| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 8:11 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| The problem here is that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. |
Check out Imperial Hubris, Anonymous definitely has some interesting things to say regarding the 'legal mindset' of fighting the war on terror. No, I don't have any links, except for one to the book.
No I'm not going to type out the 3-4 pages I'm thinking of by hand.
Anyhow, FWIW:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1574888498/102-5370364-4744911?v=glance
A quick and dirty summary: By worrying about applying American laws in countries which are obviously not the US, and by treating Al Qaeda like terrorists (i.e. a legal problem requiring a law enforcement solution) rather than what they are- a transnational insurgency, requiring military and other methods (i.e. 'dirty war') the US (and by extension the West) will lose the War on Terror.
It's not a pleasant message and I'm not 100% sold, but he certainly does have a lot of experience, information, and sound reasoning to back up his opinions.
Say, looking a the subject line- what's RR trying to say about Korean Americans? If Gonzales had written the memo, would he have said "Mexican American writes torutre memo?" Before anyone answers that let me call my bookie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| A quick and dirty summary: By worrying about applying American laws in countries which are obviously not the US, and by treating Al Qaeda like terrorists (i.e. a legal problem requiring a law enforcement solution) rather than what they are- a transnational insurgency, requiring military and other methods (i.e. 'dirty war') the US (and by extension the West) will lose the War on Terror. |
Exactly. As savage as it is, only a "Col. Kurtz" can win a guerrilla war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2005 12:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Exactly. As savage as it is, only a "Col. Kurtz" can win a guerrilla war. |
The real question is whether we ensavage the masses to save themselves or just a few. If a few, do we hang them out to dry when its over? Or do we reward them with wealth and prosperity?
I support paying our dues for our chosen ones, not hanging them out or closing our eyes. We chose them, they went in our place, pay the worker his wages.
Its not a guerrilla war, otherwise we have to accept all methods as being part of a guerrilla action. I can't accept killing innocents to make a political point, so I guess I am always on the opposite. By the way, savagery is a very fine line, Al Qaeda (?) should be very careful to not wake the beast in all of us. They may unleesh something they really don't want. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2005 5:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| I have said the convention perhaps needs updating. Thoughts? |
With respect to terrorists being held to it? One word: enforceability.
Terrorists/freedom fighters/guerrillas are not. |
How is a prisoner not available and, thus, punishment not enforceable? Again, change the thing if need be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2005 5:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Summer Wine wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The problem here is that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. |
I am sorry to those who support the "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter", but look at the methods and they should tell you what crap it is. |
Actually, you're addressing this in much too narrow a manner. What used to be guerrilla warfare is now called terrorism. Try not to forget how th United States came into being: guerrilla warfare. We may have invented it. And their methods are irrelevant given that even addressing that is a huge hypocrisy. Knowingly dropping bombs you know a certain percentage of which will end up off target is honourable? Please. Take it a step further: the US methods of interrogation? Kidnapping then torturin people who are NOT in the "war zone?"
Sorry, but the world has changed and to be equitable there needs to be a discussion about revising the Geneva Convention so people who are fighting for what THEY perceive as their freedom and the sactity of their borders/society have rights.
Under US law even the most heinous criminals are treated equally. They get their day in court in the same way as everyone else. To have any "honour" whatsoever we cannot pcik and choose when we will worry about treating people fairly and equally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2005 5:14 am Post subject: Re: Korean-American Prof Wrote "torture memo" |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
[
The problem here is that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. .. |
If a person is DELIBERATELY targeting civilians with the express purpose of killing them in order to create an atomosphere of terror, then they can not be considered a freedom fighter by any definition |
Unfortunately, that doesn't cover all the forms supposed terrorism takes, so back to revision.
And, I refer you to recent world history and the carpet bombing and firebombing of Germany and Japan, and to the us of the atom bombs in Japan: all the deliberate targeting of civilians to create a state of terror and collapse, then surrender.
Last edited by EFLtrainer on Sat Sep 17, 2005 6:39 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2005 6:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
As opposed to keeping the war going.
The US was right to bomb Dresden and right to use the bomb on Hiroshima.
The faster the wars ended the more lives were saved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2005 6:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
As opposed to keeping the war going.
The US was right to bomb Dresden and right to use the bomb on Hiroshima.
The faster the wars ended the more lives were saved. |
So, killiang innocents on purpose is OK if you're "right", but is terrorism if you're "wrong."
Got it.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2005 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
The longer the war dragged out the more died in the death camps in Germany . A ground invasion of Japan would have been very costly to the US in terms of lives. Killing innocents is never okay but allowing many more of them to die because of inaction or hesitation is even worse.
Lives saved cause of actions count as much as lives lost cause of actions. Maybe not in your book , but they do count.
There was no comparison between the allies and the axis because of what each side fought for. You in all your calculations don't consider what each side fights for and that makes a big difference.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Sat Sep 17, 2005 7:08 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dogbert
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2005 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
The longer the war dragged out the more died in the death camps in Germany . A ground invasion of Japan would have been very costly to the US in terms of lives.
Lives saved cause of actions count as much as lives lost cause of actions. Maybe not in your book , but they do count.
There was no comparison between the allies and the axis because of what each side fought for. You in all your calculations don't consider what each side fights for and that is what makes all the difference. |
In your simplistic calculations, do you take account of how many more souls were slaughtered in Soviet Russia due to the defeat of Germany in World War II? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2005 7:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dogbert wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
The longer the war dragged out the more died in the death camps in Germany . A ground invasion of Japan would have been very costly to the US in terms of lives.
Lives saved cause of actions count as much as lives lost cause of actions. Maybe not in your book , but they do count.
There was no comparison between the allies and the axis because of what each side fought for. You in all your calculations don't consider what each side fights for and that is what makes all the difference. |
In your simplistic calculations, do you take account of how many more souls were slaughtered in Soviet Russia due to the defeat of Germany in World War II? |
Ah but there would have been no US nuclear bomb if England would have benen knocked out in your simplistic calculations.
Germany gets the bomb first.
And Hitler might have killed more than Stalin if he was around as long as Stalin. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dogbert
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2005 7:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| dogbert wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
The longer the war dragged out the more died in the death camps in Germany . A ground invasion of Japan would have been very costly to the US in terms of lives.
Lives saved cause of actions count as much as lives lost cause of actions. Maybe not in your book , but they do count.
There was no comparison between the allies and the axis because of what each side fought for. You in all your calculations don't consider what each side fights for and that is what makes all the difference. |
In your simplistic calculations, do you take account of how many more souls were slaughtered in Soviet Russia due to the defeat of Germany in World War II? |
Ah but there would have been no US nuclear bomb if England would have benen knocked out in your simplistic calculations.
Germany gets the bomb first.
And Hitler might have killed more than Stalin if he was around as long as Stalin. |
That assumes England having been knocked out and that Hitler would have used the bomb where Stalin did not.
You have no basis for that assumption, in all honesty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2005 7:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
That assumes England having been knocked out and that Hitler would have used the bomb where Stalin did not.
You have no basis for that assumption, in all honesty. |
Without the US Hitler would have knocked out England.
That means he gets the bomb first and he would have used it on the US.
Stalin didn't use the bomb cause the US had the bomb first.
But Germany was way ahead of Russia in their Nuclear program.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Sat Sep 17, 2005 7:38 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2005 7:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
The longer the war dragged out the more died in the death camps in Germany . A ground invasion of Japan would have been very costly to the US in terms of lives. Killing innocents is never okay but allowing many more of them to die because of inaction or hesitation is even worse.
Lives saved cause of actions count as much as lives lost cause of actions. Maybe not in your book , but they do count.
There was no comparison between the allies and the axis because of what each side fought for. You in all your calculations don't consider what each side fights for and that makes a big difference. |
Man, they were right. Discussing with you goes absolutely nowhere. You don't answer questions, you just repeat yourself. The issue at hand is simple: killin innocents intentionally is terrorism. Why does it not apply to those cases? I didn't *ask* if it was justified. I asked why it is not also terrorism. And, your point about saving *innocent lives* does not apply to soldiers.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2005 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Man, they were right. |
Who moonbats and far right whackos? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
