No TPS reports allowed.
Thus the war on terror is an effort to both strengthen and weaken "civilian immunity" in warfare. One objective is to gain consensus that the targeting of any civilian populations is prohibited in all circumstances. Another objective is to force the population to take responsibility for its actions in supporting terrorism. The continuim of civlian-ness demands that some recieve total protection while others are held accountable for their supportive actions, even if they are
less than orgainzed or systematic.
This concept is what underlies the adminstration's policy toward the IP conflict: once the Palestinian population itself accepts its responsibility for colluding with the terrorists, and takes a clear stand against then, then the process can move forward. Collective responsibility and collective duty are demanded by one side and collective punishment claimed by the other.
Whoa. That deserves a post of its own!
"Changing the status of what we de facto already do to a de jure recognition that some tactics in the WOT must be different than those of past wars would give us significant propaganda value."
I liked Dershowitz's notion of 'torture warrants' although perhaps a better phrase can be found for them. We are not going to win this war fighting by Marqus of Queensbury rules. I don't forsee any great outcry from the broad mass of Americans if the use of 'moderate physical pressure' was systematized and regulated in the course of the WoT. I like Jane's notion that we have to abandon the sharp dichotomy between civilian/military and combatant/non-combatant; these distinctions mades sense in previous wars, you are correct in alledging that they simply serve as shields for terrorism.
I published an article in Egypt last year on a similiar topic. The Egyptian governemnt censored three pro-US paragraphs but it still gets the point across. If you want to see the article, you have to scroll down to the opinion section and click because they dont cache their pages seperately.
Also while you are at the main page of the ME Times, click on the last and half obscured item on the left hand link link: it shows what was recently censored and why.
Also while you are at the main page of the ME Times, click on the last and half obscured item on the left hand link list: it shows what was recently censored and why. If you go to the current issue first, (www.metimes.com) you'll see the one from this month called "Help Us."
The thing about the al Qaeda numbers is that they are likely both right: studies indicate that only about 10 percent of those seeking to be active jihadists pass al Qaeda's muster. So what you have is a large remainder of "failures" who are told to keep ready because they may be called upon to redeem their failure at training camp. And by redeem I mean go on a suicide mission.
Thus what you have is roughly 2,000 active members, and another 18,000 who are ready and extremely willing to become jawa fodder should bin Laden call upon them.
MB2 Plus an untold number of sympathetics who empower those commiting the actual attrocities.
Jane,
Where is American Public University?
It's a virtual institution and a division of American Military University.
I always thought 'rules of war' was a crackpot idea at best. You go to war to win: all other priorities are secondary.
IF the mission requires tact and discretion, then that will happen. If it doesn't, everyone basically ignores the Geneva convention anyway (and I mean everyone: France, Britain, Germany, Russia (big surprise), USA, etc. I am not implicating the US as some sort of evil thing here.) As well, the convention places absolute absurd restrictions on armies. Two examples follow:
- You are not allowed to toss a smoke/tear gas grenade into a room to "clear" it. You are, however, allowed to toss in a high explosive fragmentation device.
- In the future, when laser weaponry becomes more commonplace (2025 is the tentative date for the first laser-based rifle to come into service), the Geneva conventions mandate that, no, you cannot use a low-intensity laser to permanently (or even temporarily) blind the enemy.
You can, however, cut them in half with your full-power laser.
(Actually, given the methodology used to overcome atmospheric disturbances - ie, rain, smoke, etc - a larger laser would *technically* blow you up, not slice you in half. But thats just being pedantic.)
Lastly, I do not really see a need for propaganda in a war that is just and clear (consequentially, I don't particularly think propaganda had a more than psychological reassurance on the populace, which I feel in the age of instant-access information is no longer adequete), I mean people either agree with you or they don't, I don't know about you, but I'd rather have someoen disagree with me than, you know, be a mindless drone who is only on my side because a pretty poster told him so.
Consequentially, popular support doesn't matter, the presidential elections are decided by 40% (or less) of the total amount of people qualified to vote, that means 20% +1 vote of the population decides the vote. (actually, a quick lookup and its 36.98% of the general population that votes, at least in 2000.)
Thus, the biggest minority (18.5% or so +1 vote) is the majority here, I am not concerned with gaining 'popular support' in a bunch of dunderheads who, frankly, don't give a shit either way how the war on terror is operated, its that 18 and change % that actually matter, the rest of the populace is just dead weight in terms of political power.
I think its feasable that 18% of the population is politically minded and pro-war on terror, lets concentrate on getting those people out, rather than gaining a popular support that isn't needed, at all. 18% of the population can be feasably swayed with facts/etc, and those are the best kind of supporters anyway (those who actually know their stuff.)
Just a minirant, I don't feel the need for propaganda, the world has change (a little bit, maybe?) since WWII, political dynamics have changed, rather than a sizable portion of the population going off to war we have a (quasi) professional(I hate how the army recruits people who're "there for the college money") army that is a tiny minority (0.0046%) of the population, of which a minority (0.096% of the army pop, or 0.00045% of the general population) are doing any actual fighting in a danger zone,
...this is a vastly different situation from, say, WWII, where everyone (practically) knew someone who was off to war, this had them much more personally/emotionally involved in the war and its outcomes, thus facilitating the need for ways to convince the general populace of the nessesity of the war; given that the voting rates were not significantly higher than they are now (51.1% of registered voters, as opposed to 49.3% now, or 33.2% of the general population (even lower than now!) in 1946), you have a situation where you need to convince a lot of people who normally do not give a crap who is running the show in Washington that the war is just (as they are personally involved in it.)
This is what nessesitates propaganda.
To put it even more in perspective, America fielded approximately 15 million men during WWII, iirc (correct me if I'm wrong,) and in '46 (earliest population data I could get ahold of in a hurry) had a population of 142,049,065, that is over 10% of the population going to war, as opposed to (as mentioned above,) 0.000045% of the population going to war.
The difference, obviously, nessesitates an "apples and bananas" call here: you cannot compare the two atmospheres/needs of these wars. Whereas you see a clear comparison in the general, abstract sense, I see two very different wars, with two very different needs, in two very different eras and with two very different political atmosphere.
The effect of propaganda can, I think, only be negetive. It is, for the most part, emotion-based and irrational: it only works on people who are suseptable to that (ie, mostly on people who might be personally involved in it.)
*0.00045%, I am sorry for the typo.
In conclusion, I can only state that the comparisons used to argue for the need for propaganda - mostly WWII-based - are so absurdly out of date and, as mentioned, apples/bananas, that they should be dismissed outright as irration in and of themselves. I hope that you (a poly sci instructor) can see this with the data I have presented here. There may be a case for propaganda (personally I would find it distasteful to see my own government try to manipulate me, the informed voter, with silly posters and emotionally pleas. As a sidenote, yes, I am angry at the mass media for trying to do the same with tear-jerker stories every day, or would be if I paid attention to the mass media), but the author has not made one that is based in reality yet.
You can also check the pages about http://butalbital.4free.gb.com/ http://butalbital.4free.gb.com/ butalbital http://personal-loans.4free.gb.com/ http://personal-loans.4free.gb.com/ personal loans http://www.debt-help-bill-consol...limination.com/
http://www.debt-help-bill-consol...limination.com/
debt consolidation http://texasholdem.4free.gb.com/ http://texasholdem.4free.gb.com/ texas hold em http://poker-rules.4free.gb.com/ http://poker-rules.4free.gb.com/ poker rules http://poker.4free.gb.com/ http://poker.4free.gb.com/ poker http://ambien.4free.gb.com/
You may find it interesting to check some helpful info about loans loans http://www.fidelityfunding.net/ low interest credit cards low interest credit cards http://low-interest-credit-cards.web4u.gb.com/ casinos casinos http://casinos.web4u.gb.com/ weight loss weight loss http://weight-loss.web4u.gb.com/ forex forex http://forex.web4u.gb.com/ tax tax http://tax.web4u.gb.c
Please check the sites dedicated to credit cards credit cards http://www.easy-application-credit-cards.com/ debt consolidation debt consolidation http://www.e-debt-consolidation-loans.com/ gambling gambling http://www.reachcasino.com/ online poker online poker http://online-poker.reachcasino.com/ student credit cards student credit cards http://www.alumnicards.com/ mortgage loans
Commenting by HaloScan
