Gone-tanamo Bay

[rgraham666]

I believe Belegon's point of view is that the freedom which the United States is fighting for should be espoused by its every action. How are we to make everyone else see the value of freedom if we show willingness to discard it ourselves?

Quick question: How does one win a war against terrorists who are willing and capable of hiding in civilian populations and who enjoy support from those populations. How does one fight an army that never comes out to fight?

Belegon, I suspect, would suggest it would be by removing the popular support, by demonstrating that you are better than the other side. I follow the belief of integrating the enemy and working out what they fight for and how we can negotiate with them, a la Ireland.

How would you fight an opponent who is never visible?

The Earl

Our friend? He'd just nuke the whole fucking country and let God sort 'em out.

'Let them hate so long as they fear' and all that.

 

[amicus]

Ah, Earl, damnit, I know you are a history buff, but perhaps one with selective memory, eh?

Just to pick a place to begin, the Romans enslaved the population, all of them combatants and otherwise.

From that point on is has been mainly rape, pillage and plunder in warfare and I am amused you seem to have deleted that from your memory.

If someone puts a gun to my child's head and I have the means, I will blow his head off and then question him.

The 'civilized world', (cough), has tried to 'civilize' warfare for centuries.

The Muslims have discarded that attempt by bombing Mosques, restaurants, schools and businesses, killing a hundred to one innocent civilians over armed miolitary personnel. Radical Islamic's are cowards; they know they cannot win in' civilized' structured modern warfare. The invasion of Iraq, both times, should exemplify that.

I infer from your post that you ask a question yoiu do not expect to be answered, a rhetorical question, because it cannot be answered in a civil manner of engagement.

I will attempt a different tack, when an individual defends his life or property against those who would take it by force, the victim does not violate his principles in defending his life and property.

Thus, outside the liberal media, America is viewed as a defender of human rights and has been since defeating Nazi Germany and Emperial Japan.

The middle east has a long history...in the short version, the British occupied Baghdad long before the American's ever took part. It was the British that partioned Palestine and effectively began the Arab, Israeli conflict that goes all the way back to the Balfour Declaration.

There I go again, cherry picking history to support my contentions, contentious bastard, am I not?

Amicus...

 

[sadangel]

Our friend? He'd just nuke the whole fucking country and let God sort 'em out.

'Let them hate so long as they fear' and all that.

I'm seeing that.

I don't understand how some still think that violence is the answer. I just don't. *shrugs*

ETA:
There are times when one must defend themselves. If it's necessary, then yes. IF someone is going to try to rape me, I will fight to my death to have it not happen. If someone wants to steal my purse. I will hand it over. There are somethings worth dying for and fighting for and some that are not.

I'm not saying that there isn't a time to defend yourself, your family, your friends or your country. There is a time to see if there is another way Most Of The Time. If it's possible. Find another way before restorting to violence.

 

[rgraham666]

I'm seeing that.

I don't understand how some still think that violence is the answer. I just don't. *shrugs*

Sometimes it is.

It's just that it shouldn't be your first answer. As Sun Tzu points out fighting is the last thing you should do.

 

[sadangel]

Sometimes it is.

It's just that it shouldn't be your first answer. As Sun Tzu points out fighting is the last thing you should do.

*Smiles*
I edited my post without seeing your answer.

I agree. Sometimes...it is necessary. It doesn't have to be the First answer most of the time!

 

[amicus]

SadAngel, nice to make your acquaintance, even if it is to be in disagreement.

Your comments reflect a philosophy that is mirrored by Judeau Christian ethics and even the Hindi religion and some say Islam also.

One thing in particular, your giving your purse to a thief rather that fighting for it.

"Your Life or your Money!" Is an essay by Ayn Rand, to give credit, in which the concept of your life and your wealth are one and the same.

It is an error to separate the property concept, from your life, as what you possess was earned and is owned by you as an individual and when someone threatens either, they threaten both, as property is the means by which we live and sustain our lives.

A prudent person, knowing that their are criminals in this world, acts to prepare oneself for defense by using weapons of mutual cooperation with others.

When a threat arises to the community at large, such as the threat of Islam to wipe out Israel and the western way of life, the prudent person prepares to defend and if necessary counterstrike to prevent chaos.

Without criticizing the gender, cuz I love them lil critters, women usually seem to speak in a passive voice in terms of conflict, defense and warfare.

Except when it comes to protecting their babies, then it is primal tooth and claw.

Warfare should never the the last thing one considers, a wise nation, a wise person, should always be prepared to defend the values that one lives by.

Thas why we have a standing army, ducky....

Amicus...the warmonger...

 

[sadangel]

SadAngel, nice to make your acquaintance, even if it is to be in disagreement.

Your comments reflect a philosophy that is mirrored by Judeau Christian ethics and even the Hindi religion and some say Islam also.

One thing in particular, your giving your purse to a thief rather that fighting for it.

"Your Life or your Money!" Is an essay by Ayn Rand, to give credit, in which the concept of your life and your wealth are one and the same.

It is an error to separate the property concept, from your life, as what you possess was earned and is owned by you as an individual and when someone threatens either, they threaten both, as property is the means by which we live and sustain our lives.

A prudent person, knowing that their are criminals in this world, acts to prepare oneself for defense by using weapons of mutual cooperation with others.

When a threat arises to the community at large, such as the threat of Islam to wipe out Israel and the western way of life, the prudent person prepares to defend and if necessary counterstrike to prevent chaos.

Without criticizing the gender, cuz I love them lil critters, women usually seem to speak in a passive voice in terms of conflict, defense and warfare.

Except when it comes to protecting their babies, then it is primal tooth and claw.

Warfare should never the the last thing one considers, a wise nation, a wise person, should always be prepared to defend the values that one lives by.

Thas why we have a standing army, ducky....

Amicus...the warmonger...

It is an error to separate the property concept, from your life, as what you possess was earned and is owned by you as an individual and when someone threatens either, they threaten both, as property is the means by which we live and sustain our lives.

For me, it is NOT an error to separate the property concept. In this case, my purse from my life. Yes, I have earned what is in that purse, and at some point, it can be replaced. I can get new credit cards (if I actually had any), I can get more money at some point, I can replace most things in it. It's not worth losing my life over. Being raped, that is. They are threating my actual life. They are threating my well-being and my sanity. I should know. I've been raped more than once. I didn't fight those times. I couldn't. The first, I was too young. The second, my life was already being threatened. I chose to not fight. If they have a gun to my head to rape me, I'll lay down and take it, and fight it in a court. I choose my battles and when it is important to me to decide what is worth fighting for and what is not. My purse is not worth fighting for. My money is not worth fighting for. They can be replaced at some point. My life cannot!

Obviously, you believe differently. So be it. I'm going to assume you've never been raped or had your purse stolen or attempted to have it done. I've been raped. I answer based on my own experiences.

Your comments reflect a philosophy that is mirrored by Judeau Christian ethics and even the Hindi religion and some say Islam also.

Actually, as stated above. It's not a philosophy, but it's my own real life experiences that color my view. I choose to not take the violent way out for the majority of things. I have had to, to defend myself or someone else, but I tried to reason first. *Not the two rapists - there was nothing to reason*

Without criticizing the gender, cuz I love them lil critters, women usually seem to speak in a passive voice in terms of conflict, defense and warfare.

You don't know me if you think I'm simply passive. I have a very passionate side that will defend anyone that it is necessary to do so for. I can and have been aggressive in terms of defense, conflict and warfare. I simply choose to see that there are other answer than simply "shoot first and ask questions later".

ETA:

Warfare should never the the last thing one considers, a wise nation, a wise person, should always be prepared to defend the values that one lives by.

But by the same token, it does not need to be the FIRST thing that is considered either. Yes, a wise nation and a wise person will be prepared to defend their values and their property and their life.

I don't like guns. I still have a small pistol loaded and at the ready. I have a hunting knife that is with me nearly always. I will defend myself when it is prudent. I will choose to take the path that allows me to live rather than die when I can.

 

[Guest]

Cloudy's right, Rob. You mustn't approve or think that anything Obama does is rational and smart and, maybe signals that he might be an okay president. Anyone who does that is just giving into the hype, following the crowd that worships our new president as a Messiah, and, maybe as soon as day three when he might finally make a wrong decision, will be so crushingly disappointed that they will all weep and bemoan the fact that they ever voted him into office.

This is because none of us who currently support him are capable of any critical, rational thinking. So you'd better back off before you find yourself wearing an Obama teeshirt and buying memorial coins.

Oh, and Cloudy, will be joining me and Sarah for some cool-aid?

Will there be snacks?

Most certainly. Cookies stamped with Obama's face and a cake with "Go Obama" written in frosting.

Sounds delicious.

I want sugar-free Koolaid, though.

 

[Guest]

By the bye, Belegon, thread starter, nice place on words in the title...

Cloudy, the act of penetration is aggressive, unless you have always insisted the Woman on Top (Movie with Penelope Cruz, I think), not only is it aggressively male, if you are lucky, it can even be violent. Heh...

(It is likely immoral that I have so much fun on this forum)\

Amicus...

Oh, Ami.

Even if you could catch her you'd never be able to ride her.

 

[amicus]

SadAngel...

There is little or nothing I can say, except that I regret the things that happened to you.

On a forum such as this, one, most, some, or perhaps just I, attempt to remain objective in our discussions, that is to say, not use personal, subjective experiences as a base for one's thoughts.

Gonna say this anyway...after a moments consideration...I am fortunate to have five lovely daughters, none of whom understood my strict concern for their well being in their early at home years. That did not stop the maturation process and most likely I will never know all that went on, but as a father and a concerned man, I did my best to protect them from their youth and naivete'.

Be well...

Amicus

 

[Belegon]

I believe that the only way we ever can win a fight against these terrorists is by the power of our ideals and our example.

It is my position, that in a conflict of this type, we can never and we will never prevail merely by force of arms.

I firmly believe that once tasted, freedom is far more addictive than opium. A person of character, having gained the understanding of it and having experienced it will never willingly surrender it.

In many places, this ideal rings empty simply because the people there can not conceive of this. A female child who grew up under the regime of the Taliban simply has no basis on which to truly understand the simple freedoms my daughter owns.

I am not a pacifist. I do believe that violence can be part of a valid solution.

Earl is partially correct. I feel that denying the terrorists their financial and popular support is necessary for a true victory. However, I also believe that there are evil people on this planet. People whose existence needs to be ended for all of us, muslim or jew or christian or follower of any divine or non-divine belief system, to be safe.

Ami, your grasp of history and strategy are as faulty as your spelling of Imperial.

 

[sadangel]

SadAngel...

There is little or nothing I can say, except that I regret the things that happened to you.

On a forum such as this, one, most, some, or perhaps just I, attempt to remain objective in our discussions, that is to say, not use personal, subjective experiences as a base for one's thoughts.

Gonna say this anyway...after a moments consideration...I am fortunate to have five lovely daughters, none of whom understood my strict concern for their well being in their early at home years. That did not stop the maturation process and most likely I will never know all that went on, but as a father and a concerned man, I did my best to protect them from their youth and naivete'.

Be well...

Amicus

I'm sorry you don't seem to recoginize that I can both use personal experience to help clarify my thoughts and yet remain objective. I feel I've remained very objective. I have considered what people have said and in some things I agree and some I don't. I choose to consider reason first in all places it is possible. I don't agree with the notion that violence first is the right answer. Your answers seem to me to indicate you disagree. That is your perogotive.

 

[sadangel]

I believe that the only way we ever can win a fight against these terrorists is by the power of our ideals and our example.

It is my position, that in a conflict of this type, we can never and we will never prevail merely by force of arms.

I firmly believe that once tasted, freedom is far more addictive than opium. A person of character, having gained the understanding of it and having experienced it will never willingly surrender it.

In many places, this ideal rings empty simply because the people there can not conceive of this. A female child who grew up under the regime of the Taliban simply has no basis on which to truly understand the simple freedoms my daughter owns.

I am not a pacifist. I do believe that violence can be part of a valid solution.

Earl is partially correct. I feel that denying the terrorists their financial and popular support is necessary for a true victory. However, I also believe that there are evil people on this planet. People whose existence needs to be ended for all of us, muslim or jew or christian or follower of any divine or non-divine belief system, to be safe.

Ami, your grasp of history and strategy are as faulty as your spelling of Imperial.

I agree. Violence CAN be a part of a valid solution. It's not the only solution though. I am not a pacifist either. Anyone who knows me, knows that.

 

[TheEarl]

Ah, Earl, damnit, I know you are a history buff, but perhaps one with selective memory, eh?

Just to pick a place to begin, the Romans enslaved the population, all of them combatants and otherwise.

From that point on is has been mainly rape, pillage and plunder in warfare and I am amused you seem to have deleted that from your memory.

If someone puts a gun to my child's head and I have the means, I will blow his head off and then question him.

The 'civilized world', (cough), has tried to 'civilize' warfare for centuries.

The Muslims have discarded that attempt by bombing Mosques, restaurants, schools and businesses, killing a hundred to one innocent civilians over armed miolitary personnel. Radical Islamic's are cowards; they know they cannot win in' civilized' structured modern warfare. The invasion of Iraq, both times, should exemplify that.

I infer from your post that you ask a question yoiu do not expect to be answered, a rhetorical question, because it cannot be answered in a civil manner of engagement.

I will attempt a different tack, when an individual defends his life or property against those who would take it by force, the victim does not violate his principles in defending his life and property.

Thus, outside the liberal media, America is viewed as a defender of human rights and has been since defeating Nazi Germany and Emperial Japan.

The middle east has a long history...in the short version, the British occupied Baghdad long before the American's ever took part. It was the British that partioned Palestine and effectively began the Arab, Israeli conflict that goes all the way back to the Balfour Declaration.

There I go again, cherry picking history to support my contentions, contentious bastard, am I not?

Amicus...

Incidentally, you are completely correct on your history. The British did most of the fucking up in the Middle East. Lawrence of Arabia promised them freedom if they joined our side in the war and instead they got a good fucking up the arse and a place as a 'protectorate'. There's a reason the Royal Scots send out propaganda ahead of them in Iraq to emphasise that they're Scottish, not British.

However, that slice of history is entirely beside the point of the debate that we're making. If I didn't think better of you, I might suggest that you are attacking my country's history in an attempt to get me riled and deflect my debating.

The question wasn't rhetorical in the slightest. I managed to provide an answer myself; heck, I even managed to provide Belegon's for him. How do you go about winning the War on Terror? How would you win it? What would be your strategy for winning, were you in charge?

As a reminder, my answer would be by negotiation and seeing whether the opposing sides really were poles apart. Make the forms of peace and you are more likely to be supported when attacked and your attackers less likely to be cheered to the rafters.

What's your answer?

The Earl


ETA: No, it's really, really not rhetorical. I'm interested to know.

 

[Belegon]

By the way, a person who is fighting for what they believe in and knows that to take up arms openly and in public is a death sentence, and thus a denial of his or her ability to help achieve the goals that he/she fights to achieve, is not a coward by definition.

They are acting intelligently.

Now, it IS my opinion that to pursue military goals by targeting civilian populations is cowardly... despite the fact that I am aware that my country has used these methods.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for example.

 

[amicus]

I was thinking Japanese Empire and typed Emperial, looked at it and smiled, I knew someone would nit pick....gimme ur best shot...not a spelling lesson!

The solution I perceive, as being rational and possible, requires some acknowledgments of major proportions.

And...it involves several levels...first and foremost, it is a religious war, Islam against the world of Infidels.

Second, it is a human rights conflict, women are considered property in Islam.

Third, it is an individual rights conflict and a property rights and a basic system of law conflict.

Since the majority of nations forming after the Colony revolted against England and became a Republic, most have chose a Democratic form of government with guarantees of human and individual rights.

That said, and as either Earl or Belegon mentioned, something approaching that form of government that protects human and individual rights should develope naturally in the middle east, assuming no outside intervention and the decapitization of the Islamic Religion.

When and after the next big Terrorist act occurs, and it will...the coalition of nations that liberated Iraq should offer an ultimatum.

The ultimatum would including ridding the nation of religious law and acknowledging human and individual and property rights.

Those nations that chose not to make those changes would be quarantined from all contact with the world outside their own borders.

Complete and utter isolation from the modern world. As petroleum is the main source of income, no sales.

Would there be civil war and revolution within such nations as Iran and Syria?

Most likely....but thas the next question for someone.


Amicus...

 

[TheEarl]

That said, and as either Earl or Belegon mentioned, something approaching that form of government that protects human and individual rights should develope naturally in the middle east, assuming no outside intervention and the decapitization of the Islamic Religion.

When and after the next big Terrorist act occurs, and it will...the coalition of nations that liberated Iraq should offer an ultimatum.

The ultimatum would including ridding the nation of religious law and acknowledging human and individual and property rights.

Those nations that chose not to make those changes would be quarantined from all contact with the world outside their own borders.

Complete and utter isolation from the modern world. As petroleum is the main source of income, no sales.

Would there be civil war and revolution within such nations as Iran and Syria?

Most likely....but thas the next question for someone.


Amicus...

Interesting.

Do you not think that there might be a "You shove me and I'll shove back" reaction? I'd be tempted to let the nations mature naturally; after all, all of Europe was fundamentalist at one point.

The Earl

 

[amicus]

I suggest that was the basic attitude of the western world prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and threat to Saudi Arabia.

There are those who think the failure to evict Saddam Hussein at that time was a major error.

As many have said, 9/11 changed everything, for everyone, forever.

Aside from terrorism, there is no one in the middle east capable of 'pushing back', as I see it.

I think my eyes have had more than enough exercise this evening....thank you and have a pleasant day.

Amicus...

 

[Stella_Omega]

By the way, a person who is fighting for what they believe in and knows that to take up arms openly and in public is a death sentence, and thus a denial of his or her ability to help achieve the goals that he/she fights to achieve, is not a coward by definition.

They are acting intelligently.

Now, it IS my opinion that to pursue military goals by targeting civilian populations is cowardly... despite the fact that I am aware that my country has used these methods.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for example.

And Baghdad.

 

[JackLuis]

And Baghdad.

Hardly the same effect on Baghdad as Atomic explosions.
But I agree in principle that the effects on Baghdad were extream.

The Japanese gave us little options, but we had many other options than to invade Iraq and cause the deaths and distruction we did.

I disagree with Amicus about the "need to take Saddam down" in '91 or later. The only ones who benifited were the Saudis and the Isralies.

America found herself deluded into doing what they were loathed to do. In th Gulf war we were mercinaries of The House of Saud. In "Iraqi Freedom" we aran in there because Saddame tried ot kill GHWB and so "W" wanted to 'teach him a lesson'. He was encouraged to do this by the friends of Jerelusem and his very bestest buddies the Saudis.

 

[oggbashan]

Incidentally, does anyone know if Mr Obama is planning on helping those detained by abuse of Extraordinary Rendition? I'm thinking of the British bankers who carried the can for the Enron fiasco, because their US equivalents were able to make deals with the prosecutor, something which is denied foreign nationals who are summoned through Extraordinary Rendition.

The Earl

Unfortunately those bankers were extradited legally because of an agreement on fast extradition between the UK and US that has been implemented in the UK, but not endorsed by Congress in the US. It was intended to be a tool in the War on Terror but has been used by US courts for bankers.

The US can extradite British citizens accused of crimes in the US, but the UK cannot use the same agreement to extradite US citizens accused of crimes in the UK. You and I are possible candidates for extradition to the US because of what we write here - but the UK can't extradite our fellow AH members from the US.

All foreign nationals are denied the deal-making process in US courts whether they were extradited or not.

Og

Edited for PS. Today a UK-based hacker who broke into the Pentagon's system is appealing against his fast-tracked extradition to the US on the grounds that he has Asperger's Syndrome and his health is likely to be adversely affected by the transfer. He has pleaded guilty to breaking UK law (and would be likely to receive a far lighter sentence in the UK). It looks as if he could be successful. The Home Secretary has put the US court's extradition request on hold - perhaps because the UK government is pissed off with the US for using a bilateral system the US hasn't implemented.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

BELEGON

You influence terrorists by making them believe that you're their worst nightmare. Ditto for criminals and Wall Street players or anyone. You make them pause and think before they act.

Muslims already believe youre Satan. Killing you is their solution.

Well, okay, but make them know that the Satan has horns.

 

[Belegon]

And Baghdad.

and Berlin and Tokyo, etc. Nor is Gitmo our most nefarious example of poor treatment of "enemy" combatants. Examine the history of places like Andersonville or Camp Douglas in the Civil War.

I was simply naming the two most world infamous examples.

We actually killed more civilian Japanese by bombing Tokyo with incendiary bombs than we did with atomic weapons.

 

[Belegon]

Those nations that chose not to make those changes would be quarantined from all contact with the world outside their own borders.

Complete and utter isolation from the modern world. As petroleum is the main source of income, no sales.

I sooooo wish this would work. However, I highly doubt the resolve of the entire world community. I think we could get all of Europe and North America on board. I have severe misgivings outside those areas.

Also, I shudder to think of the suffering of the civilian populations before they would develop the despair required for revolution. They do not have the basic core assumptions we do. They are not raised to think in terms of a government existing at the consent of the governed.

It would take horrible conditions to engender those thoughts in the general population.

 

[rgraham666]

Our friend has no problem with that. The suffering of enemies, which comprises about 99% of the world is of no concern to him. They deserve it for not being smart enough or strong enough to believe as he does.

Survival of the fittest and all that.