Some horiffic torturing took place at Guantanamo Bay. How can that horrid man Bush allow this to happen?!

Among the abuse:
[quote]*a female interrogator took off her uniform top to expose her T-shirt to a detainee, ran her fingers through his hair and climbed on his lap.

*an interrogator told military police to repeatedly bring a detainee from a standing to kneeling position, so much that his knees were bruised.

*a guard punched a prisoner with his fist after the prisoner assaulted another guard.

*a guard sprayed a detainee with a hose when the prisoner allegedly tried to throw water from his toilet at the guard.

*a female interrogator wiped dye from a red magic marker on a detainee's shirt, telling him it was blood, after he allegedly spat on her.

*a military policeman used pepper spray on a detainee allegedly preparing to throw unidentified liquid on an officer.

*a military policeman squirted a detainee with water.

*a camp barber who gave two detainees reverse mohawks to frustrate detainee efforts to wear their hair the same way to demonstrate unity.[/quote]

Notice that many of those were because the prisoner did something to the guards.

I particularly like the one about Mohawks.  That's awesome!

Hey -- would you cite the sources where you get this stuff?  That way we can all check it out, and it builds (or undermines) your credibility.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9446.msg87656#msg87656 date=1099763334]
Notice that many of those were because the prisoner did something to the guards.
[/quote]

That's no excuse, unless the officer's actions were in self-defence or to protect others.

From the same article:

[quote]
"We're confident that there's more information out there that hasn't been released," said Jameel Jaffer of the American Civil Liberties Union, which has obtained nearly 6,000 documents about procedures at U.S.-run prisons. He was in Guantanamo to observe pretrial hearings.
[/quote]

[quote]
"The abuse allegations at Guantanamo are a matter of growing concern," Shaffer said. "He was constantly being told he would be sent to Egypt to be interrogated, where many of the detainees believed they would be killed. And he was forced to sit for hours in the freezing cold."
[/quote]

[quote]
At least one military insider at Guantanamo has gone public with allegations of abuse — a military police officer who was injured after going undercover as a detainee.
...
"My face was down. And of course, they're pushing it down against the steel floor, you know, my right temple, pushing it down against the floor," Baker told CBS.
...
Baker said he tried to tell his attackers he was a soldier but they repeatedly slammed his head against the floor. Baker was airlifted to a naval hospital in Virginia where doctors said he suffered a brain injury. He has been plagued by seizures since, he said.
[/quote]

Isn't selective quoting fun? If you want to have a serious discussion, why not link to the article and state your case? This kind of thread is just asinine trolling.

[quote]Hey -- would you cite the sources where you get this stuff?  That way we can all check it out, and it builds (or undermines) your credibility.[/quote]

Click the link. :P

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9446.msg87671#msg87671 date=1099768259]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9446.msg87656#msg87656 date=1099763334]
Notice that many of those were because the prisoner did something to the guards.
[/quote]

That's no excuse, unless the officer's actions were in self-defence or to protect others.
[/quote]
Sure it is. This camp is supposed to be punishment. Its like letting a little kid get away with stealing or something. If the prisoners keep pulling shit you have to put them in line. What do the guards do in US prisons in these situations Arta?

Hitting children is not an acceptable way to discipline them. Assaulting prisoners is equally unacceptable.

Perhaps you should define "put them in line"?

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9446.msg87739#msg87739 date=1099808888]
Hitting children is not an acceptable way to discipline them. Assaulting prisoners is equally unacceptable.

Perhaps you should define "put them in line"?
[/quote] So you are not going to spank your kids? Maybe I am just from the school of thought that when someone misbehaves they need to be punished. These are prisonsers. Arta, again I ask what happens in our present prisons? You act like these people are completely innocent. The people there are alquida and taliban operatives. When they try to throw an unidentified substance, which I am thinking is probably piss or something, at you, why are you going to do? Just say oh he has a lot of pent up anger this is a good release for him?

That prisoner was punched in the face because he assaulted a guard btw... I see nothing wrong with that.

The American prison system isn't anything to base a war prison camp on. They mix all people accused//convicted of crimes together. The guards turn thier backs to rape and murder and some rape inmates themselves.

Have the people at Guantanamo Bay recieved a fair trial or is it not required since they aren't citizens of the U.S.?

Violence only leads to more violence, and is generally the recourse of the ignorant.

There are other means of punishment - although I'm not sure 'punishment' is the best approach to dealing with criminals - and they should be made use of. It is totally unacceptable for a person in a position of power to be overtly violent to someone in their charge. Self-defence and the protection of others may obviously require a forceful response, but only as much force as is required to defuse a situation. There is no excuse for an officer punching a prisoner in retribution - that's assault, and is no different to an assault under any other circumstances.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9446.msg87740#msg87740 date=1099809232]
So you are not going to spank your kids?
[/quote]

Absolutely not. If you do, you're looking at 3 months to 2 years prison time.


[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9446.msg87740#msg87740 date=1099809232]
Maybe I am just from the school of thought that when someone misbehaves they need to be punished. These are prisonsers. Arta, again I ask what happens in our present prisons?
[/quote]
In our present prisons, prisoners are rarely abused physically. When it is discovered that prisoners are, investigations are made, and people are punished.


[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9446.msg87740#msg87740 date=1099809232]
That prisoner was punched in the face because he assaulted a guard btw... I see nothing wrong with that.
[/quote]
The guard could be looking at a year in prison, if there isn't mitigating circumstances.

[quote author=muert0 link=topic=9446.msg87742#msg87742 date=1099810921]
Have the people at Guantanamo Bay recieved a fair trial or is it not required since they aren't citizens of the U.S.?
[/quote]
Hey, the PATRIOT act passed, remember? Fuck due process, american citizen or not!

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9446.msg87740#msg87740 date=1099809232]
That prisoner was punched in the face because he assaulted a guard btw... I see nothing wrong with that.
[/quote]
In the article it specifically states that he punched the prisoner in the face after he was subdued. Big difference.

There is nothing wrong with the patriot act, because of it the Brooklyn Bridge is still standing.

[quote]Violence only leads to more violence, and is generally the recourse of the ignorant.
[/quote]

I don't think these guys, who are already violent anti-american murders, are going to become more violent because a girl sat on their lap.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9446.msg87764#msg87764 date=1099841658]
There is nothing wrong with the patriot act
[/quote]
So taking away people's due process rights is a good thing?

[quote author=Hitmen link=topic=9446.msg87786#msg87786 date=1099851189]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9446.msg87764#msg87764 date=1099841658]
There is nothing wrong with the patriot act
[/quote]
So taking away people's due process rights is a good thing?
[/quote] The patriot act allows for tactics which we have used on organized crime for a long time. It worked.

Why not take away the freedom of one person to safe guard the lives (freedom to live) or a lot more freedom? If he is nto a terrorist I failt to see why he would have a problem. I just cannot grasp the logic of this forum.

Spanking children will not get you put in jail. Hitting children in the face with a closed fist might, but spanking a kid is not going to land you in jail.

Again I ask, what happens in us prisons now if someone throws a fist at a guard or throws something at a guard? Humm? Do the guards just politely ignore it? The torture mentioned above is definatly not torture.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9446.msg87796#msg87796 date=1099854526]
The patriot act allows for tactics which we have used on organized crime for a long time. It worked.

Why not take away the freedom of one person to safe guard the lives (freedom to live) or a lot more freedom? If he is nto a terrorist I failt to see why he would have a problem. I just cannot grasp the logic of this forum.
[/quote]
I can't grasp the logic of people that defend the patriot act. How is taking away someone's due process rights going to help ANYONE? How is keeping someone from getting a fair trial going to safeguard lives or give others more freedom? It isn't.

Would you have a problem if you were thrown in jail without trial, or would you 'not mind' because you aren't a terrorist and they're just looking out for 'the good of the people'?

Furthermore, Arta, what do they do in the UK when a prisoner throws fluids on a guard?

Hitmen: Without the Patriot Act, in order to search a persons house, you'd have to have 100% knowledge of what the person would do. You'd have to know when, where and how. In the case of the Brooklyn Bridge, they only knew where and how. They didn't know when. The guy that was going to bomb it - since after intercepting messages between him and some guy in the middle east  they put a ton of NYPD officers on the bridge - he called his friend back and said "It's too hot in new york to go on with the plan." When police searched the mans house (which they wouldn't have been able to do without the patriot act) they found a bunch of explosives and plans on how to destory the bridge. There's no point in arresting a suicide bomber, suicide hijacker, etc. after he's finished with the plan, by the way.

I do not see how the patriet act gets rid of your right to a speedy trial or anything, all I have seen is like what hismajesty said, it loosens the restrictions for a search and seizure among some other things. Like I said, we have used similar things against organized crime for years, no one said anything about it before... now when the safty of many is at stake people suddenly hate it? I do not understand that.

[quote]Why not take away the freedom of one person to safe guard the lives (freedom to live) or a lot more freedom? If he is nto a terrorist I failt to see why he would have a problem. I just cannot grasp the logic of this forum.[/quote]
You fail to see why a person locked up for something they didn't do would mind? You could of headed the salem witch trials... Why lock one person up let's lockeveryone who doesn't agree with America up isn't that what America is all about?

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9446.msg87829#msg87829 date=1099865612]
Furthermore, Arta, what do they do in the UK when a prisoner throws fluids on a guard?
[/quote]

How should I know? I'd hope if they responded by assaulting the prisoner, they'd be disciplined. Of one thing I am completely sure: The prevailing sentiment here would be that assualt in a prison is still assault. I'm not surprised that that's different in the states, I think American culture is more violent than most European nations. (/me Waits for the avalanche of objections)

[quote author=muert0 link=topic=9446.msg87878#msg87878 date=1099884544]
[quote]Why not take away the freedom of one person to safe guard the lives (freedom to live) or a lot more freedom? If he is nto a terrorist I failt to see why he would have a problem. I just cannot grasp the logic of this forum.[/quote]
You fail to see why a person locked up for something they didn't do would mind? You could of headed the salem witch trials... Why lock one person up let's lockeveryone who doesn't agree with America up isn't that what America is all about?
[/quote] You can lock a person up for something something they did not do without the patriot act. A person is not 'officially' guilty of a crime until he has had his trial. Until then the person can be held in jail without bond. That does not mean they did it. I see no problem with a suspected terrorist being incarcerated until a proper investigation is completed, and if the state chooses, a trial occurs. That is the way our justice system works now, except right now the person needs to be arrested by the cop when he is caught doing something or there is an arrest warrent. To my knowlege this just changes the warrent system for suspected terrorists... the local judge no longer makes the call on weather to detain the guy or not.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9446.msg87879#msg87879 date=1099884737]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9446.msg87829#msg87829 date=1099865612]
Furthermore, Arta, what do they do in the UK when a prisoner throws fluids on a guard?
[/quote]

How should I know? I'd hope if they responded by assaulting the prisoner, they'd be disciplined. Of one thing I am completely sure: The prevailing sentiment here would be that assualt in a prison is still assault. I'm not surprised that that's different in the states, I think American culture is more violent than most European nations. (/me Waits for the avalanche of objections)
[/quote] If a prisoner attacks a guard my bet is the guard is going to get out his club or mace or whatever he has handy and defend himself. They control riots here in the states with rubber bullets, mace, and tear gas, and those people are not even in prison. I see no problem with that either.

What it said where the prisoner was hit for assaulting an officer, that seems to me like he was hit right after he assaulted the officer, like it was still a scuffle.

Also if a prisoner is going to throw crap on a guard or spit on a guard I say the guard has every right to hit the prisoner with mace or get out the garden hose on the prioner. That will teach the prisoner that when he does crap like that he is going to have some problems. Yes it may piss him off, but that does not mean he is going to do it again because he knows what he does will have reprocussions. If you do not do anything he will do it again because he knows he can get away with it.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9446.msg87882#msg87882 date=1099886251]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9446.msg87879#msg87879 date=1099884737]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9446.msg87829#msg87829 date=1099865612]
Furthermore, Arta, what do they do in the UK when a prisoner throws fluids on a guard?
[/quote]

How should I know? I'd hope if they responded by assaulting the prisoner, they'd be disciplined. Of one thing I am completely sure: The prevailing sentiment here would be that assualt in a prison is still assault. I'm not surprised that that's different in the states, I think American culture is more violent than most European nations. (/me Waits for the avalanche of objections)
[/quote] If a prisoner attacks a guard my bet is the guard is going to get out his club or mace or whatever he has handy and defend himself. They control riots here in the states with rubber bullets, mace, and tear gas, and those people are not even in prison. I see no problem with that either.

What it said where the prisoner was hit for assaulting an officer, that seems to me like he was hit right after he assaulted the officer, like it was still a scuffle.

Also if a prisoner is going to throw crap on a guard or spit on a guard I say the guard has every right to hit the prisoner with mace or get out the garden hose on the prioner. That will teach the prisoner that when he does crap like that he is going to have some problems. Yes it may piss him off, but that does not mean he is going to do it again because he knows what he does will have reprocussions. If you do not do anything he will do it again because he knows he can get away with it.
[/quote]

My bet is the prisoner is only going to get more furious and attack the guard again.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9446.msg87882#msg87882 date=1099886251]
What it said where the prisoner was hit for assaulting an officer, that seems to me like he was hit right after he assaulted the officer, like it was still a scuffle.
[/quote]

[quote]
Also that month, a guard was charged with dereliction of duty and assault after a detainee assaulted another guard. [u]After the detainee was subdued[/u], the guard punched the prisoner with his fist.
[/quote]

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9446.msg87879#msg87879 date=1099884737]
How should I know? I'd hope if they responded by assaulting the prisoner, they'd be disciplined. Of one thing I am completely sure: The prevailing sentiment here would be that assualt in a prison is still assault. I'm not surprised that that's different in the states, I think American culture is more violent than most European nations. (/me Waits for the avalanche of objections)
[/quote]

Well, I'm not sure about other states, but here in Arizona, under the Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 13 Chapter 4, section 13-404:

[url]http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/00404.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS[/url]

[quote]
A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.

B. The threat or use of physical force against another is not justified:

1. In response to verbal provocation alone; or

2. To resist an arrest that the person knows or should know is being made by a peace officer or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful, unless the physical force used by the peace officer exceeds that allowed by law; or

3. If the person provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force, unless:

(a) The person withdraws from the encounter or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely withdraw from the encounter; and

(b) The other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful physical force against the person.
[/quote]
If someone is beating on you, then you have the right to beat back.

Section 13-405 permits the use of deadly force.

Section 13-406 permits the use of force to protect a third person.

All of the Title 13 of Arizona Revised Statutes can be found here.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9446.msg87879#msg87879 date=1099884737]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9446.msg87829#msg87829 date=1099865612]
Furthermore, Arta, what do they do in the UK when a prisoner throws fluids on a guard?
[/quote]
How should I know?
[/quote]

OK, then, what do you think would be the proper reaction to prisoners acting up/throwing fluid on officers. Since, obviously, sitting on their lap and spraying them with water is far too cruel and unusual.

Revocation of privileges or luxuries, temporary solitary confinement?

Quasi: I have never said that the use of reasonable force in self-defence was bad. This guy, as Hitman points out, hit a prisoner in the face after he was already pacified.

[quote author=Hitmen link=topic=9446.msg87910#msg87910 date=1099912910]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9446.msg87882#msg87882 date=1099886251]
What it said where the prisoner was hit for assaulting an officer, that seems to me like he was hit right after he assaulted the officer, like it was still a scuffle.
[/quote]

[quote]
Also that month, a guard was charged with dereliction of duty and assault after a detainee assaulted another guard. [u]After the detainee was subdued[/u], the guard punched the prisoner with his fist.
[/quote]
[/quote] Well the gard got bitched at for it... so what is the problem?

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9446.msg88018#msg88018 date=1099968214]
Revocation of privileges or luxuries, temporary solitary confinement? [/quote] what privileges? What luxuries? Here lets put him in time out... that is going to straighten him out.
[quote]
Quasi: I have never said that the use of reasonable force in self-defence was bad. This guy, as Hitman points out, hit a prisoner in the face after he was already pacified.
[/quote] Well in that case, as the quote said, the guard was punished for it. Its not like he got of scott free. But what about the other cases?

Well, perhaps in your world there's no solution other than a violent one, so I'm just banging my head against the wall here.

After all, the world is just a set of problems with military solutions, right? 

*sigh*

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9446.msg88041#msg88041 date=1099975218]
Well, perhaps in your world there's no solution other than a violent one, so I'm just banging my head against the wall here.

After all, the world is just a set of problems with military solutions, right? 

*sigh*
[/quote] No, but these people seem to only understand violence.

Remember that whole road map to peace thing? That really stopped the palestinian terrorists.

This reminds me a lot of that southpark episode where chris and saddam hussain are fighting for satan's affection. You are a lot like chris.

Bending over for your enemies is not going to get them to leave you alone, it just gives them a chance to rape you.


Also: I want to know what your reaction would be to someone throwing some unidentified fluid (keep in mind, this unidentified fluid probably is not water) on you or spitting on you arta. You can respond to this as if you were a guard or if this was just some random guy on the street. What would you do, what would you see fit?

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9446.msg88042#msg88042 date=1099975312]
Also: I want to know what your reaction would be to someone throwing some unidentified fluid (keep in mind, this unidentified fluid probably is not water) on you or spitting on you arta. You can respond to this as if you were a guard or if this was just some random guy on the street. What would you do, what would you see fit?
[/quote]

If you have any sort of self-control or dignity, you realize that it's someone who needs your pity, not your anger and retaliation.  The only way to get above that sort of petty action is to be above it.

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=9446.msg88044#msg88044 date=1099977483]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9446.msg88042#msg88042 date=1099975312]
Also: I want to know what your reaction would be to someone throwing some unidentified fluid (keep in mind, this unidentified fluid probably is not water) on you or spitting on you arta. You can respond to this as if you were a guard or if this was just some random guy on the street. What would you do, what would you see fit?
[/quote]

If you have any sort of self-control or dignity, you realize that it's someone who needs your pity, not your anger and retaliation.  The only way to get above that sort of petty action is to be above it.
[/quote]

I *totally* agree.

Quasi, I don't think I've ever seen you advocate a non-violent solution... Its been my observation that America, currently, seems only to understand violence. 

The fact that being violent towards terrorists will only ever create more terrorists is another matter, but a pertinent one.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9446.msg87881#msg87881 date=1099886111]
[quote author=muert0 link=topic=9446.msg87878#msg87878 date=1099884544]
[quote]Why not take away the freedom of one person to safe guard the lives (freedom to live) or a lot more freedom? If he is nto a terrorist I failt to see why he would have a problem. I just cannot grasp the logic of this forum.[/quote]
You fail to see why a person locked up for something they didn't do would mind? You could of headed the salem witch trials... Why lock one person up let's lockeveryone who doesn't agree with America up isn't that what America is all about?
[/quote] You can lock a person up for something something they did not do without the patriot act. A person is not 'officially' guilty of a crime until he has had his trial. Until then the person can be held in jail without bond. That does not mean they did it. I see no problem with a suspected terrorist being incarcerated until a proper investigation is completed, and if the state chooses, a trial occurs. That is the way our justice system works now, except right now the person needs to be arrested by the cop when he is caught doing something or there is an arrest warrent. To my knowlege this just changes the warrent system for suspected terrorists... the local judge no longer makes the call on weather to detain the guy or not.
[/quote]
No judge makes the call as far as I know. I believe it's the constables decision and only the constables decision but I may be wrong. And if what I was told is right the supreme court can't even control the situation if you are arrested by a constable for being a "suspected terrorist". I'd say it's a system but I wouldn't really label it justice.

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=9446.msg88044#msg88044 date=1099977483]
If you have any sort of self-control or dignity, you realize that it's someone who needs your pity, not your anger and retaliation.  The only way to get above that sort of petty action is to be above it.
[/quote]

Okay.  Well I'll tell you what -- you and John Kerry can get together, have tea with Osama and try and work out a peaceful solution.

Wait!  They are not after any kind of political end; they are millenarian terrorists.  They see the United States, the UK, Saudi Arabia, Iran -- all of them are apostate regimes and deserve to be destroyed.

There is no political goal that they can achieve that would satisfy them.  Whereas, the IRA, the Chechnyan group -- they all have specific goals they want met, and they can be bargained with.

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=9446.msg88058#msg88058 date=1099989570]
Okay.  Well I'll tell you what -- you and John Kerry can get together, have tea with Osama and try and work out a peaceful solution.

Wait!  They are not after any kind of political end; they are millenarian terrorists.  They see the United States, the UK, Saudi Arabia, Iran -- all of them are apostate regimes and deserve to be destroyed.

There is no political goal that they can achieve that would satisfy them.  Whereas, the IRA, the Chechnyan group -- they all have specific goals they want met, and they can be bargained with.
[/quote]

Wow, way to be on target with what you said.  I am just shocked and amazed that anyone could come to have such synchronicity to my thoughts.  Oh wait, you couldn't be further off.  I was explicitly talking about quasi-modo's example of having an unknown fluid thrown onto me by a random person/prisoner, which should have been clearly evidenced by the fact that I quoted him.  Nowhere did I address international policy on terrorism or fringe groups.  Thanks for degrading the thread with an off-topic post and your worthless conservative opinion on an entirely different subject.

I respectfully disagree. His "worthless conservative opinion" is merely taking what you said and applying it to the considerably parallel situation involving American foreign policy, specifically our response to terrorism.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9446.msg88047#msg88047 date=1099978152]
[quote author=TehUser link=topic=9446.msg88044#msg88044 date=1099977483]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9446.msg88042#msg88042 date=1099975312]
Also: I want to know what your reaction would be to someone throwing some unidentified fluid (keep in mind, this unidentified fluid probably is not water) on you or spitting on you arta. You can respond to this as if you were a guard or if this was just some random guy on the street. What would you do, what would you see fit?
[/quote]

If you have any sort of self-control or dignity, you realize that it's someone who needs your pity, not your anger and retaliation. The only way to get above that sort of petty action is to be above it.
[/quote]

I *totally* agree.

Quasi, I don't think I've ever seen you advocate a non-violent solution... Its been my observation that America, currently, seems only to understand violence.

The fact that being violent towards terrorists will only ever create more terrorists is another matter, but a pertinent one.
[/quote]

Arta, with all due respect, why don't you answer the question?

[quote author=Stealth link=topic=9446.msg88105#msg88105 date=1100035946]
I respectfully disagree. His "worthless conservative opinion" is merely taking what you said and applying it to the considerably parallel situation involving American foreign policy, specifically our response to terrorism.
[/quote]

What?  How are they even remotely parallel?  Let me examine his response more closely...

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=9446.msg88058#msg88058 date=1099989570]
Okay. Well I'll tell you what -- you and John Kerry can get together, have tea with Osama and try and work out a peaceful solution.
[/quote]

Useless attack on my person, rather than the issue...  How relevant.

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=9446.msg88058#msg88058 date=1099989570]
Wait! They are not after any kind of political end; they are millenarian terrorists. They see the United States, the UK, Saudi Arabia, Iran -- all of them are apostate regimes and deserve to be destroyed.
[/quote]

That's fantastic, but doesn't involve any sort of personal affront or confrontation.  Not to mention, it's wildly unclear who he's calling an "apostate regime" as neither side can hardly be considered apostate by the other.

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=9446.msg88058#msg88058 date=1099989570]
There is no political goal that they can achieve that would satisfy them. Whereas, the IRA, the Chechnyan group -- they all have specific goals they want met, and they can be bargained with.
[/quote]

To say that any individual has absolutely no goal is wildly ignorant, so I hardly find anything he said to even resemble the initial point.

Allow me to clarify.
[quote author=TehUser link=topic=9446.msg88115#msg88115 date=1100037423]
[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=9446.msg88058#msg88058 date=1099989570]
Okay. Well I'll tell you what -- you and John Kerry can get together, have tea with Osama and try and work out a peaceful solution.
[/quote]

Useless attack on my person, rather than the issue...  How relevant.
[/quote]
It is not an attack on your person.  It is an offer and a suggestion that you and the most recent American political leader collaborate on this issue.  Nowhere in that did I attack your person or your character.

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=9446.msg88115#msg88115 date=1100037423]
[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=9446.msg88058#msg88058 date=1099989570]
Wait! They are not after any kind of political end; they are millenarian terrorists. They see the United States, the UK, Saudi Arabia, Iran -- all of them are apostate regimes and deserve to be destroyed.
[/quote]
That's fantastic, but doesn't involve any sort of personal affront or confrontation.  Not to mention, it's wildly unclear who he's calling an "apostate regime" as neither side can hardly be considered apostate by the other.
[/quote]
I don't know what is so difficult to understand about this snippet.  They [the terrorist groups] are not after any kind of political end; they are millenarian terrorists.  They [the terrorist groups] see the US, the UK, Saudi Arabia, Iran -- all of them [the four countries that I just listed and then more] are apostate regimes and deserve to be destroyed [in the eyes of the millenarian terrorists].

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=9446.msg88115#msg88115 date=1100037423]
[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=9446.msg88058#msg88058 date=1099989570]
There is no political goal that they can achieve that would satisfy them. Whereas, the IRA, the Chechnyan group -- they all have specific goals they want met, and they can be bargained with.
[/quote]
To say that any individual has absolutely no goal is wildly ignorant, so I hardly find anything he said to even resemble the initial point.
[/quote]

Whether or not it resembles the original post is irrelevant, as we are completely off the topic at this point anyway (which was the abuse of guards towards prisoners).  In this snippet that you quoted, I was not saying that any individuals had absolutely no goals.  Rather, I said that the millenarian terrorist groups are defined by the fact that they collectively have no political goals (brace yourself for the dependent clause) that can be politically met.  The IRA and the Chechnyan terrorist groups are not millenarian terrorist groups because they have goals that can be met, and they can be brought to the table to bargain.  Al Qaeda cannot; they will not be satisfied until all Christian presence is out of the Middle East, the United States is cowering in its part of the world, the Saudi and Iranian regimes (among others) are toppled, and the Arab Nation follows the Taliban's laws.  These are clearly not something that we can agree to or bargain with.

By the way, my "worthless conservative opinion" is direct from my graduate-level national security class, the professor of which is an ardent Bush-despiser and who is against current US foreign policy.  It wasn't even opinion -- it was fact.  (Except for the You and Kerry should have Tea thing).

As to how they are parallel -- you said:
[quote author=TehUser link=topic=9446.msg88044#msg88044 date=1099977483]
If you have any sort of self-control or dignity, you realize that it's someone who needs your pity, not your anger and retaliation.  The only way to get above that sort of petty action is to be above it.
[/quote]
If you are questioning my drawing a parallel between the individual guards and prisoners vs. US foreign policy and millenarian terrorist groups, you need to reevaluate your values.  Why should your method be applied to an individual but not more generally to a group?  When I read what you said, I inferred:
Self control and dignity are desireable traits.
The US should have those traits.
To have those traits means to not retaliate in anger, but to pity others and be above pettiness.
Therefore, US foreign policy should be adapted to pity the terrorists, not kill them.

This line of inferences (which I do not think is unreasonable given what you suggested) led me to say what I said about Kerry and you getting together for tea with Osama.  Again, it wasn't a personal attack, but rather a demonstration of what I inferred from your logic.

I am just having so much trouble graping this mentality that no recourse is going to solve the problem.

The fact is that if we ignore the problem and stop fighting it it is not going to get better. There is no way to affectively negotiate with terrorists unless we let Israel rot or we all convirt to Islam. Our only recourse is by a show of force aimed at the terrorists groups themselves.

If we try to be nice it is going to show these people that there are no consiquences for their actions because we are a bunch of vaginas and their membership is just going to increase. You say if we piss them off and fight them it will get more members, I disagree because they may recruit some newbies, but we will have killed plenty of the existing members. There will also be a disencentive to join.

Let me compare this to the school bully. If you do not do anything to stand up for yourself he is going to keep picking on you and taking your lunch money. But if you beat the shit out of him he is not going to do it anymore. We can't bend over for the terrorists or they are just going to keep on attacking. The only possible solution is to attack them.


Back to the guards in particular. Arta I would love it if you would answer my questions.

[quote]Let me compare this to the school bully. If you do not do anything to stand up for yourself he is going to keep picking on you and taking your lunch money.[/quote]

Don't you see that We are the school bully here?  We are stronger, bigger, and more capable of doing what we want than any other country in the world.  Terrorists are the little kids trying to stick up for themselves, albeit in the wrong way.  Yes they deserve our pity, and yes we need to respond militarily if need be, but your idea of us just sticking up for ourselves is wrong.  If the bully was spat on in retaliation, do you think it is justified for the bully to beat the piss out of him?

[quote author=GaiDaL link=topic=9446.msg88178#msg88178 date=1100056184]
[quote]Let me compare this to the school bully. If you do not do anything to stand up for yourself he is going to keep picking on you and taking your lunch money.[/quote]

Don't you see that We are the school bully here?  We are stronger, bigger, and more capable of doing what we want than any other country in the world.  Terrorists are the little kids trying to stick up for themselves, albeit in the wrong way.  Yes they deserve our pity, and yes we need to respond militarily if need be, but your idea of us just sticking up for ourselves is wrong.  If the bully was spat on in retaliation, do you think it is justified for the bully to beat the piss out of him?
[/quote]

What did we do as the "school bully" to provoke an attack such as the '93 WTC bombing?  The bombing of the USS Cole?  The 9/11 attacks?

Absolutely nothing.

We're an apostate regime that in the eyes of the terrorists must be changed.  It is a pitiful attitude, but how do you deal with a group of people that is willing to go blow themselves up to see that your ends are not met?  Not by handing out pity.

The school bully is the one who often provokes the attacking of the little kids.  We did nothing; we simply were.  That is nothing like any kind of justifiable basis for self-defense or murder.

MyndFyre: Everything I read of yours reminds me of the quote from "The Princess Bride."  It is as follows:

[quote]"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."[/quote]

You seem to enjoy bringing up terms from political science that really are used way the f*ck out of context (i.e. millenarian and apostate).

But anyhow, let's address what you've said.  First of all, your "suggestion" is clearly absurd as it has no practical value whatsoever, so either you're a retard for suggesting it or it was your idea of a clever attack.

Secondly, how can you possibly say that the terrorists seek no ends?  They aren't exactly out there killing people for the fun of it, they have goals, based on their faith, that they're obviously adhering to rather closely.  Furthermore, what does them being "millenarian" have to do with anything?  The destruction of the western world will usher in an era of peace?  Perhaps...  But I doubt it.

Thirdly, if you hadn't noticed, before you brought up your "graduate level political science" that you're oh-so-proud to flaunt, my post was directly on topic relating to the abuses of a prison guard inflicted upon my person in answer to the question that some conservative member of the board had asked.

Fourthly, I suggest you go learn the meanings of apostate and millenarian before you continue to reply using them, because you've clearly derived someone's misunderstanding of their meanings.

Lastly, I think it's great you can draw these unfounded assumptions out of what people say.  No wonder you always think you're right.  But now, let's think about this claim you've made that says, "What's good for the individual is good for the group."  I mean, obviously you must believe that to take my example, which was clearly based on a single person and instance, and turn it into an issue of national policy.  Do you not see problems there?  A tremendous number of horrible scenarios in which people do what they feel is best for themselves because MyndFyre says that's what's best for the whole of society?  Sounds like a bad time to me...

Now, onto the next post...  What did we do to provoke terrorist attacks?  You mean aside from deploy troops all over the world into places they aren't wanted?  You mean aside from committing atrocities and bending our own laws when it suits us (Guantanamo Bay)?  How about imposing sanctions when we don't like a certain form of government?  Oh no, clearly we're not doing any bullying...

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9446.msg88113#msg88113 date=1100037005]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9446.msg88047#msg88047 date=1099978152]
[quote author=TehUser link=topic=9446.msg88044#msg88044 date=1099977483]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9446.msg88042#msg88042 date=1099975312]
Also: I want to know what your reaction would be to someone throwing some unidentified fluid (keep in mind, this unidentified fluid probably is not water) on you or spitting on you arta. You can respond to this as if you were a guard or if this was just some random guy on the street. What would you do, what would you see fit?
[/quote]

If you have any sort of self-control or dignity, you realize that it's someone who needs your pity, not your anger and retaliation. The only way to get above that sort of petty action is to be above it.
[/quote]

I *totally* agree.

Quasi, I don't think I've ever seen you advocate a non-violent solution... Its been my observation that America, currently, seems only to understand violence.

The fact that being violent towards terrorists will only ever create more terrorists is another matter, but a pertinent one.
[/quote]

Arta, with all due respect, why don't you answer the question?
[/quote]

I believe I did, in mny agreement with Tehuser:

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9446.msg88047#msg88047 date=1099978152]
I *totally* agree.
[/quote]

For whatever the reason, I don't think I would go start a fight. I am not a violent person. I would be pissed as hell, but I'd probably just keep on walking.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9446.msg88197#msg88197 date=1100062987]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9446.msg88113#msg88113 date=1100037005]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9446.msg88047#msg88047 date=1099978152]
[quote author=TehUser link=topic=9446.msg88044#msg88044 date=1099977483]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9446.msg88042#msg88042 date=1099975312]
Also: I want to know what your reaction would be to someone throwing some unidentified fluid (keep in mind, this unidentified fluid probably is not water) on you or spitting on you arta. You can respond to this as if you were a guard or if this was just some random guy on the street. What would you do, what would you see fit?
[/quote]

If you have any sort of self-control or dignity, you realize that it's someone who needs your pity, not your anger and retaliation. The only way to get above that sort of petty action is to be above it.
[/quote]

I *totally* agree.

Quasi, I don't think I've ever seen you advocate a non-violent solution... Its been my observation that America, currently, seems only to understand violence.

The fact that being violent towards terrorists will only ever create more terrorists is another matter, but a pertinent one.
[/quote]

Arta, with all due respect, why don't you answer the question?
[/quote]

I believe I did, in mny agreement with Tehuser:

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9446.msg88047#msg88047 date=1099978152]
I *totally* agree.
[/quote]

For whatever the reason, I don't think I would go start a fight. I am not a violent person. I would be pissed as hell, but I'd probably just keep on walking.
[/quote]
Okay, well the next time you walk by my cell I will toss more urin on you. It wouldn't make me mad... it would just invite me to do it again.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9446.msg88039#msg88039 date=1099973356]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9446.msg88018#msg88018 date=1099968214]
Revocation of privileges or luxuries, temporary solitary confinement? [/quote] what privileges? What luxuries? Here lets put him in time out... that is going to straighten him out.
[/quote]

Perhaps you need to add some privileges or luxuries so you have something to revoke? Simple.

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=9446.msg88058#msg88058 date=1099989570]
Wait!  They are not after any kind of political end; they are millenarian terrorists.  They see the United States, the UK, Saudi Arabia, Iran -- all of them are apostate regimes and deserve to be destroyed.

There is no political goal that they can achieve that would satisfy them.  Whereas, the IRA, the Chechnyan group -- they all have specific goals they want met, and they can be bargained with.
[/quote]

That's not true. Some of IRA could not be bargained with. And Saddam Hussein could be bargained with, you just didn't offer enough.

Can USA be bargained with? Hmm.. Didn't sign Kyoto agreement yet... I guess not. Let's destroy them?

You may be the biggest bully right now, but it won't last forever.

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=9446.msg88179#msg88179 date=1100056419]
What did we do as the "school bully" to provoke an attack such as the '93 WTC bombing?  The bombing of the USS Cole?  The 9/11 attacks?

Absolutely nothing.

We're an apostate regime that in the eyes of the terrorists must be changed.  It is a pitiful attitude, but how do you deal with a group of people that is willing to go blow themselves up to see that your ends are not met?  Not by handing out pity.

The school bully is the one who often provokes the attacking of the little kids.  We did nothing; we simply were.  That is nothing like any kind of justifiable basis for self-defense or murder.
[/quote]

I don't agree with this. Terrorist attacks virtually always have some sort of reasoning behind them. Perhaps it's your financial support to Israel (their enemies)? (Compare to attacking someone for giving support to what you call "terrorist groups")

The school bully is the one who doesn't listen to others, who makes up his own rules for others to follow and uses his superior strength to enforce them. It's the one whom others will tread carefully around, agree with as long as he's in sight, and perhaps some day secretly get a bit of cheap revenge on by pissing in his shoes. Or flying jets into a couple of his towers.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9446.msg88227#msg88227 date=1100104147]
I don't agree with this. Terrorist attacks virtually always have some sort of reasoning behind them. Perhaps it's your financial support to Israel (their enemies)? (Compare to attacking someone for giving support to what you call "terrorist groups")

The school bully is the one who doesn't listen to others, who makes up his own rules for others to follow and uses his superior strength to enforce them. It's the one whom others will tread carefully around, agree with as long as he's in sight, and perhaps some day secretly get a bit of cheap revenge on by pissing in his shoes. Or flying jets into a couple of his towers.
[/quote]

Why is Israel the enemy of al-Qaeda?  Undoubtedly we have contributed to the Saud family, and the Israelis.  But is that direct provocation?  What has Israel done to the members of al-Qaeda?  They're busy with the PLO (an group with actual goals).

No; al-Qaeda will not be satisfied until they see the destruction of what they believe are "apostate" regimes.

By the way, TehUser, "apostate" is not a political science word.  Mormons consider the Christian church "apostate," just as the radical Islamic fundamentalists consider the Saudis, Iran, and Iraq (including Saddaam) "apostate."  It means "fallen."  Get a damn dictionary and look it up.  It's not jargon.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9446.msg88197#msg88197 date=1100062987]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9446.msg88113#msg88113 date=1100037005]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9446.msg88047#msg88047 date=1099978152]
[quote author=TehUser link=topic=9446.msg88044#msg88044 date=1099977483]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9446.msg88042#msg88042 date=1099975312]
Also: I want to know what your reaction would be to someone throwing some unidentified fluid (keep in mind, this unidentified fluid probably is not water) on you or spitting on you arta. You can respond to this as if you were a guard or if this was just some random guy on the street. What would you do, what would you see fit?
[/quote]

If you have any sort of self-control or dignity, you realize that it's someone who needs your pity, not your anger and retaliation. The only way to get above that sort of petty action is to be above it.
[/quote]

I *totally* agree.

Quasi, I don't think I've ever seen you advocate a non-violent solution... Its been my observation that America, currently, seems only to understand violence.

The fact that being violent towards terrorists will only ever create more terrorists is another matter, but a pertinent one.
[/quote]

Arta, with all due respect, why don't you answer the question?
[/quote]

I believe I did, in mny agreement with Tehuser:

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9446.msg88047#msg88047 date=1099978152]
I *totally* agree.
[/quote]

For whatever the reason, I don't think I would go start a fight. I am not a violent person. I would be pissed as hell, but I'd probably just keep on walking.
[/quote]

If somebody shot one of your loved ones, would you just keep on walking because you're not a violent person?

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9446.msg88250#msg88250 date=1100119720]
If somebody shot one of your loved ones, would you just keep on walking because you're not a violent person?
[/quote]
Can you really compare someone shooting someone you love to having liquid thrown at you? I think there's quite a big fucking difference.

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=9446.msg88243#msg88243 date=1100116985]
Why is Israel the enemy of al-Qaeda?  Undoubtedly we have contributed to the Saud family, and the Israelis.  But is that direct provocation?  What has Israel done to the members of al-Qaeda?  They're busy with the PLO (an group with actual goals).
[/quote]

I think they'll consider anything done against a muslim. So the less you do against muslims, the better. It doesn't have to be done against them personally either. Weren't all Americans upset by the WTC going down (or at least more than those who were inside the towers)? In the way that something done against some Americans is picked up by all of America, something done against some muslims could be picked up by al-Qaeda.


[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=9446.msg88243#msg88243 date=1100116985]
No; al-Qaeda will not be satisfied until they see the destruction of what they believe are "apostate" regimes.
[/quote]

Some in al-Qaeda won't, just like some Americans won't be satisfied until they see the death of all abortionists. You'll have to try harder to convince me that Saddam couldn't be satisfied until he saw the destruction of all apostate regimes though. Or the Taliban government. I think some more negotating and some bigger offers would've swayed them. Lots of money perhaps could've done it even, the cost of the war paid in cash.

You're a jackass, TehUser.  I'm glad I have the time to cogently respond.  I have not made any personal attack on you, and yet you appear to have no problem attacking me.

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=9446.msg88195#msg88195 date=1100060155]
You seem to enjoy bringing up terms from political science that really are used way the f*ck out of context (i.e. millenarian and apostate).
[/quote]
As I explained what an apostate regime is above, I will not visit it again.  However, "millenarian," whether or not it is "in context" (whatever that means), is a distinguishing adjective to separate terrorist groups like the IRA from al-Qaeda.  I believe I have clearly defined it several times, so I'm not sure what your problem with it is.

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=9446.msg88195#msg88195 date=1100060155]
But anyhow, let's address what you've said.  First of all, your "suggestion" is clearly absurd as it has no practical value whatsoever, so either you're a retard for suggesting it or it was your idea of a clever attack.[/quote]
Why is it absurd?  Because it isn't possible?  Correct!  That was the point I'm trying to make.  However, your assertion that I am a retard is, again, a personal attack.  Check the rules for this forum.

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=9446.msg88195#msg88195 date=1100060155]
Secondly, how can you possibly say that the terrorists seek no ends?  They aren't exactly out there killing people for the fun of it, they have goals, based on their faith, that they're obviously adhering to rather closely. 
[/quote]
You seem to be conveniently and consistently ignoring a dependent clause that I have repeatedly emphasized:
[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=9446.msg88139#msg88139 date=1100045444]
Rather, I said that the millenarian terrorist groups are defined by the fact that they collectively have no political goals (brace yourself for the dependent clause) that can be politically met.
[/quote]
My assertion is that these groups do not have goals that we can meet.  Al Qaeda does not like the United States; it views the US as an "apostate" (or religiously fallen) regime, as it does Iran, Iraq (again, even when Saddaam was in power), Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc.

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=9446.msg88195#msg88195 date=1100060155]
Furthermore, what does them being "millenarian" have to do with anything?  The destruction of the western world will usher in an era of peace?  Perhaps...  But I doubt it.
[/quote]
That is what the terrorist groups that I just described are called, "millenarian."  As I said above, it is not (in this case) referent of the "millenialism" argument that Christians discuss in Revelation (pre-, during, or post-Armageddon war).  I am not familiar with the etymology of the word, but since you seem to be stuck on it, I will try to find out.

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=9446.msg88195#msg88195 date=1100060155]
Thirdly, if you hadn't noticed, before you brought up your "graduate level political science" that you're oh-so-proud to flaunt, my post was directly on topic relating to the abuses of a prison guard inflicted upon my person in answer to the question that some conservative member of the board had asked.
[/quote]
I'm pretty sure we've talked about its relevance and being on-topic.  I explained what I thought through (which you viciously attacked, to which I respond below).  I notice that no moderators have split the topic either.

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=9446.msg88195#msg88195 date=1100060155]
Fourthly, I suggest you go learn the meanings of apostate and millenarian before you continue to reply using them, because you've clearly derived someone's misunderstanding of their meanings.
[/quote]
How does one derive someone else's misunderstandings?  In any case, I appreciate the fact that you're criticizing my knowledge in a field in which I've chosen to make my career.  It certainly gives you credibility.

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=9446.msg88195#msg88195 date=1100060155]
Lastly, I think it's great you can draw these unfounded assumptions out of what people say.  No wonder you always think you're right.
[/quote]
Another attack on my person.
[quote author=TehUser link=topic=9446.msg88195#msg88195 date=1100060155]
But now, let's think about this claim you've made that says, "What's good for the individual is good for the group."  I mean, obviously you must believe that to take my example, which was clearly based on a single person and instance, and turn it into an issue of national policy.
[/quote]
So, in your opinion, the US should not posess (at state level of analysis) self control and dignity?  I was incorrect in inferring that?  I apologize for having learned the principle that, "Before you do something, ask yourself how things would be if everybody in the group did that."  But yes, I do believe that, generally speaking, what is good for an individual tends to be good for the whole.

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=9446.msg88195#msg88195 date=1100060155]
Do you not see problems there?  A tremendous number of horrible scenarios in which people do what they feel is best for themselves because MyndFyre says that's what's best for the whole of society?  Sounds like a bad time to me...
[/quote]
That's how capitalism works.  I don't see a tremendous number of horrible scenarios that happen.  People realize that acting altruistically and not only helping themselves but also helping each other will get them farthest.  And no, I'm not suggesting that people do that because I say so (another personal attack?), but because that's how the system works now, and it seems to work rather effectively.

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=9446.msg88195#msg88195 date=1100060155]
Now, onto the next post...  What did we do to provoke terrorist attacks?  You mean aside from deploy troops all over the world into places they aren't wanted?  You mean aside from committing atrocities and bending our own laws when it suits us (Guantanamo Bay)?  How about imposing sanctions when we don't like a certain form of government?  Oh no, clearly we're not doing any bullying...
[/quote]
The UN does all that, but do you see terrorist actions on the UN?  No.  If France says it's okay, apparrently it's legitimate.  But when the UN (in my opinion, an illegitimate authority anyway, because while people institute governments, in this case, governments have instituted a government) says it's okay to do something, all of a sudden it's legitimated.  Or is the UN also a bully in your eyes?

Let's take North Korea as an example of a state that we have imposed economic sanctions on.  We have good reasons for not liking them -- indeed, they are a so-called "rogue" state.  Even China has pulled out its support of the DPRK, which, in the years following the end of the Cold War, was its biggest supporter.  The reason they seem to be a rogue state (according to literature) is that they perceive the US as a threat.  We are not; Communism is dead, and I believe that, should the DPRK disarm, we would pull out of Seoul.  Why do we not pull out of Seoul first, though?  Well, the ROK is one of our most important allies in the region.  With about a million North Korean troops forward-deployed just at the end of the DMZ, we do not feel we can.

While Kim Jong-Il has his troops supplied (though untrained -- the most recent intelligence suggests that a ration of 1:12 exists for our troops to those of the DPRK), his people are starving.  And to get money, he sells WMDs such as the Taepodong I and II missiles, which are able to carry a nuclear payload (the Taepodong II capable of reaching areas in an arc from Phoenix to Madison, Wisconsin, according to recent intelligence), to terrorist groups.  He defined the international community last year in the "nuclear revelation" by pulling the cameras out of his nuclear facilities.

Should we stop the sanctions?  Would that help?  Give him more money to develop his weapons and nuclear facilities?  I think not.  I think there is a diplomatic solution available, but it isn't just buying him out.

[edit: removed an attack and corrected a spelling error, clarified my position on North Korea]

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9446.msg88223#msg88223 date=1100103046]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9446.msg88039#msg88039 date=1099973356]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9446.msg88018#msg88018 date=1099968214]
Revocation of privileges or luxuries, temporary solitary confinement? [/quote] what privileges? What luxuries? Here lets put him in time out... that is going to straighten him out.
[/quote]

Perhaps you need to add some privileges or luxuries so you have something to revoke? Simple.
[/quote] Then how is it punishment to begin with? This is a prison, not a classy hotel.

[quote author=Hitmen link=topic=9446.msg88253#msg88253 date=1100120308]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9446.msg88250#msg88250 date=1100119720]
If somebody shot one of your loved ones, would you just keep on walking because you're not a violent person?
[/quote]
Can you really compare someone shooting someone you love to having liquid thrown at you? I think there's quite a big fucking difference.
[/quote] I think he was making an allusion to terrorist attacks....

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9446.msg88279#msg88279 date=1100126586]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9446.msg88223#msg88223 date=1100103046]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9446.msg88039#msg88039 date=1099973356]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9446.msg88018#msg88018 date=1099968214]
Revocation of privileges or luxuries, temporary solitary confinement? [/quote] what privileges? What luxuries? Here lets put him in time out... that is going to straighten him out.
[/quote]

Perhaps you need to add some privileges or luxuries so you have something to revoke? Simple.
[/quote] Then how is it punishment to begin with? This is a prison, not a classy hotel.
[/quote]

Hehe, actually, I'm making just that argument about Swedish prisons in another argument going on. I think we're a bit far towards the classy hotel end.

Anyway, if there are no privileges or luxuries you can remove from the prisoners to punish them without resorting to physical punishment, I think you're too far on the other end. There has to be rewards for behaving well as well as punishment for behaving bad, and the easiest way of accomplishing this is by having some kind of privileges. Perhaps better food, more time in gym or outside, that sort of thing.

In Sweedish prisons they sing songs and hold hands while skipping merrily through the gumdrop fields and sprinkle pastures, with flowing chocolate rivers and all the children are merry.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9446.msg88275#msg88275 date=1100126378]
[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=9446.msg88243#msg88243 date=1100116985]
Why is Israel the enemy of al-Qaeda?  Undoubtedly we have contributed to the Saud family, and the Israelis.  But is that direct provocation?  What has Israel done to the members of al-Qaeda?  They're busy with the PLO (an group with actual goals).
[/quote]

I think they'll consider anything done against a muslim. So the less you do against muslims, the better. It doesn't have to be done against them personally either. Weren't all Americans upset by the WTC going down (or at least more than those who were inside the towers)? In the way that something done against some Americans is picked up by all of America, something done against some muslims could be picked up by al-Qaeda.
[/quote]
But you have to stop and ask yourselves -- was al-Qaeda going after only Christians and Jews who were in the towers, or were they going after Americans, or even a larger scale, Westerners?  I think that America (and the western world) rightly rallied when the towers were attacked because it was in fact an attack on the Western world.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9446.msg88275#msg88275 date=1100126378]
[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=9446.msg88243#msg88243 date=1100116985]
No; al-Qaeda will not be satisfied until they see the destruction of what they believe are "apostate" regimes.
[/quote]

Some in al-Qaeda won't, just like some Americans won't be satisfied until they see the death of all abortionists. You'll have to try harder to convince me that Saddam couldn't be satisfied until he saw the destruction of all apostate regimes though. Or the Taliban government. I think some more negotating and some bigger offers would've swayed them. Lots of money perhaps could've done it even, the cost of the war paid in cash.
[/quote]
I'm not making the case for the war in Iraq here.  I support it on the basis of human security, not that Saddaam was aiming to take down apostate regimes.  As states go, generally speaking I believe you are correct -- they can't handle those kinds of apolitical goals.  But I am referring to non-state actors, and I do honestly believe that some of these groups cannot be dealt with.  How does one bargain with someone who is willing to blow himself up?

An aside: while I am vehemently against abortion, I think it's just silly that we should kill abortionists. :P

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9446.msg88284#msg88284 date=1100126919]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9446.msg88279#msg88279 date=1100126586]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9446.msg88223#msg88223 date=1100103046]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9446.msg88039#msg88039 date=1099973356]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9446.msg88018#msg88018 date=1099968214]
Revocation of privileges or luxuries, temporary solitary confinement? [/quote] what privileges? What luxuries? Here lets put him in time out... that is going to straighten him out.
[/quote]

Perhaps you need to add some privileges or luxuries so you have something to revoke? Simple.
[/quote] Then how is it punishment to begin with? This is a prison, not a classy hotel.
[/quote]

Hehe, actually, I'm making just that argument about Swedish prisons in another argument going on. I think we're a bit far towards the classy hotel end.

Anyway, if there are no privileges or luxuries you can remove from the prisoners to punish them without resorting to physical punishment, I think you're too far on the other end. There has to be rewards for behaving well as well as punishment for behaving bad, and the easiest way of accomplishing this is by having some kind of privileges. Perhaps better food, more time in gym or outside, that sort of thing.
[/quote] The reward for being good in prison would ideally be parol. If you are bad you should be punished acordingly. For example, if you throw piss on a guard you should expect the guard to turn around and mace you for doing it. Its not torture because the prisoner brought it on himself. I bet the prisoner expected to be punished for it too. If you do not want to get hit do not attack a guard, if you do not want to be maced, do not throw shit at guards.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9446.msg88286#msg88286 date=1100127015]
In Sweedish prisons they sing songs and hold hands while skipping merrily through the gumdrop fields and sprinkle pastures, with flowing chocolate rivers and all the children are merry.
[/quote]

Something like that. And they set up plays, which allows them to get outside the prison to perform, at which time they mount escapes. Yes, that has happened.

It's kinda interesting to be arguing for more conveniences in prisons in this place, and less conveniences in prisons in another place. I believe there has to be the right amount of it.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9446.msg88290#msg88290 date=1100127479]
The reward for being good in prison would ideally be parol. If you are bad you should be punished acordingly. For example, if you throw piss on a guard you should expect the guard to turn around and mace you for doing it. Its not torture because the prisoner brought it on himself. I bet the prisoner expected to be punished for it too. If you do not want to get hit do not attack a guard, if you do not want to be maced, do not throw shit at guards.
[/quote]

Parole is a good reward for being good in prison, but it takes too long. I don't think the kind of people who occupy prisons typically have that much patience. There have to be quicker rewards, and quicker punishments to keep them active and aware.

Punishment needs to be controlled though. By allowing the guards to punish at their own discretion, things are likely to go out of control. And torture is torture, whether someone brought it on themselves or not. Or would you say you'd agree with Al-Qaeda torturing Americans since they brought it on themselves by consorting with the devil?

Torture is not torture if you brought it on your self. If our guards were just going up and macing people for no reason it would be torture. But when a prisoner throws piss on a guard then it is not torture for the guard to mace him. There is a distinction.

Americans being decapitated because of a radical fundamentalist Islamic belief is very different from a man being maced because he through piss on a guard Adron.

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=9446.msg88287#msg88287 date=1100127133]
But you have to stop and ask yourselves -- was al-Qaeda going after only Christians and Jews who were in the towers, or were they going after Americans, or even a larger scale, Westerners?  I think that America (and the western world) rightly rallied when the towers were attacked because it was in fact an attack on the Western world.
[/quote]

That's a good point. I don't think it was an attack on the western world. If it had been, they could've easier attacked the Eiffel Tower or some other highly symbolic object in Europe, where there are less checks. I think it was an attack on Americans, because America is "the big bully" to them.



[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=9446.msg88287#msg88287 date=1100127133]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9446.msg88275#msg88275 date=1100126378]
Some in al-Qaeda won't, just like some Americans won't be satisfied until they see the death of all abortionists. You'll have to try harder to convince me that Saddam couldn't be satisfied until he saw the destruction of all apostate regimes though. Or the Taliban government. I think some more negotating and some bigger offers would've swayed them. Lots of money perhaps could've done it even, the cost of the war paid in cash.
[/quote]
I'm not making the case for the war in Iraq here.  I support it on the basis of human security, not that Saddaam was aiming to take down apostate regimes.  As states go, generally speaking I believe you are correct -- they can't handle those kinds of apolitical goals.  But I am referring to non-state actors, and I do honestly believe that some of these groups cannot be dealt with.  How does one bargain with someone who is willing to blow himself up?
[/quote]

That was the way of IRA for a long time. They were weakened by reducing their support amongst the common people. I think that's what you need to do to these groups as well: Make it so people don't hate America as much. Don't give them more reasons to do you ill. In a war against a state, you can win by military force, since the more you attack, the weaker they become, and eventually they will be forced to surrender and negotiate.

In a war against a group like this, consisting mostly of ideas and principles, you can never win by military force. Your enemy is the conviction that they have to kill you. And that conviction is only strengthened the more you attack.



On the war in Iraq note; what I was truly thinking of was the way the war against al-Qaeda was executed. Perhaps tearing down the government in Afghanistan wasn't really necessary? Perhaps those could've been negotiated with, even if al-Qaeda itself couldn't?


[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=9446.msg88287#msg88287 date=1100127133]
An aside: while I am vehemently against abortion, I think it's just silly that we should kill abortionists. :P
[/quote]

You're against abortion? How interesting! We need to discuss that later, when these discussions have died down. :)  

Let's not bring it up now though, these discussions are quite enough to try to produce good replies to.

[quote author=Hitmen link=topic=9446.msg88253#msg88253 date=1100120308]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9446.msg88250#msg88250 date=1100119720]
If somebody shot one of your loved ones, would you just keep on walking because you're not a violent person?
[/quote]
Can you really compare someone shooting someone you love to having liquid thrown at you? I think there's quite a big fucking difference.
[/quote]

These guys murdered somebody elses loved ones.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9446.msg88296#msg88296 date=1100128341]
Torture is not torture if you brought it on your self. If our guards were just going up and macing people for no reason it would be torture. But when a prisoner throws piss on a guard then it is not torture for the guard to mace him. There is a distinction.

Americans being decapitated because of a radical fundamentalist Islamic belief is very different from a man being maced because he through piss on a guard Adron.
[/quote]

There is a distinction, yes, but I can't quite define it. If the prisoner was taken in 1 year later by the guard, and maced, would that be different? What if he was put to the rack? Is it about the level of punishment? Is it about the proximity in time?

I don't disagree with using mace to put down a riot in prison, if that's the most efficient way of doing it. I have a problem with using it to punish though, no matter what it's punishment for.

If you (as in all Americans) were given the option to cease now, convert and become muslims today, or else know that some day you may be physically punished for practising christianity, would that be enough to make it not torture when they eventually caught you, tied you down and maced you for the rest of your short life?

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9446.msg88301#msg88301 date=1100128698]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9446.msg88296#msg88296 date=1100128341]
Torture is not torture if you brought it on your self. If our guards were just going up and macing people for no reason it would be torture. But when a prisoner throws piss on a guard then it is not torture for the guard to mace him. There is a distinction.

Americans being decapitated because of a radical fundamentalist Islamic belief is very different from a man being maced because he through piss on a guard Adron.
[/quote]

There is a distinction, yes, but I can't quite define it. If the prisoner was taken in 1 year later by the guard, and maced, would that be different? What if he was put to the rack? Is it about the level of punishment? Is it about the proximity in time? [/quote] it wouldnt happen if it were a year later for obvious reasons. It would no longer be punishment for that act, it would just be macing someone for the hell of it. You punish someone for something they have done immediatly after they have done it. Also, we do not put someone on a rack. Mace may burn, but its not lethal. Its not very severe on the spectrum of things. Our own cops have to be maced in police acadamy, etc.
[quote]
I don't disagree with using mace to put down a riot in prison, if that's the most efficient way of doing it. I have a problem with using it to punish though, no matter what it's punishment for.[/quote] why?
[quote]
If you (as in all Americans) were given the option to cease now, convert and become muslims today, or else know that some day you may be physically punished for practising christianity, would that be enough to make it not torture when they eventually caught you, tied you down and maced you for the rest of your short life?[/quote] Religion is not an action that harms others though. We are not punishing muslims because they are muslim. We are punishing the people in the prison because they committed terrorist acts and when they throw piss at guards we further punish them. Sure there are a lot of people who would convirt to Islam to get out of punishment. They are the luke warm people who are christian in name only or the people who do not practice any religion. I would not do that, and if I were maced for it it would be torture. The difference is me being a christian and not a muslim and being punished for it is the fact that I am not doing anything to hurt the muslims. The terrorists are doing something that hurts us though when they attack us or throw piss on a guard.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9446.msg88297#msg88297 date=1100128403]
[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=9446.msg88287#msg88287 date=1100127133]
But you have to stop and ask yourselves -- was al-Qaeda going after only Christians and Jews who were in the towers, or were they going after Americans, or even a larger scale, Westerners?  I think that America (and the western world) rightly rallied when the towers were attacked because it was in fact an attack on the Western world.
[/quote]
That's a good point. I don't think it was an attack on the western world. If it had been, they could've easier attacked the Eiffel Tower or some other highly symbolic object in Europe, where there are less checks. I think it was an attack on Americans, because America is "the big bully" to them.
[/quote]
Well -- the towers were really a major symbol of capitalism, and capitalism is what is associated most with the western world.  However, I think it was very much an attack on Americans.  My point (and I think you picked up on it) was that we're not attacking muslims, we're attacking terrorists.  It just happens in this case that a lot of the terrorists are muslims.  Notice though that we're not killing muslims in the US?

Maybe the muslim priests need to evaluate what they're teaching and how they're teaching it, so that people don't think we're going after them, and that America is the big, bad, muslim-hater that some people apparrently believe it is.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9446.msg88303#msg88303 date=1100129292]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9446.msg88301#msg88301 date=1100128698]
There is a distinction, yes, but I can't quite define it. If the prisoner was taken in 1 year later by the guard, and maced, would that be different? What if he was put to the rack? Is it about the level of punishment? Is it about the proximity in time? [/quote] it wouldnt happen if it were a year later for obvious reasons. It would no longer be punishment for that act, it would just be macing someone for the hell of it. You punish someone for something they have done immediatly after they have done it. Also, we do not put someone on a rack. Mace may burn, but its not lethal. Its not very severe on the spectrum of things. Our own cops have to be maced in police acadamy, etc.
[/quote]

The justice system doesn't say to punish someone for something they have done immediately after they have done it. If a policeman sees a man kill someone, he's still supposed to make an arrest, and then there'll be a legal process.

What if the piss was really thrown by someone else? In some situations it'll be obvious, but punishment will sometimes be handed out to the wrong people.

Are you saying the thing that makes it OK is the severity of the punishment? It's OK to mace someone, since on the punishment scale it's closer to the slap on the wrist than to the burning stick under your fingernails?



[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9446.msg88303#msg88303 date=1100129292]
[quote]
I don't disagree with using mace to put down a riot in prison, if that's the most efficient way of doing it. I have a problem with using it to punish though, no matter what it's punishment for.[/quote] why?
[/quote]

Because as soon as you start punishing people by doing things that cause them pain, you're getting into drawing lines. How hard are you allowed to punish them? Don't leave any marks? Nothing that won't heal?


[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9446.msg88303#msg88303 date=1100129292]
[quote]
If you (as in all Americans) were given the option to cease now, convert and become muslims today, or else know that some day you may be physically punished for practising christianity, would that be enough to make it not torture when they eventually caught you, tied you down and maced you for the rest of your short life?[/quote] Religion is not an action that harms others though. We are not punishing muslims because they are muslim. We are punishing the people in the prison because they committed terrorist acts and when they throw piss at guards we further punish them. Sure there are a lot of people who would convirt to Islam to get out of punishment. They are the luke warm people who are christian in name only or the people who do not practice any religion. I would not do that, and if I were maced for it it would be torture. The difference is me being a christian and not a muslim and being punished for it is the fact that I am not doing anything to hurt the muslims. The terrorists are doing something that hurts us though when they attack us or throw piss on a guard.
[/quote]

Oh, but does it really hurt the guard? I suppose if it was infected with some disease, and he caught it, it might, but chances are it will be just humiliating.

You're saying that being christian doesn't hurt the muslims. Yet you say you're a real christian, not in name only. I take that to mean you believe in some sort of divine or supernatural things. If you accept that there is some truth to religion, maybe their religion says that if they allow the evil christians to live, it hurts them. That would then make it OK for them to hurt you to make you stop hurting them (being christian). Christians have been hurting witches to make them stop putting the evil eye on folks.

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=9446.msg88305#msg88305 date=1100130043]
Well -- the towers were really a major symbol of capitalism, and capitalism is what is associated most with the western world.  However, I think it was very much an attack on Americans.  My point (and I think you picked up on it) was that we're not attacking muslims, we're attacking terrorists.  It just happens in this case that a lot of the terrorists are muslims.  Notice though that we're not killing muslims in the US?

Maybe the muslim priests need to evaluate what they're teaching and how they're teaching it, so that people don't think we're going after them, and that America is the big, bad, muslim-hater that some people apparrently believe it is.
[/quote]

Yes, it could be considered an attack on capitalism. And on Pentagon, on America.

About the attacks / wars: Yes, you're attacking terrorists, but in the process of doing so, you're affecting plain simple muslims in other countries. Reasonably, since what you're doing affects them, they should've been allowed a say on whether your actions were reasonable or not. That's what the UN was doing - telling you that this isn't reasonable, you'll have to try another way. But you wouldn't listen, like a bully you went on...

If your attacking terrorists was really surgical and didn't affect anyone else, I don't think there'd be much of a concern about what you're doing ;)


Yes, I think the muslim priests need to reevaluate their teachings. Actually you, muslims and Americans, probably need to sit in a ring together and sing songs.... :P

Honestly, making the muslims friends is the only thing that will stop their terrorism for good.

[quote]That's what the UN was doing - telling you that this isn't reasonable, you'll have to try another way. But you wouldn't listen, like a bully you went on...[/quote]

Oh please. The UN security council consists of these countries: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, and Russia. If one of those countries veto the bill, since they're the big boys in town, the resolution is immediately terminated. That's how we were able to get into Korea. Russia was protesting the olympics and their officials weren't at the UN building so the US called an emergency meeting and got the resolution to allow the Korean War to take place. Russia, being a communist state then, would not have approved this since Korea is a communist state as well. Ever since then the Russian Federation has had ambassadors at the UN building 24 hours a day 7 days a week. France, which I mentioned is on the council, apparently had interesting connections with Saddam. No wonder they were so quick to veto this.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9446.msg88310#msg88310 date=1100131559]
[quote]That's what the UN was doing - telling you that this isn't reasonable, you'll have to try another way. But you wouldn't listen, like a bully you went on...[/quote]

Oh please. The UN security council consists of these countries: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, and Russia. If one of those countries veto the bill, since they're the big boys in town, the resolution is immediately terminated.
[/quote]

Yes, that's stupid, and as you pointed out, you big bullies gladly abuse your power. There have been attempts to change that, but I don't think the US is willing to give up its veto.



[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9446.msg88310#msg88310 date=1100131559]
France, which I mentioned is on the council, apparently had interesting connections with Saddam. No wonder they were so quick to veto this.
[/quote]

If it was just France, and all the other countries supported you, I'd tend to agree with you. But that wasn't the case.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9446.msg88312#msg88312 date=1100132752]
If it was just France, and all the other countries supported you, I'd tend to agree with you. But that wasn't the case.
[/quote]

These other countries are countries such as Germany and Russia, with ties to the former Iraqi regieme and countries like Syria... who, in my opinion, should be next on the castration block.

Adron, that article also mentions Saddam offering funds to officials from the Russian Federation and China. So, that's three out of the five.

This war is Islam vs. the Western world...its a continuation of the Crusades.

I think we have an issue with fundamentalist Muslims who think that all non-Muslims must die.

Christianity used to have the same issue; Christianity started the Crusades. The major difference here is that while Christianity went through a reformation, Islam didn't. They are still often brainwashed by the clergy and complete dedication to Allah.

I'm ready for my words to be twisted into turning me into a racist, because thats what left-wingers like to do.

[quote author=Banana fanna fo fanna link=topic=9446.msg88333#msg88333 date=1100141440]
This war is Islam vs. the Western world...its a continuation of the Crusades.

I think we have an issue with fundamentalist Muslims who think that all non-Muslims must die.

Christianity used to have the same issue; Christianity started the Crusades. The major difference here is that while Christianity went through a reformation, Islam didn't. They are still often brainwashed by the clergy and complete dedication to Allah.

I'm ready for my words to be twisted into turning me into a racist, because thats what left-wingers like to do.
[/quote]

The thing is, that anyone who hates Muslims in general is pretty ignorant. I personally loathe radical muslims who believe that violence is the way to get things done, and they should slaughter people who do not believe, word for word, what they believe and that killing innocent women in children is the way to affect change. I hate the radicals who distort what the Koran really says to fit their own sick agenda.

I didn't say I hate Muslims. I said I was ready for my words to be twisted into that though.

I give up on this Adron. You will argue about anything. If I say the shy is blue you will debate how blue because a republican said it.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9446.msg88306#msg88306 date=1100130122]

You're saying that being christian doesn't hurt the muslims. Yet you say you're a real christian, not in name only. I take that to mean you believe in some sort of divine or supernatural things. If you accept that there is some truth to religion, maybe their religion says that if they allow the evil christians to live, it hurts them. That would then make it OK for them to hurt you to make you stop hurting them (being christian). Christians have been hurting witches to make them stop putting the evil eye on folks.
[/quote]No I mean I actually go to church and practice christianity. More of this argueing about anything anyone says. A christian in name only claims to be christian but never reads the bible and never visits a church service and is effectively not a christian.

PS: If what you just said is true Arta it would totally destroy all of those arguments of your in the past that Islam is a religion of peace.

I don't hate muslims, as the muslim religion is supposed to be very peaceful. But those radical muslims, who still think they're in a jihad, are the ones I don't like. I saw a picture once of a radical islamic guy holding a sign "Jihad isn't terror, jihad is life." or something to that extend. Sickos, but they think they're protecting their faith. *shrug*

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9446.msg88364#msg88364 date=1100148584]
PS: If what you just said is true Arta it would totally destroy all of those arguments of your in the past that Islam is a religion of peace.
[/quote]

Huh?

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9446.msg88361#msg88361 date=1100148454]
I give up on this Adron. You will argue about anything. If I say the shy is blue you will debate how blue because a republican said it.
[/quote]

The sky isn't really blue. It just looks that way because of the way light is absorbed. Look up at the moon at night and see, it's the same sky between you and the moon, and it should be very "white" (clear), unless it's cloudy...

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9446.msg88330#msg88330 date=1100139853]
Adron, that article also mentions Saddam offering funds to officials from the Russian Federation and China. So, that's three out of the five.
[/quote]

He's probably offered funds to Americans as well. No reason not to try to bribe them?

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9446.msg88364#msg88364 date=1100148584]
No I mean I actually go to church and practice christianity. More of this argueing about anything anyone says. A christian in name only claims to be christian but never reads the bible and never visits a church service and is effectively not a christian.
[/quote]

Yes yes, I wasn't trying to argue against you. I was just trying to point out that I was saying something I don't agree with myself, because I don't believe in gods and supernatural things. However, for those who do believe in a God, they might also believe all sorts of weird things, such as there being witches who are putting an evil eye on them, promoting inquisition, or that christian people by just existing would somehow hurt muslims. And if you have that belief, then to you, the christian people *are* hurting muslims. I'm not sure how to explain what I mean...

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9446.msg88396#msg88396 date=1100176331]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9446.msg88330#msg88330 date=1100139853]
Adron, that article also mentions Saddam offering funds to officials from the Russian Federation and China. So, that's three out of the five.
[/quote]

He's probably offered funds to Americans as well. No reason not to try to bribe them?
[/quote]

Adron, Saddam has never offered bribes using the oil for food program to the United States.

Which is what I was talking about. Not only did Saddam use the oil-for-food program to bribe UN officials, he also used it to pocket an extremely large amount of money. His citizens hardly got anything.

It sounds strange that he would've never tried to buy off an American. He may not have tried the president, since he didn't have enough to offer, but...

Anyway, the security council is just one thing. The big thing is all the other countries in the UN.

The Security Council is much bigger, Adron. If all of the other countries in the UN vote yes for a resolution involving an armed conflict, and say for instance France votes no, then the resolution is still vetoed. The SC has much more power.

I rather agree -- I think no one should have veto, and the security council should be representative of all nations belonging to the UN,

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9446.msg88436#msg88436 date=1100192598]
The Security Council is much bigger, Adron. If all of the other countries in the UN vote yes for a resolution involving an armed conflict, and say for instance France votes no, then the resolution is still vetoed. The SC has much more power.
[/quote]

Misunderstanding :)

I know about vetos in the Security Council. What I meant was the big thing about the USA and the UN is whether you have support from all of the other countries in the UN or not. If the general assembly had supported an armed conflict, that would've been a different thing.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9446.msg88447#msg88447 date=1100194809]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9446.msg88436#msg88436 date=1100192598]
The Security Council is much bigger, Adron. If all of the other countries in the UN vote yes for a resolution involving an armed conflict, and say for instance France votes no, then the resolution is still vetoed. The SC has much more power.
[/quote]

Misunderstanding :)

I know about vetos in the Security Council. What I meant was the big thing about the USA and the UN is whether you have support from all of the other countries in the UN or not. If the general assembly had supported an armed conflict, that would've been a different thing.


[/quote]


Think of the countries in the UN council. 32 countries supported military action. The majority of the countries that opposed action were those in bed with the Iraqi regieme.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9446.msg88462#msg88462 date=1100196624]
Think of the countries in the UN council. 32 countries supported military action. The majority of the countries that opposed action were those in bed with the Iraqi regieme.
[/quote]

And the countries supporting action were those in bed with the US regime? Countries are pulling out too:

[quote]
The original group of 32 countries has now dwindled to 27 (Spain, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic having withdrawn before the Philippines) and of those remaining, some are mere shadows of their previously meager selves. Singapore has drawn down its forces from 191 to 33, Norway has pulled 140 of its 155 combat engineers. Moldava's 42 troops have been drawn down to 12, and while Australia plans to reinforce its delegation to bring it to a total of 880, that's actually less than half the number originally committed for the invasion, and most of the Aussies aren't in Iraq at all, but offshore in sea and air support positions.
[/quote]

Don't forget Poland! :P

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9446.msg88484#msg88484 date=1100200169]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9446.msg88462#msg88462 date=1100196624]
Think of the countries in the UN council. 32 countries supported military action. The majority of the countries that opposed action were those in bed with the Iraqi regieme.
[/quote]

And the countries supporting action were those in bed with the US regime? Countries are pulling out too:

[quote]
The original group of 32 countries has now dwindled to 27 (Spain, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic having withdrawn before the Philippines) and of those remaining, some are mere shadows of their previously meager selves. Singapore has drawn down its forces from 191 to 33, Norway has pulled 140 of its 155 combat engineers. Moldava's 42 troops have been drawn down to 12, and while Australia plans to reinforce its delegation to bring it to a total of 880, that's actually less than half the number originally committed for the invasion, and most of the Aussies aren't in Iraq at all, but offshore in sea and air support positions.
[/quote]


[/quote]

Dwindled? 5 of 32? One of which was pulled when a new cowardice leader came to power and the other pulled because they turned tail and bent over when the terrorists threatened them.

Those "sea and air support positions" are absolutely critical to the war effort. The remaining 25 or so are lending crucial financial and political support to the leaders.

Look at the countries that objected: Russia, China, France, Germany, Syria. All countries that had weapons deals with the Iraqi regieme, all countries that were exploting the UN's oil-for-food program, and in Syria's case, a tyrannical regieme of their own.

Putin has since come out in our support recently.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9446.msg88379#msg88379 date=1100155073]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9446.msg88364#msg88364 date=1100148584]
PS: If what you just said is true Arta it would totally destroy all of those arguments of your in the past that Islam is a religion of peace.
[/quote]

Huh?
[/quote] I meant adron. Sometimes I get you two confused. Your names both start with a and you are both libs.

And both foreign, and both in vL, and both have r in their name.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9446.msg88520#msg88520 date=1100209757]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9446.msg88379#msg88379 date=1100155073]
Huh?
[/quote] I meant adron. Sometimes I get you two confused. Your names both start with a and you are both libs.
[/quote]

Oh. Well, the religion itself isn't any more inherently evil or nonpeaceful than christianity. But then, christianity can be pretty much warlike. Especially when going on crusades against things, as has recently been suggested by prominent Americans.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9446.msg88503#msg88503 date=1100203126]
Dwindled? 5 of 32? One of which was pulled when a new cowardice leader came to power and the other pulled because they turned tail and bent over when the terrorists threatened them.

Those "sea and air support positions" are absolutely critical to the war effort. The remaining 25 or so are lending crucial financial and political support to the leaders.
[/quote]

One or two dropping would be nothing, but five of thirtytwo is not insignificant. Also, sometimes you have support from a particular leader you've managed to seduce (bribe?) and when that leader is overthrown by the will of the people, the people choose to pull support from your "evil actions".

Some support positions are very limited in number of people involved. I seriously doubt the US couldn't replace 30 foreign technicians with their own. If not, they should consider training some.


[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9446.msg88503#msg88503 date=1100203126]
Look at the countries that objected: Russia, China, France, Germany, Syria. All countries that had weapons deals with the Iraqi regieme, all countries that were exploting the UN's oil-for-food program, and in Syria's case, a tyrannical regieme of their own.

Putin has since come out in our support recently.
[/quote]

Look at the countries that supported: Trying to curry favors with America...

Supporting you now has nothing to do with supporting starting a war. You can object to diving into the shit, yet help people climb out once they're in.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9446.msg88614#msg88614 date=1100256532]
Look at the countries that supported: Trying to curry favors with America...
[/quote]

Look at the countries that supported France/Germany/China: Trying to curry favor with the UN and Kofi...