al Qaeda attacked us. If somebody wants to allow Al Qaeda to operate within their borders, then they have no right to complain when we go in and take them out. I think Bush was on the right track when he said that if you're not with us you're against us, but even he bitched out about going into Pakistan. It shouldn't matter where these fucks are hiding, we should have the political will and national backbone to go after them wherever they are. Until we do, you're right, we'll never win. And I'm sure we'll never wipe out radical Islam, it's an impossibility. But we can definitely wipe out any organization that tries to attack us.

I agree with going in and killing the groups that are a direct threat to us. But it isn't considered war in my view.
You can go into Pakistan and take out Al Qaeda encampments, but that doesn't mean it's a war.
You cannot bomb an ideology out of existence. You can't even slow down it's progression by power. You can disrupt their organization and kill their leaders but that will not stop them. As long as they are able to completely blend into the general population anywhere in the world, they will never be contained.

You cannot kill and ideology.

 

[dt3]

I agree with going in and killing the groups that are a direct threat to us. But it isn't considered war in my view.
You can go into Pakistan and take out Al Qaeda encampments, but that doesn't mean it's a war.
You cannot bomb an ideology out of existence. You can't even slow down it's progression by power. You can disrupt their organization and kill their leaders but that will not stop them. As long as they are able to completely blend into the general population anywhere in the world, they will never be contained.

You cannot kill and ideology.

I think we pretty much agree then. :eek

 

[Alien Allen]

I think we pretty much agree then. :eek

Pains me too

 

[Accountable]

not the best example there ACC

Your example appears to indicate we captured them in the act at the border. Or are you talking about us invading Mexico to go get them?

If you mean we capture them inside of Mexico then I doubt Mexico would settle for us doing that. Seems like in the mideast we bullied our way in.

This is an interesting take. Makes one think

I was thinking, similar to 9/11, that some attack, some die in the fight, some flee, but there's still a larger organization that sent them in the first place. My question is would we invade Mexico, Colombia, or wherever like we did Afghanistan? If we caught them, would they be POWs or federal criminals?

 

[Accountable]

Here's article 4 of the Geneva Convention on the subject of lawful combatants:


Just a little extra food for thought. Under these rules, neither example of yours qualifies as a lawful combatant.

Thanks for that. It makes the decision even murkier, but also makes the question that much more important.

 

[Accountable]

Ever since the beginning I have believed that you cannot wage a true war on terror. Primarily due to the fact that the people we are fighting against are not acting under a government.

The war on terror and the war on drugs is a very good parallel. Neither are a war and neither can be won.

Agreed. Does that give drug traffickers and terrorists a higher status than soldiers? They have far less honor (imo) but we only have two real legal categories. To not recognize them as enemy combatants means we grant them all the rights and entitlements of a full citizen.

 

[Tangerine]

I was thinking, similar to 9/11, that some attack, some die in the fight, some flee, but there's still a larger organization that sent them in the first place. My question is would we invade Mexico, Colombia, or wherever like we did Afghanistan? If we caught them, would they be POWs or federal criminals?

If they created a major catastophe on our soil killing thousands of civilians, I would imagine that yes, we would go right into Mexico without hesitation. And any captured would be neither POWs nor federal criminals - much like the folks in limbo from Gitmo. There are Unlawful Enemy Combatants, and there's no precedent for dealing with them.

 

[Accountable]

So how should we deal with them?