>>>Yes, but, their stated objectives are much more complex than killing
>>>Americans.  For example,  they want the Saudi dictatorship dismantled.
>>>That facet of their objectives is legitimate.  The point is that there
>>>are legitimate grievances among their list of grievances, and someone
>>>should fight for those causes.  With respect to that specific grievance,
>>>America is on the wrong side.

>>   And with what do they wish to replace the Saudi dictatorship? That's
right
>> -- an Islamic theocratic dictatorship. Please explain why that is
legitimate
>> and why you apparently support it.

>It isn't legitimate.  I didn't say it was legitimate.  You know I
>didn't; you see that you have no defense, and now you are trying to
>avoid the issue by claiming that a theocratic state would be just as
>bad, if not worse.  So I can reject your demand, because I don't support
>the creation of a theocratic state, and your accusation that I
>apparently did support it is false.  What I say is "...they want the
>Saudi dictatorship dismantled. That facet of their objectives is
>legitimate."  There is no ambiguity there, and it does not imply what
>you say it does.  All states must be secular.

  Their objectives are "much more complex than killing Americans"? In what
way are their other objectives relevant to how we respond to this
organization or its members ? Hitler's objectives were also "much more
complex" than simply killing Jews. You would have us believe that Al Queda
and other such organizations seek to throw off the shackles of the
'oppressed', when at best, they wish to exchange them for even more
constricting ones. It is this silliness that is without a defense, Martin.

>> Furthermore, they have no legitimate grievances that justify the killing
>> they are doing around the world.

>That's right.  Nobody said their actions were justified.  I certainly
>didn't.  Again you are trying to deflect legitimate criticism of your
>position by claiming that explanation and justification are the same
>thing.  They're not.  When I say that removal of the Saudi monarchy is
>one of their objectives, I am explaining why they are acting, not
>justifying their acts.  When I say that removal of the Saudi monarchy is
>a legitimate objective, I am saying that removal of the Saudi monarchy
>can be justified, not that the killing of civilians is justified.

   They are not a national liberation movement, Martin. And my position
remains the same -- Al Queda members are dedicated to killing Americans and
others (including fellow Muslims who are not fundamentalist enough for them),
and would not simply lay down their arms and go home if released.

>> Could you also be specific as to what "causes" should be fought on their
behalf,
>> and by whom?

>On their behalf?  No.  On everyone's behalf?  Yes.  I've already stated
>one.  All states should be secular.  It should be a crime against
>humanity to establish a non-secular state.  All killing of civilians
>should be classified as terrorism, including the US's killing of
>civilians, including the death penalty, including collateral damage.
>The term "freedom fighter" should be defined in light of the definition
>of terrorism, so that it remains possible to fight for freedom.  Thus,
>killing the soldiers of an occupying force should not be classified as
>terrorism.

  You dropped the final part of your comment, Martin, which was:
"The point is that there are legitimate grievances among their list of
grievances, and someone
should fight for those causes.  With respect to that specific grievance,
America is on the wrong side.""

  What you chose to repeat, as well as what you conviniently left out, simply
makes no sense -- other than your desperate desire to find even the silliest
thread that would make it possible for you to say "America is on the wrong
side". If it is an Al Queda desire to establish Islam as the governing
structure where  ever it can, then they are committing what you have labeled
"a crime against humanity".  I am also confused as to how you are arriving at
the conclusion that the office workers in the WTC are somehow an occupying
force, and how killing them will overthrow the Saudi regime -- unless you
have simply gone off on a tangent. So, I ask again, what legitimate causes in
the Al Queda "list of grievances" are you referring to -- other than
overthrowing the Saudi  government (is that supported by the majority of
Saudi's, by the way)?

>>>You mean even if they have committed no crime?  It isn't a crime to
>>>defend Afghanistan against American invasion.  Hanging out with the
>>>wrong crowd, as you put it, is not a punishable offense.  And the issue
>>>here is the state of lawlessness at the international level.  The US has
>>>now established, after long years of undermining the UN and the World
>>>Court, its "right" to do literally anything it wants to do, just like
>>>the terrorists.  The US is already responsible for orders of magnitude
>>>more deaths than all the terrorist actions put together.  The US harbors
>>>known terrorists.  The US trains terrorists.  The US trained the
>>>terrorists that started the Al Queda network.  The US trained them to be
>>>terrorists.  The US will never pay for those crimes against humanity,
>>>nor any of its other crimes against humanity, because there is no world
>>>court and world police force that can stop it.  There is no body of
>>>international law that the US obeys.  The US is as lawless as the
>>>terrorists.  You don't mind because you are on their side.  What will
>>>you do, when you suddenly find yourself not on their side?

>>   In joining Al Queda they entered into a conspiracy to murder Americans
and
>> others. But don't get too bent out of shape. I have no problem with a
trial
>> to establish that they are members of  Al Queda. In cases where a mistake
was
>> made, give them a ticket back to their country of origin. I'm primarily
>> addressing the nonsense that they are being inhumanely treated.'

>I agree about that nonsense.  But what is not nonsense is that the US is
>acting outside any body of law.  It doesn't matter whether the US is
>acting according to its own laws, even if it can be eventually agreed
>that US law is a good basis for world law.  What is important is that
>the US is not currently answerable to anyone, because it has effectively
>dismantled all world institutions.  That makes the current world
>situation one of lawlessness, and the US is now acting outside the law,
>ie it is lawless.  That's the real problem that the prisoners in Cuba
>represent.

    A nation state has the right to self defense. Engaging in self defense is
not an act of lawlessness. It is answerable only for how it conducts that
self defense.  How do you think the United States has exceeded its right to
defense?

>>>The point is that, from now on, Americans taken prisoner can expect to
>>>be killed.  There are no rules anymore.  The US does not recognize any
>>>international laws with respect to prisoners, so the US no longer holds
>>>any ethical high ground.  You can argue that the prisoners in Cuba are
>>>being treated ok, and I won't disagree, but regardless of the state of
>>>the prisoners in Cuba, the US is clearly and deliberately refusing to
>>>follow any international law with regard to these prisoners.  So why
>>>should anyone else?  You either work to establish world standards of
>>>criminal law, or you work to undermine them.  The US has worked
>>>tirelessly to undermine them, and now there aren't any.

>>   How long do you think international law would keep an American soldier
>> alive who has been captured by Al Qaeda?

>What is the point of the question?  It sounds like you are saying we can
>be brutal because Al Qaeda is brutal.  That path leads exactly to where
>we are, always fighting the same fights based on our righteous beliefs,
>exactly what Al Qaeda is doing.  There shouldn't be an Al Qaeda.  Al
>Qaedas arise because of situations, not because of the devil.

  Again, to replace the portion of my post that you left out, "And with the
leadership of nation-states it is fear of US wrath, not international law,
that keeps American POWs alive". The point should be obvious. It is silly to
claim that international law somehow protects American POWs. And, since we
are not treating the prisoners in Cuba in a brutal manner (as you have
already agreed), the rest of your argument is academic.

>>>Your attitude exactly conveys my point.  You don't care about the rest
>>>of the world.

>>   You are in no position to know what I do or do not care about.

>Yes, I am.  You have been quite clear, especially with your last point.
>You define peace to be a state of terror in which you have the superior
>weapons and power.  The rest of the world is always afraid of you, and
>you are always suspicious of the rest of the world.  It's not a
>definition of peace I can agree with.

  Nor is it a definition I made -- as you well know. Indeed, it required that
you attribute to me a point of your own making.
Yours,
Issodhos