Originally Posted By mele Okay...so when we're torturing and killing the people we feel we justifiably hate, at what point do we turn into them? Never? Hardly. They feel just as justified in killing us as you do them. The thing that separates us from the animals is that we don't resort the the basest emotions. By behaving like them you become them. You're letting them kill the part of you that separates you from them. Why is that so hard to understand?
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Two wrongs do not make a right. And if many americans hold Christian doctrines to be true, then it is not your right to judge. I am sickened by that sort of defence. It is vigilantist in thinking and undermines an ethical approach to internation affairs. The military and it's troops are simply instruments of policy, a part of the machine. When the chain of command is broken, or attrocities are committed in uniform, they undermine everything that we stand for. It turns my stomach.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo and William, if you did not enlist to support humanity, why did you? I have sadly met soldiers who serve either because of: a) they had not better career prospects b) to get their jollies c) because it was better than a life of crime Thankfully these are in the minority. All the men in my family served (and many died sadly) to preserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (ok, and a couple served to get a free degree under the G.I. Bill).
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>yet we are supposed to be humane and treat them with love....<< No, we don't have to treat them with "love" -- for the 9 millionth time. But I guess it's easier to keep saying that than it is to actually absorb what people are ACTUALLY saying instead of caricaturing their positions.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Can you explain why with an equally well thought-out and intelligent argument?>> For years we have fought traditional wars. We knew who our enemy was and were they came from. After the attacks of September 11th we were forced to deal with a enemy where the combatants didn't call one country home. They were from all over the region. So by them changing the rules of combat it does not apply. Also one of the problems with the closing of Guantanamo is finding countries that will take these guys. And so far no one is stepping up to the plate. Sure Paulau took some off our hands but where are the big countries to step in. We can't hold all of them in the general population of our prisons. And the problem was Obama was so adamant on closing Guantanamo because it was the one thing expected of him right away. But I don't think he clearly thought this through.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo But terrorism is nothing new. Hell, the native americans taught the colonists how to do it and it was used against the British. And that is celebrated every 4th of July. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 and William, if you did not enlist to support humanity, why did you? << I joined to support my country and fight for AMERICANS and other innocent lives. Those that try to kill us are far from innocent... OK, let's say we play by the rules, never hurt those that oppose us and turn the other cheek. We lose, and all die, when we are dead nobody cares that we played by the rules... Not one of our enemies play by our rules, yet Americans flip out when we "bend" them a bit in order to give us a tactical advantage against future enemy attacks. I am not saying we should torture everyone that we capture, but if it benefits our country in the long run to "rough" em up a bit, so be it...
Originally Posted By DAR Here's hoping that somehow our boys can find their fellow soldier and in the process take out those holding him.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I am sure his family will sleep better at night knowing that....> Well, as for the family of one beheaded American... <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/08/13/070813fa_fact_mayer" target="_blank">http://www.newyorker.com/repor...ct_mayer</a> "“You need a procedure that will get the truth,” she said. “An intelligence agency is not supposed to be above the law.” (that's Daniel Pearl's widow referring to the CIA... read the whole article for more context). And as for Pearl's parents, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pearl" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...el_Pearl</a> "Shortly after his death, Pearl's parents, Ruth and Judea Pearl, founded the Daniel Pearl Foundation. The foundation's mission is to promote cross-cultural understanding through journalism, music, and dialogue. Its programs include: World Music Days which uses the power of music to promote tolerance and inspire respect for differences; PEARL World Youth News which provides an online journalist certification course for High School Students; Annual Daniel Pearl Journalism and Editorial Fellowships which brings mid-career foreign journalists and editors to work for six months in a US newsroom; the Daniel Pearl Media Internship Program which provides media internships to young Israelis and Palestinians who have attended a peace camp; and The Daniel Pearl Dialogues for Muslim-Jewish Understanding, a traveling public dialogue in which professors Judea Pearl and Akbar Ahmed discuss Muslim-Jewish relationships." Sounds like they're doing anything but blaming Muslims in general, or going out for revenge.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I am not saying we should torture everyone that we capture, but if it benefits our country in the long run to "rough" em up a bit, so be it...> IF that were the case, we'd have a dilemma on our hands. But it's not the case. Torture, looked at dispassionately, is not an effective way to gain intelligence. Other methods fare much better. The lies often told to get the torture to stop often lead investigators in the wrong direction and waste time and resources. Just from an efficacy standpoint, it's the wrong way to go. From a moral standpoint it's the wrong way to go too. Not only does it reduce us to their level, it inflames public opinion against us. And not just in the Muslim world; the US was not held in the same esteem among our allies under Bush as it once was, and now it's up to Obama to repair that.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo And if one truly believes in an afterlife and judgement at the pearly gates, then does not one's conduct on this earth matter, irregardless of what others do? Perhaps if this is a prevalence of thought amongst the Christian right, their faiths are faltering?
Originally Posted By mele <OK, let's say we play by the rules, never hurt those that oppose us and turn the other cheek. We lose, and all die, when we are dead nobody cares that we played by the rules...>> Actually, quite a bit of people do care about the morals with which they chose to live their lives. Obviously, and sadly, there are some people don't care about that sort of thing but I do not see the value of being alive if I have destroyed my own character. The point of life isn't to destroy those who need to be destroyed just to make be alive for longer. Living decades longer as an animal isn't my goal. Have at it, I guess.
Originally Posted By DAR <<But terrorism is nothing new. Hell, the native americans taught the colonists how to do it and it was used against the British. And that is celebrated every 4th of July. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.>> Completely different fighting to become an independent nation is not the same as twisting an otherwise good religion to fit in with a violent, hate-filled religion.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Can you explain why with an equally well thought-out and intelligent argument?>> <For years we have fought traditional wars. We knew who our enemy was and were they came from. After the attacks of September 11th we were forced to deal with a enemy where the combatants didn't call one country home. They were from all over the region. So by them changing the rules of combat it does not apply.> That's a convenient justification, a la John Yoo/Alberto Gonzalez, but I don't believe those arguments will hold up in court (if they ever get there). The British couldn't just torture IRA terrorists because some were from Ireland, some were from the US, and some from within the UK itself (i.e. northern Ireland). This also doesn't address all of ecdc's points. <Also one of the problems with the closing of Guantanamo is finding countries that will take these guys. And so far no one is stepping up to the plate. Sure Paulau took some off our hands but where are the big countries to step in. We can't hold all of them in the general population of our prisons.> Sure we could, or separate them within supermax prisons. No one has EVER escaped from a US supermax prison. <And the problem was Obama was so adamant on closing Guantanamo because it was the one thing expected of him right away. But I don't think he clearly thought this through.> Some people are demogoguing the issue and creating fear: "do you want these terrorists INSIDE the United States!? In YOUR state??!" As a result, Obama has a POLITICAL problem, not a logistical one so much. No one has ever escaped from a supermax prison. And in the highly unlikely event they did, where exactly would they go if they escaped into, say, the middle of nowhere, Nebraska? Hell, we held the terrorists responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing in NYC prisons - not supermax, and if they escaped it would have been the easiest place in the world to blend in and disappear. But NYC has guts and it held them. Today, you have Nebraska (or wherever) congressmen raising fears that they'll escape from a supermax. (Though there is that one town in Montana who has actually said they'll take some, lest they lose their prison.)
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>Completely different fighting to become an independent nation is not the same as twisting an otherwise good religion to fit in with a violent, hate-filled religion.<<< But that is not how it started. The Boston Tea party was an act of terrorism. As was the southern attack on Fort Sumpter. Yes, you could look at georgraphy and ideology as an overiding collective, but in the case of Islam, some of the protests are about US/Western imperialism.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 <<But terrorism is nothing new. Hell, the native americans taught the colonists how to do it and it was used against the British. And that is celebrated every 4th of July. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.>> That brings me to my next point, the British fought an enemy that was unlike any they have ever faced. Instead of adjusting their tactics and finding a different way to fight, they kept to their morales, and fought the way they always have in the past, honorably....and they lost....badly... We are going to suffer the same fate if we fight like we have in the past, the enemy we are fighting hates us with a passion, and they have hated us for decades. 9/11 happened before President Bush acted like a douche...
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Ah yes, but this is not a new conflict. It goes back to the crusades and further. So torture (which was practiced by Christondom) will not extinguish it, but merely strenthened it's resolve.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Ah yes, but this is not a new conflict. It goes back to the crusades and further. So torture (which was practiced by Christondom) will not extinguish it, but merely strenthened it's resolve.<< Well said.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 ""At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." - Abraham Lincoln In other words, we can only be defeated if we subvert our own system - in the guise of "security" or even (perversely) "patriotism."
Originally Posted By DAR Dabob, you know what you're right bring them into the Supermax prisons put them in the general population then spread the word on who they are. My cousin who is currently serving a sentence has told me they didn't take too kindly to child molesters maybe that could include terrorists. I like where this is going.
