...
You are saying that the US trying to deliberately target Iraqi leadership with car bomb type tactics (rare) is comparable to a suicide bomber deliberately targetiing civilians (the norm)? eeeek
kennas, not at all
what i was seeking to show was that as a weapon used to kill, it would appear that the us was the first to employ
whilst i made the comment 'let alone al-queda', the 2 examples i used were cia paramilitaries amd military special operations groups using car bombs against iraqi leadership targets followed by an iraqi soldier using a car bomb against a us military target (checkpoint manned by us soldiers of which 4 died) - both of are which acceptable targets under the laws of war
further, the us military's public response to the iraqi car bomb as terrorism does not reconcile with their own use of that weapon (bearing in mind they were both legitimate targets, yet one is termed terrorism)
it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the iraqis were inspired to use the car bomb (or in response to) by the us first use of, and further that 'terrorists' in iraq subsequently used car bombs having seen the iraqi military use of it
did the us let the genie out of the bottle (in this particular conflict - obviously it has been used in other confilcts prior to the 2003 invasion of iraq, by a disparate collection of individuals, robert baer, in his 2-part doco on the car bomb makes the point that he was taught how to make car bombs when he was in the cia)
...
How do you intend to defeat genocidal dictators, Al Qaeda and the Taliban?
I suppose you think it might be to negotiate, or for the West to completely vacate the Middle East?
i don't have an answer for how to defeat al-queda beyond co-operative international law enforcement
who/what is al-queda, is al-queda (osama) aligned with al-queda in iraq, with al-queda in indonesia, such that you have an identifiable command/control structure, or are they just geographically separated sympathetic violent movements
as for the taliban i suspect this will eventually play itself out in a negotiated settlement, for the following reasons
the 'no end in sight' nature of the confict;
the taliban have shown a willingness to negotiate, both domestically and internationally;
the us has negotiated with the taliban through back channels in the past (and may be doing it now, it would at least have the capabilities in place to do so);
as i mentioned in an earlier post, both the us and taliban have released new rules for the ongoing fighting in afghanistan, including seeking to reduce civilian casualties (the timelines for these are fascinating - it has recently [this month] been reported that the taliban released their new rules in may, the us then released theirs in june, and in july the western forces in afghanistan [nato and us commanders] have been ridiculing mullah omar's edict) - the taliban rules have several goals (beyond potentially a realistic effort at taliban laws of war), winning hearts and minds (rather than other body parts), eliminating foreign fighters from their ranks (who aren't prepared to abide by the rules), assisting in travelling down the path to credibility (as a party to be negotiated with publicly);
negotiations will become more and more likely as the taliban travel down the western credibility path, as follows (excuse the simplicity)
current style taliban credibility - they are a force to be reckoned with in various regions of afgahnistan and are our enemy;
then hamas style credibility - won a democratic election (in an environment where the palestinians wanted a govt who would fight back) that the west refuses to recognise, but begrudgingly recognises that possibly one way or another they will need to be included (indeed discussions are carried out with hamas through intermediary govts);
then fatah style credibility - preferred by the west to the point of being funded, armed and trained by the west and seen as a negotiating partner which the us meets publicly with;
then ira political wing style credibility - disarmament and peaceful co-existence (it is at this point the us special envoy steps forward to collect the nobel peace prize)
not saying it will play out like the above, becoming govt through elections, but showing that given time, etc that sides initially disparate can move toward each other enough to make negotiated settlement possible
the taliban's recent rules of armed conflict if generally adhered to are potentially a significant step forward (albeit with a
lot more steps required)
cheers
another quality post brought to you by happytown