His actions, he said, were like those of other revolutionaries. Had the British arrested George Washington during the Revolutionary War, Mr. Mohammed said, “for sure they would consider him enemy combatant.”
१५ मार्च, २००७
"The language of war is victims."
Says Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, taking responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, "from A to Z." He invites us to see it from his side. He's not happy that people -- especially children -- had to die for his cause.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४९ टिप्पण्या:
George Washington didn't target innocent people for mass slaughter.
Given his statements, wouldn't it be better for the media to describe him as admitting his actions rather than confessing them? Confessing implies the action being acknowledged is wrong whereas KSM is claiming his actions were lawful even though regretable.
Re: "Mr. Mohammed also outlined a vast series of plots that were not completed. Among his targets ...were office buildings in Chicago, Los Angeles and New York; suspension bridges in New York; the New York Stock Exchange ...the Panama Canal; British landmarks including Big Ben; buildings in Israel; American embassies ...Israeli embassies ...airliners around the world; and nuclear power plants in the United States."
Yes, Mr. Mohammed is just another revolutionary like George Washington. I still have fond memories of gradeschool history classes relating Washington's terrorist killings of British school children, suicide bombings of Philadelphia eateries, and beheadings of English newspaper reporters.
Over the past few years I've learned to avoid listening to the radio on the morning whenever the news is on. The bias in reporting is simply too laughable. I should have skipped today as well. The lead story was this item, and they neglected to mention that the mastermind was a Guantánamo prisoner. Because, apparently, only innocent men are in Guantánamo.
And unlike in this news article, the radio saw fit to slip in the idea that Mr. Mohammed fabricated his entire confession, and that he is a known teller of tall tales.
Its also somewhat ironic at President Carter was targeted, despite his active lobbying for the Saudis. Fat lot of good and that did him. Michael Moore's gotta be pissed about that one, and the fact that many New York targets remained. Doesn't Al Qaeda know it's a blue state?
This news will be quickly forgotten.
as a former soldier, I take umbrage at:
"He added, “The language of war is victims.”"
Civilized warfare as practiced in the West and other places, codified in the Geneva Conventions and other documents attempts to limit casualties to combatants. It further attempts to label those who do not subscribe to the rules as eligible for lesser protections or prosecution.
“The language of Terrorism is victims.”
Drill SGT: good call.
And even more specifically here:
The language of jihad is victims.
And contra Maher, it's a form of cowardice.
drills point is well taken but lost on the other side...i'm pretty sure that the enemy is always depicted in the worst possible terms.
what i find mildly amusing is the timing of this "news release"...someone in the white house want to gain control of the news cycle?
I really dislike the phrase I take responsibility for... KSM takes responsibility for the bombings. AG Gonzales takes responsibility for the firings.
Absent some change in behavior it just strikes me as saying Oops, my bad. I'll take a mulligan or I'm sorry I was caught.
We won WWII by bombing civilians in Germany and Japan. Today, our military thinks we can win the war in Iraq. Our civilians don't. By targeting our civilian population, he'll reach his objective before we'll reach ours. You might not like it, but this guy knows what he's talking about.
Allen said...We won WWII by bombing civilians in Germany and Japan.
we were generally trying to hit industrial targets with a bombing technology base that was terribly inaccurate. e.g. lots of anecdotes about urban churches surviving in Germany because they were used as navigation points and the bombers purposely didn't drop till beyond the church.
as for whether we won the war via bombing AT all? We did a huge study after the war that demonstrated the relative ineffectiveness of strategic bombing and the errors in BDA (bomb damage assessment) in general.
During every war, the AF claims to have won via air power. afterwards, we learn otherwise.
I am of course from the school of ground combat. we believe that wars are won by planting your flag on the rubble of the enemy's Capital. Unfortunately that is ambiguous in this circumstance.
Nonsense, Drill. We firebombed Tokyo and nuked two cities in Japan. Once the civilians are tired of war, the military has to quit. Our civilians want to quit. My MOS was 11B2P.
Re: Once the civilians are tired of war, the military has to quit.
Mostly true. "Tiring out the civilians" appears to be the current battle plan for jihad. And it worked in Spain, so one can't find fault with their plan to do so here.
But I wonder what one's options are once submission itself becomes tiresome. Too late, then.
The purpose of the bombings in Germany and Japan were to speed up the end of the war and save American and Allied lives (see Iwo Jima, Okinawa).
KSM was not interested in killing folks to save the lives of his warriors, his motivation was to kill innocents to further jihad.
It may appear to be a good comparison but its a really bad one in many ways. Go read some books if you still think its good.
Meanwhile we have fought the war in Iraq with very few U.S. civilian casualties. Yet U.S. citizens are tired of the war.
The US government during WWII understood, apparently better than the current administration, that to win a war, you need public support, and to have public support you need to have a clear goal because then you can have something against which to measure success. And successes were well-publicized in WWII.
The present War doesn't have a clear goal -- is it the GWOT? WMD? Overthrow Sadddam and instill democracy? If you can't say what you're fighting towards, how can you achieve a success?
From Day 1, Bush (or someone in the administration) should have been telling the American public what we're doing and why. That he did not (or that the reasons given didn't play out) is just one of the failures of this administration (IMO).
Will trotting out KSM now do anything to change opinions? I don't know. Most people I know seem to have a pretty closed mind on Middle Eastern topics.
There is no doubt that KSM is a bad man and deserves punishment. However, I am more concerned with the techniques we used to gain his confession. The release redacted what were apparently his accusations of torture while in the custody of the CIA. If this is true, then whoever authorized such treatment should be charged with a crime as the president has insisted over and over again that "we do not torture."
as for whether we won the war via bombing AT all? We did a huge study after the war that demonstrated the relative ineffectiveness of strategic bombing and the errors in BDA (bomb damage assessment) in general.
Slightly off topic but strategic bombing in German did destroy the Luftwaffe. By 1943 it was crippled as a battlefield arm and by 1944 we had complete air supremacy over the battlefield as the Luftwaffe was prioritized as air defense over German airspace. A unintended consequence for certain but with huge implications for our success on the ground.
Targeting the civilian population can have mixed results. The Blitz only hardened British resolve (Churchill’s leadership notwithstanding) and a good argument can be said that strategic bombing did the same to German and Japanese resistance as well. In our current situation, we have lost almost no civilians in Iraq yet the US civilian population is increasingly strident in demands for a withdrawal. I think the worst thing al quaeda can do at this point is launch another attack on US soil which would probably do nothing more than re-unite
the country with renewed sense of purpose and desire for retribution.
Then again perhaps not but why take the chance?
However, I am more concerned with the techniques we used to gain his confession.
As are most who seem to be more concerned with the welfare of terrorists than say, protecting the nation from future attacks.
The release redacted what were apparently his accusations of torture while in the custody of the CIA.
Do you honestly think he'd sing the praises of imprisonment even if he was housed in the Waldorf Historia?
Then again torture is a fuzzy concept. While I consider torture things like having your fingernails pulled out, other more progressive types count being subjected to 24/7 Barney songs and having some boobs shoved in your face as torture.
You know, back in the day when pirates roamed the high seas, they were either hanged or keelhauled when caught. Too bad we can't reinstate some old traditions.
"There is no doubt that KSM is a bad man and deserves punishment. However..."
There's always a "however" lurking in the discussion of the enemy, isn't there? Interesting that the Freder types don't bestow "howevers" upon anyone but the enemy. See if you get a sympathetic "however" when Freder discusses someone as supremely evil as George Bush.
Could care less what this scum thinks.
Give him a fair trial. If he's found guilty, execute him.
MM Wrote: From Day 1, Bush (or someone in the administration) should have been telling the American public what we're doing and why. That he did not (or that the reasons given didn't play out) is just one of the failures of this administration (IMO).
Good thing Bush makes his decisions for posterity. History will be his judge. Simply said, our impatience, driven by domestic politics has led to dwindling public support on Iraq. While I consider the vast majority of Democratic leadership as nothing more than anti-American leftists, I blame weak Republican leadership in congress for allowing it to percolate. The Bush Administration faced a Sunni insurgency by Democrats and Republicans ignored it. Boxer's protest of democracy was the opening salvo that congressional Republicans ignored.
allens:
Nonsense, Drill. We firebombed Tokyo and nuked two cities in Japan. Once the civilians are tired of war, the military has to quit.
In this case I don't agree. The Japanese surrendered because Emperor Hirohito wanted to end it. You do what the "sacred symbol/diety" tells you to do.
The jihadists seem to have a similar mindset.
"There is no doubt that KSM is a bad man and deserves punishment. However, I am more concerned with the techniques we used to gain his confession"
Freder, have you by any chance read "102 Minutes," a book by NYT reporters detailing the ordeal of those trapped in the World Trade Center on 9/11? If you had, your concern for any lack of niceties in KSM's treatment would be slight.
George Washington *was* a combatant. He was a soldier, wore a uniform, and did not attack civilians, and did not hide amongst the civilian population.
Let's not get into the issue that George Washington was fighting for freedom and this guy is fighting for envy and hatred.
Now, let's look at a revolutionary hero who *did* go about in Civilian clothes and hide amongst the civilian population -- Nathan Hale. Of course, he did it for reasons of espionage and didn't actually commit atrocities against civilians.
And when the british caught him, they hung him out of hand.
If Mohammed wants to advocate that treatment for terrorists, I'm all for it!
Note too the cavil in the headline, "is said to" confess. Because he actually didn't? Because as Freder and all right thinking people know, terrorism is all just a big BUSH LIE?
Of course Americans are tired of war--after all the reverse propaganda, why wouldn't they be?
We won WWII by bombing civilians in Germany and Japan.
We did drop bombs on Civilians in Germany and Japan. However, you can't just point to events in the war and claim we won because of them.
In Germany's case, the bombing was primarily aimed at destroying Germany's industrial and transporation abilities and the Luftwaffe. Yes, civilian casualties were high. More civilians died in Germany from American and English bombs than did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Regardless, Germany would have been defeated even if 0 civilians had died in the bombing of Germany, and that was not the primary goal of the bombing.
For hiroshima and nagasaki, demonstrating the power of nuclear bombs by wiping the cities off the earth was the primary goal. And it did end the war. However, the US would have won even if the nukes had not been dropped, involved months more brutal fighting with thousands of American and hundreds of thousands of Japanese casualties as America invaded and slowly reduced Japan, island by island.
Joe,
Why being so kind. Most of what KSM said is normal rhetoric at any Democrat gathering. I was surprised he didn't also blame America for global warming. KSM is an alley of the left.
Feder,
Would you please provide me with an acceptable method of interrogation. Your torture trope is as meaningless as purge of USA's.
This is an excellent example of the point Dr. Helen was making in the earlier thread, about sociopaths being good at manipulating other people, and wanting to be appreciated by them.
As are most who seem to be more concerned with the welfare of terrorists than say, protecting the nation from future attacks.
Actually, my concern is for the human rights record and morality of this country and our standing as a democracy that believes in the rule of law. The welfare of terrorists has very little to do with it.
Feder,
Would you please provide me with an acceptable method of interrogation. Your torture trope is as meaningless as purge of USA's.
It would be presumptuous of me to develop an acceptable interrogation protocol. But hey, here's an idea. Why don't we just use the interrogation procedures developed by the U.S. Army? After all it is already the required standard for all interrogations carried out by the military. Adopting for all agencies of the government would be fine and dandy with me.
If you had, your concern for any lack of niceties in KSM's treatment would be slight.
Like I said, my concern for his treatment arises not out of concern for him but for us.
To add to Dewave's comment, not only was Washington a uniformed combatant, openly bearing arms, and openly recognised as commander of his forces, but if the British had arrested him, he would have been put on trial for treasons, as the British still considered every American a British subject.
So, yes, Washington would have been a "combatant". But not an "unlawful combatant", as his conduct was consonant with the laws and traditions of war at the time.
So, yes, Washington would have been a "combatant". But not an "unlawful combatant", as his conduct was consonant with the laws and traditions of war at the time.
Actually, you contradicted yourself. If you are a traitor, you can not by definition be a lawful combatant since you have borne arms against your own country. Washington only became a "legal" after the British granted legitimacy to the United States by recognizing their independence, before that he was very much an unlawful combatant under the rules of law as they existed at the time.
His status under the current Geneva Conventions would probably grant him legal combatant status. However, under George Bush's very narrow reading of Geneva, Washington would almost certainly end up in Gitmo as an unlawful combatant.
Washington only became a "legal" after the British granted legitimacy to the United States by recognizing their independence, before that he was very much an unlawful combatant under the rules of law as they existed at the time.
I believe you are confused. Colonial soldiers captured on the field of battle were not considered 'unlawful combatants'. They were not hung, as Nathan Hale was, which is what the British did to 'unlawful combatants' at the time.
If you are a traitor, you can not by definition be a lawful combatant since you have borne arms against your own country.
That's not the standard applied in the American Civil War now, is it?
It is doubtful that the soldiers fighting in the revolution would have been executed -- that certainly wasn't the standard for captured American soldiers, whether officers or enlisted men.
The *political* leaders of the American Revolution -- the people who signed the Declaration of Independence, for example -- probably *would* have been hung as traitors, had we lost.
Its a toss-up what would have happened to Washington, since he straddled both areas. But in any event, had he been hung it would have been for treason, not for being an illegal combatant.
To make things perfectly clear:
If the British had captured Washington, Green, Gates, or any other Colonial Military Officer in uniform, they would have been regarded as lawful enemy combatants and treated appropriately.
If the British had captured some guy sneaking around hiding in the civilian population and murdering Tories, they would have hung him.
Mohammed's comparison to Washington is thus absurd.
to extend that to a third group,
If they had caught Jefferson, Franklin or wone of the other civilian signers, I suspect that they would have been put on the boat for England to sit out the war in a cold English tower. Afterward, freed or axed, which was the punishment for traitors followed by quartering and sending the piece parts to the 4 corners of the kingdom.
Funny, but I bet Mr. Mohammed would have a difficult time finding a similar founding father among his own people. In fact, his culture is simply unable to produce a George Washington.
Pogo,
I would think that Kemal Atturk meets the specs. I'm not sure that KSM would agree however.
1. There is an absolute right to civil war in international law, particularly when the current government is tyrannical
I think George Bush would disagree with you. He declared the Taliban illegal combatants even though they had a legitimate claim to be the recognized government of Afghanistan and were fighting the U.S. army in their own country. In fact they were recognized as the legitimate government of Afghanistan by three of our closest allies in the GWOT, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
And I did say that Washington was safe under Geneva, just not under Bush's narrow reading of Geneva. Remember, Washington was also a (former?) officer in the British Army, so his treason was especially egregious.
I would think that Kemal Atturk meets the specs.
Ataturk was a Macedonian Turk. Khalid is Pakistani. The two do not come from a common culture. They can't even really be said to have a common religion, since Khalid has been a radical Islamist since at least his teenaged years while Ataturk was rigorously secular.
It is worth noting that the ideal of a George Washington type -- a man willing to lead his nation to independence militarily and then voluntarily relinquish power to his elected successor -- is virtually unheard-of in ANY culture, and his failure to appear in Arabia doesn't necessarily say anything about Arabs.
I think George Bush would disagree with you. He declared the Taliban illegal combatants even though they had a legitimate claim to be the recognized government of Afghanistan and were fighting the U.S. army in their own country.
You're conflating the right to overthrow an oppressor with the right to wage unrestricted guerilla warfare. The former is a recognized right. The latter, which the Taliban engaged in, is not. They were illegal combatants not because they were fighting to control Afghanistan, but because they fought disguised as civilians and without honoring any of the recognized laws of warfare.
And I did say that Washington was safe under Geneva, just not under Bush's narrow reading of Geneva.
And, as is typically the case with these spurious legal claims you pull out of your ass, you were entirely wrong. Soldiers who fight in uniform as part of a regular army get treated as prisoners of war, not illegal combatants. Your tiny little brain just can't grasp the fact that none of our opponents of the last six years, save for the Iraqi army, have done either of those things.
I think George Bush would disagree with you. He declared the Taliban illegal combatants even though they had a legitimate claim to be the recognized government of Afghanistan and were fighting the U.S. army in their own country.
The method of their fighting is what made them illegal combatants. Hiding amongst a civilian population and targetting civilians = illegal combatants. That is not an activity the legitimate recognized government of a nation engages in.
If Washington had run around kidnapping Tories and sawing their heads off, he would be just as wrong, despite the fact that the colonies had a right to throw off the rule of Great Britain.
Remember, Washington was also a (former?) officer in the British Army, so his treason was especially egregious.
No, he was an officer in the colonial militia, which is not at all the same thing as the British Army and was indeed held in the highest contempt by the British Regulars. As such, his 'treason' was entirely understandable, and not treason at all. Fighting for your friends, family, and country is not treason. If there is a Civil War, neither side can be accused of being treasonous.
If you want a revolutionary era traitor, look no farther than Benedict Arnold.
"PS: To hdhouse: I question the timing, too. Why is it that every time something happens, something else is always happening? Glad you pointed that out. Makes you think."
Masterful. :)
Re: "a George Washington type ...is virtually unheard-of in ANY culture, and his failure to appear in Arabia doesn't necessarily say anything about Arabs."
I know. I thought it said something about us.
are FAR more concerned with the niceties of treatment of enemy and terrorists than what they actually did.
You obviously chose to ignore the posts where I explained why I was concerned about his treatment.
You're conflating the right to overthrow an oppressor with the right to wage unrestricted guerilla warfare. The former is a recognized right. The latter, which the Taliban engaged in, is not. They were illegal combatants not because they were fighting to control Afghanistan, but because they fought disguised as civilians and without honoring any of the recognized laws of warfare.
The campaign in the Spring of 2002 that overthrew the Taliban was amazingly conventional, with Northern Alliance forces (mostly fighting with no recognizable insignias or standard uniforms) supported by our forces fighting against Taliban forces in fairly standard and recognizable battles. The claim that the Taliban were not lawful combatants rested on the fact that they did not wear distinctive uniforms or insignia and were not a recognized legitimate military force. This was a dubious contention from the beginning, especially considering the nature of the Afghan war. (I am not discussing the status of foreign Al Qaeda fighters, only Afghanis fighting for the Taliban.)
I think the fact that thet were from Yemen and Saudi Arabia, places like that, might have been a hint.
Fall of 2001 is a better time frame.
Our lives are the highest civil right the Constitution was set up to protect, not due process rights of enemies are terorists out to kill us.
So apparently there is nothing in the Constitution that it is worth your life to defend.
We have the right to hold the terrorists at Gitmo until the end of hostilities without trial. People ask when that is... at the very least it should be when the top terror leadership is dead. So far they are not dead... thus the war still goes on.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा