Why must we show restraint to our enemies. - Page 11 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-11-2006, 03:34 PM   #151
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 02:50 PM
Why should we use torture or any other morally bankrupt strategy just because the insurgents are? We don't want to act like that.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 07-11-2006, 03:44 PM   #152
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Justin24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Mateo
Posts: 6,716
Local Time: 07:50 AM
So I guess that means they win right? By instilling fear into the people, by threats of beheadings and suicide bombings.
__________________

__________________
Justin24 is offline  
Old 07-11-2006, 03:59 PM   #153
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 09:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
Quite frankly, that makes no difference to me at all. The Supreme Court also said that the government can seize private property for non-essential private enterprise purposes. Do you agree with them on that?

Article 5 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that if a civilian "is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the States, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in favor of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State."


Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
but this is a slippery slope -- have you no problems with the president becoming the moral equivalent of a mafia boss? what if i threatened to crush his testicles? kill his wife and children? saw off his limbs? where does it end?
your "if" scenario doesn't hold any water. it's never a "24"-style situation where there's some information that's going to stop the bomb on the train, and in fact, most information gleaned from torture is *bad* information because a tortured man will say anything to get you to stop torturing him
Well, I don't advocate killing a terrorist's wife and children, that's for sure.

My "coercive measures" would be a lot simpler and less horrific than all that, but more effective.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-11-2006, 04:05 PM   #154
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 09:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
Well, I don't advocate killing a terrorist's wife and children, that's for sure.

My "coercive measures" would be a lot simpler and less horrific than all that, but more effective.


so where does it end and where does it begin? this seems to me to be as perfect an example of a slippery slope as i can think of. either torture is wrong, or it's not. you can't torture just a little bit. there are guidelines, there are rules, and when we violate these rules, we lose moral authority over our enemies. sure, they might torture worse, but now we've stooped to their level and we are only "better" through a difference of degree and not a quantifiable difference.

further, if we torture, this makes our troops much more likely to be subjected to "coercive measures" whenever they are captured. we are making our troops -- and civilian contractors, and journalists -- less safe.

finally, think of the GDR and the USSR -- state-sponsored "coercive interrogation" techniques. and what happened? effective policing went out the window and the KGB and the Strazi were effectively overrun by thugs and sadists. neither organization could solve a crime worth a damn. why? because the good people left and The Sopranos took over.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-11-2006, 04:23 PM   #155
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 03:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AchtungBono


Nice rhetoric BVS but you should know by now that I'm not a terrorist supporter. I'd like to say that I support freedom and the right to fight back against terrorism. What do you think Israel is doing now in the Gaza strip? handing out candy cane??...NO....we're pounding the hell out of them, that's what we're doing - we're talking their own language.
Yes, bombing bridges, schools and a energy plant is not terrorism,.....
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 07-11-2006, 04:26 PM   #156
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 11:20 AM
The White House said Tuesday that all detainees held in U.S. military custody around the world are entitled to protections under the Geneva Conventions — in a reversal of the position long held by the Bush administration.


The announcement came less than two weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the government's argument that the set of rules governing the wartime conduct of nations do not apply to the hundreds of men accused of terrorist activity who have been detained for years at the U.S. naval prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

A U.S. Defence Department memo circulating Tuesday said the military must follow the Geneva Conventions, which include treating detainees humanely and giving them trials with judicial guarantees.

President George W. Bush and his Republican administration have for several years weathered criticism from domestic civil-rights advocates, the country's international allies and recently the U.S. Supreme Court over how the military treats prisoners accused of terrorist links.

But until Tuesday, the Bush administration maintained that those detainees were not prisoners of war and thus not protected under the Geneva Conventions.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/nation...onvention.html
__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 07-11-2006, 05:00 PM   #157
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 09:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




so where does it end and where does it begin? this seems to me to be as perfect an example of a slippery slope as i can think of. either torture is wrong, or it's not. you can't torture just a little bit. there are guidelines, there are rules, and when we violate these rules, we lose moral authority over our enemies. sure, they might torture worse, but now we've stooped to their level and we are only "better" through a difference of degree and not a quantifiable difference.
Personally, I think that coercing terrorists vs. beheading innocents is a quantifiable difference.

However, I do understand your points about the Nazis and the SS.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-11-2006, 05:45 PM   #158
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,234
Local Time: 08:50 AM
I can't believe some of the things that have been said in this thread.

Justin24: Just because they torture and we don't doesn't mean they win. Unless you're looking for a Best Torturers In The World prize. Do you honestly think that, given the savagery we know they are capable of, that if we were to start beheading terrorists, it would have any effect on them other than whipping them into a more anti-American frenzy? They're already willing to die awful deaths for their cause. Adding one more option to the death table does nothing except erase the line between us and them. When we abandon our morals just so we can have wanton, bloodthirsty revenge on the same level as they have done to us, THAT is when they've won.

If we want to live up to these morals you say we have, then, quite simply, terrorism and torture are off the table. We can retaliate in a swift and aggressive fashion without resorting to terrorism.

To the others in support of torturing terrorists and fighting terrorism with terrorism, you don't end terrorism by simply killing terrorists. That's fighting the symptom and not the cause. One of you said we have to hit at the root. And you're absolutely right. Unfortunately for you, the root of terrorism is something that no bomb, missile, gun or torture tactic can reach.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 07-11-2006, 05:55 PM   #159
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 02:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Justin24
So I guess that means they win right? By instilling fear into the people, by threats of beheadings and suicide bombings.
I don't think the insurgents are winning anything. They're just screwing their own people.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 07-11-2006, 06:14 PM   #160
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Justin24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Mateo
Posts: 6,716
Local Time: 07:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen
That's fighting the symptom and not the cause.
What's the cause Osama, Imams who spread hatered of the west and Israel? If the cause are the bad imams, why not get rid of them also.
__________________
Justin24 is offline  
Old 07-11-2006, 06:46 PM   #161
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 09:50 AM
Let me reiterate what a few other posters have already stated, fighting terrorism by using methods of terror (brutality, torture, hunting down family of the terorists) is unlikely to do much to discourage terrorism. The truly fanatical will sacrifice all. . .and I mean ALL for the cause. They will sacrifice their lives, their families, everything. I know some Palestinian sucide bombers were supported by their families in their decision to kill themselves and the families were taken care of financially by terrorist backers after the bombers did their job. Such fanatics are likely not going to be fazed by threats of harm to their loved ones.

But let's talk about the less fanatical ones, the ones that we theorize might be the most discouraged by brutal retaliation. JMScoopy, Justin24 let me ask you this, let's say our country was invaded by another country. A foreign army lands on our soil, overthrows our president and set's up a government more friendly to their interests. How would you respond? You'd fight back wouldn't you. And let's say that this country's soldiers took on the policy you've suggested we use--fear and intimidation. Mess with us and we will take you out in the most painful way possible. But first we'll take your family out first as you watch.

How would YOU respond to such tatics? Would it make you more or less inclined to fight back? I don't know about you, but it would make me more inclined to fight. It would infuriate me that such an evil nation was in my country, and it would make me more determined than ever to do whatever it takes, at whatever the cost to get them out. I might have been inclined to go along with this invading country if they showed mercy and restraint. . .but a merciless invader like that. No way, better for me (and my family) than live in subjection to such a nation.

So, no. . .I don't think that brutal retaliation such as been described here will do anything to further the cause.

I think your frustration is actually underlining something else that I do agree with. We are doing this thing half-assed. We have been from the beginning. Dreadsox painted the picture crystal clear and it was sickening to read. It was a stupid war stupidly done and breaks my heart that our brave men and women are giving their lives over there because we've done it half-assed.

My feeling is that we need to send more troops over, not less. This is a very unpopular idea, one that nobody on either the left or the right really wants to commit to, but it's the only way I can see to get at least a modicum of control over there. We shouldn't have gone over to begin with, but it's too late to do anything about that now. We're in it and we've got to finish it right. The first priority needs to shut down the violence and I believe that can only happen with more troops on the ground. The next priority is to start fixing up the infrastructure of the country as quickly as we can.

Even then, this is far from a full solution. It doesn't even take into account the sectarian violence that is ripping Iraq apart. This is a complicated situation, one that will take complicated solutions. If the problems in Iraq could be solved in 20 min. time by an internet poster, we'd have been out of this long ago.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-11-2006, 06:53 PM   #162
Refugee
 
fly so high!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: St Andrews NSW Australia
Posts: 1,835
Local Time: 12:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
#1 What the fuck does bombing the crap out of Iraq have to do with 9/11?

#2 This administration ignored any and all intelligence that indicated that Iraq was not in posession of said WMD.

#3 This administration repeatedly allowed parts of reports to leak to lead the American public into thinking Iraq was a threat. IE Yellow Cake.

#4 This administration did not listen to the generals, who said that our force stregnth was not large enough to secure the borders and keep down an insurgency. This in turn added to the stress of the situation for the soldiers who are still there doing their best.

#5 This administration failed to create a fucking coalition that could actually help, one that included Islamic nations, so that this phase would not feel like an occupation by the USA.

#6 This administration is responsible for not doing the job RIGHT. By right, I mean listening to the advice of your fucking generals for starters. By right I mean having the correct numbers of soldiers to accoplish the job, so that our soldiers are not under the immense pressure they are under. Doing the job right does not mean bombing the fuck out of a country, ignoring the Geneva conventions, and continuing to make MORE enemies than we started with.

#7 I just finished reading the One Percent Doctrine. Second summer in a row I am sick to my stomach. The CIA concuded that Osama released his tape just before the last election to help Bush win. I wonder why!!!!

---------------------

Cnacel that...because we are losing.
__________________
fly so high! is offline  
Old 07-11-2006, 06:59 PM   #163
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 09:50 AM
[q]#5 This administration failed to create a fucking coalition that could actually help, one that included Islamic nations, so that this phase would not feel like an occupation by the USA.[/q]


but what about Poland? YOU FORGOT POLAND!

(sorry, couldn't resist)
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-11-2006, 07:09 PM   #164
Vocal parasite
 
Axver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: 1853
Posts: 151,021
Local Time: 01:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Justin24


What's the cause Osama, Imams who spread hatered of the west and Israel? If the cause are the bad imams, why not get rid of them also.
Wow, you're still focusing on the symptoms and not the cause.

Why do those Imams and Osama hate the West? What's the cause of their hate? Identify that and work to eliminate it, rather than just shooting imams or brutally torturing terrorists. If there is no ideological foundation left, then you might see an end to terrorism. If you just keep torturing and killing those who create a desire in you for bloodthirsty revenge, you're only going to make things worse and inspire more hatred.
__________________
"Mediocrity is never so dangerous as when it is dressed up as sincerity." - Søren Kierkegaard

Ian McCulloch the U2 fan:
"Who buys U2 records anyway? It's just music for plumbers and bricklayers. Bono, what a slob. You'd think with all that climbing about he does, he'd look real fit and that. But he's real fat, y'know. Reminds me of a soddin' mountain goat."
"And as for Bono, he needs a colostomy bag for his mouth."

U2gigs: The most comprehensive U2 setlist database!
Gig pictures | Blog
Axver is offline  
Old 07-11-2006, 07:14 PM   #165
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Justin24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Mateo
Posts: 6,716
Local Time: 07:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean
Let me reiterate what a few other posters have already stated, fighting terrorism by using methods of terror (brutality, torture, hunting down family of the terorists) is unlikely to do much to discourage terrorism. The truly fanatical will sacrifice all. . .and I mean ALL for the cause. They will sacrifice their lives, their families, everything. I know some Palestinian sucide bombers were supported by their families in their decision to kill themselves and the families were taken care of financially by terrorist backers after the bombers did their job. Such fanatics are likely not going to be fazed by threats of harm to their loved ones.

But let's talk about the less fanatical ones, the ones that we theorize might be the most discouraged by brutal retaliation. JMScoopy, Justin24 let me ask you this, let's say our country was invaded by another country. A foreign army lands on our soil, overthrows our president and set's up a government more friendly to their interests. How would you respond? You'd fight back wouldn't you. And let's say that this country's soldiers took on the policy you've suggested we use--fear and intimidation. Mess with us and we will take you out in the most painful way possible. But first we'll take your family out first as you watch.

How would YOU respond to such tatics? Would it make you more or less inclined to fight back? I don't know about you, but it would make me more inclined to fight. It would infuriate me that such an evil nation was in my country, and it would make me more determined than ever to do whatever it takes, at whatever the cost to get them out. I might have been inclined to go along with this invading country if they showed mercy and restraint. . .but a merciless invader like that. No way, better for me (and my family) than live in subjection to such a nation.

So, no. . .I don't think that brutal retaliation such as been described here will do anything to further the cause.

I think your frustration is actually underlining something else that I do agree with. We are doing this thing half-assed. We have been from the beginning. Dreadsox painted the picture crystal clear and it was sickening to read. It was a stupid war stupidly done and breaks my heart that our brave men and women are giving their lives over there because we've done it half-assed.

My feeling is that we need to send more troops over, not less. This is a very unpopular idea, one that nobody on either the left or the right really wants to commit to, but it's the only way I can see to get at least a modicum of control over there. We shouldn't have gone over to begin with, but it's too late to do anything about that now. We're in it and we've got to finish it right. The first priority needs to shut down the violence and I believe that can only happen with more troops on the ground. The next priority is to start fixing up the infrastructure of the country as quickly as we can.

Even then, this is far from a full solution. It doesn't even take into account the sectarian violence that is ripping Iraq apart. This is a complicated situation, one that will take complicated solutions. If the problems in Iraq could be solved in 20 min. time by an internet poster, we'd have been out of this long ago.
You see there is a problem with your question. Our country did not go in there to rape and kill families. A select few did that which is wrong. In the end 2 soldiers were killed for no reason and had no part in what there Commrades did. If a foreign country did invade I would fight them. I would not torture them or behead them, but I would shoot at them. I will leave the torturing of my enemy to others.
__________________

__________________
Justin24 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com