Your earlier statement:
What the Islamic jihadists have done was to turn ordinary garbs that are associated with muslim civilians into visual cues of war
The 9/11 hijackers were dressed in western clothes. All potential terrorists apprehended on airlines have worn western clothes. Where exactly did the muslim garbs come into the picture?
Dressed like ordinary western civilians. What part of this woman's appearance match the hijackers to justify suspicions?
You missed my point. The issue is more about distinguishing a 'combatant' from a 'civilian' than it is about the muslim garb. Certainly a muslim can wear any style of clothing he wish, but the moment he don a particular style of clothing, he will send out visual cues to everyone to tell them that he is an authorized agent of a government to do combat. We call that person a 'soldier' or a 'combatant'.
You might criticize us for judging people by their looks but the reality is that everyone does it and does it by necessity. If I meet someone who fits certain assumptions based upon visual cues, those assumptions could move me to say things like 'Yes, Sir' or 'No, Madam' and treat the person with high respect, like an elderly person, for example. Another assumption would move me to act cautiously if I see a man wearing dirty clothes, smells bad, and have a scowling face. The most basic decision that is based upon visual cues is the 'fight or flight' instinct.
Take a look again at the difference illustration below...
For the 'soldier', we have a reasonable expectation that there are very few individuals in this group and that they are easily distinguishable based upon appearance. For the civilian, we also have a reasonable expectation but that expectation is the opposite for the 'soldier', that there is a great deal more population count of 'civilians' than 'soldiers', and that they are also very distinguishable by appearance. The soldier is allowed to do certain things that are forbidden to the civilian and vice versa and the soldier is allowed to do those things generally when he is wearing those easily distinguishable markings. Basically, if you want to kill other people, wear things that says you are authorized by a government to kill other people.
You are twisting and turning to justify religious profiling when every professional will tell you that other cues are far more important.
Fair enough. What are they?
When the jihadists decided for themselves, meaning independent of any government, to kill other people and do it while wearing civilian garb, they effectively forced US to broaden our visual search criteria. I am not talking about an American soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan looking at all muslim civilians with suspicion. That is already happening. Am talking about ordinary American citizens looking at muslims in America with suspicion.
So all you have to do is give US what you think are credible visual cues of what a suicide bomber look like so we can make that millisecond 'fight or flight' decision.
---------- Post added at 07:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:39 AM ----------
Underpowered guerillas always fight in civilian clothes -- from the French Resistance to the South American and Vietnamese guerillas to the current Islamic insurgents.
Are you saying that these guerillas have so gotten under your skin that America has subjugated its own values and allowed the terrorists to dictate the American way of life?
Always? Let us grant you that latitude. So what if there are gross disparity in arms between sides? The Geneva Conventions does not specify uniforms as commonly accepted, only that combatants are distinguishable from non-combatants, the marking can be a coat or even as simple as a scarf that all those who would be combatants would wear, carry their arms openly, and finally all combatants should try to remove themselves as far away from civilians as possible. What give them the privilege, not yet a 'right', to be exempt or exempt themselves from those rules?
The burden for the opposing force would be to take note of those distinguishing markings, target only those who sports those markings and openly bear their arms, and finally to leave alone those who do not conform to the criteria. The burden of distinguishing combatants from non-combatants falls upon both sides.
Like it or not, what the French Resistance did was wrong when its fighters hid among the French civilians. That endangered the French civilians from the Nazis even more, as if the Nazis' behaviors were not atrocious enough already. What the Geneva Conventions said is applicable to organized armies, militias, and guerrilla forces. The supposedly 'nobility' or 'righteouness' of my cause does not grant me exemptions from these rules, if anything, compliance to these rules would make my cause even more 'noble' and 'righteous'.
The Geneva Conventions were ratified after WW II and countries that have professional militaries have largely complied to the Conventions. Whoever brought up Hiroshima and Nagasaki was idiotic in that in trying to use those war events as convenient insults against what we believe
TODAY, he unwittingly implied that we should return to those days of unrestrained warfare. If that is what the muslims want, then all the muslims have to do is commit more 9/11 and we will acommodate your wish.
It was because of the horrors from the fire bombings of Dresden, Tokyo and others, and from the atomic weapons that we strive to reduce worldwide nuclear weapons stockpile and improve the accuracy of conventional weapons so that we do less harm to civilians if we have to go to war against each other. But if the muslims want unrestrained warfare, let US know, the bloodier the message, the sooner and quicker we will revert back to those days.
The problem for both sides, the muslims and US infidels, is that the jihadists have made it public they will not comply to modern accepted rules of warfare. In doing so, they gave US the option of relieving ourselves of the burden of trying to distinguish muslim combatants from muslims civilians in this religous war. So far we have yet to exercise that option. You may argue that the jihadists do not 'speak' for the muslims, but that is no comfort to the victims of their preferred methods of warfare. Look at the recent suicide bombings, on foot and on car, in Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghaninstan. Not only have the jihadists spoke for the muslims, they acted for all of you as well.