Not as lame as all of us spending our time in here.
I basically echo FWD's response.
In my eyes if we resort to barbarianism, then the American values we are fighting for are already dead, and in that regard we have lost the war and the nation that survives will not be The United States as we know them today (in a negative sense).
I understand that. My argument states a general principle that would tend to agree with scott's position. That's all I'm saying.
Ah! The consequences of relying on my own writing prowess!!
You're right -- it's not really an eye-for-an-eye sort of situation. It's more like turnabout being fair play. Regardless, it's still not an acceptable course of conduct IMO.
I'm not writing a term paper. Oh, and I've been busted before.
None of this makes the content any less valuable, and it doesn't change the fact that I always link to statements of fact. But, if attacking me makes you feel better -- go ahead. It's somewhat entertaining.
Actually, I'm just kind of sitting back and enjoying watching other people shred your . It's somewhat entertaining.
That's the beauty. They're not shredding my . Besides, why would I possibly care?
Is that original, or did you shoplift it?
Google it.
Just the you adopt for your own.
It's interesting that you've not seen fit to address the substantive argument that took place above. But I want to be fair -- I'm assuming that there's a response coming once you've found material to co-opt.
Probably not, this thread is toast.
jochhe,
Elaborating the way I feel on the subject... isn't the "fight for survival" the justification that terrorists use for their barbaric actions? Right or wrong, they percieve themselves to be in a battle for survival, which they can't win using traditional ("fair") warfare, so they result to barbarianism and suicide bombings. I would hope the US would never come to that.
Unless "jihad by the sword" translates to "fight for survival" then I'm not sure I agree with that as being the main justification for the committing of atrocities by terrorists. I think it's just their warped way of promoting and furthering their main agenda of attempting to convert the world to Islam.
So IMO, their battle is a plan to thrive and conquer rather than one of survival.
I believe the thrust of your post is the hope that we would not, deliberately or by policy, resort to or stoop to the conscience defying and unconscionable tactics used by the terrorists. I concur.
You aren't writing a term paper, but have some frickin' common sense. If you post someone else's work or writing, just link to it or cite the source. No one thinks you are awesome for starting this thread anyway, so you might as well give the original source it's due.
Thats a pretty foolish understanding of what motivates people down to the core. Palestinians do what they do out of desperation, des ution, and a percived hopelessness. They're not trying ton conquer the world.
If you want to see a history of conquering, you need do nothing more than open an American history book. Manifest Destiny anyone?
Well, if they're desperate, des ute and hopeless then I fully understand why they purposefully target innocent women and children. No doubt that this purposeful slaughtering of innocents is just what the Quran encourages as an antidote for their ills.
You've expressed a <blind> hatred for Israel and have stated that you couldn't care less if the Palestenians and Israelis wipe each out. Who's the fool here Manny?
With that mentality don't expect many to seriously entertain your thoughts regarding anything about the Middle East.
I know I take them with a grain of salt.
"Our flowers are the sword and the dagger:
Narcissus and myrtle are nought.
Our drink is the blood of our foeman;
Our goblet his skull, when we've fought".
-Ali ibn Abi Talib- (one of the most famous and revered "peaceful" Muslims)
In regards to your silly question concerning the red cross they do not go in and demand anything because of the very same reason why they could not enter New Orleans immediately following Katrina.. It's a security issue...
so if a party does not play by the Geneva Convention rules then the rules are a mockery? If you use this logic and apply it to anyother situation then every ins ution and applicable law becomes a mockery. According to Yonivore if everyone does not play by the rules then it, the rule, is by definition a mockery..
Last edited by George Gervin's Afro; 07-18-2006 at 08:06 AM.
A simple answer:
Because we are civilized human beings and better than those we fight.
Morality starts within, and letting terrorists dictate our morality is a surest path to our ultimate defeat.
What is your sense of morality? Let them do as they wish and we sit around
and take it. Or do we protect ourselves.
Give me a break and "your" sense of morality. War is breaking things and
killing people. DEFEATING the enemy. Look at history.
Sure, but when you've agreed that there are certain boundaries that you will not cross in the prosecution of a war -- in the process of breaking things and killing people -- why should you be able to cross that boundary just because the guy on the other side does. It's altogether like a child protesting that his parents won't allow him to do something by arguing that the kid down the block gets to do it.
The rules of a civilized society demand more than barbarism, even in war and even if the enemy is barbaric.
The natural law of self-preservation demands that sometimes you have to abandon civility in order to defeat a barbaric enemy that won't be constrained by acceptable social norms, rules of engagement, international law, conventions, etc...
In most previous wars, the United States has established a reputation for being a ruthless killer and a compassionate captor.
I don't think the statements in the thread have much to do with what occurs on the battlefield. Hamdan certainly doesn't. I think we're talking more about combatants who are in captivity. And, as to that context, I think it's in bent upon the United States government to comply with Geneva, regardless of how the enemy acts as to those it captures. We've agreed to comply with Geneva and even if there might be some technical argument to avoid its application to those captured in the current hostilities, I think the Supreme Court is right to conclude that the better course is to hold the government to the higher standard - to respect human rights even if our enemies do not.
I would agree that we should treat captives as humanely as they will allow.
And, at some point, it does become a battlefield question though. Our military men are, at some point, going to tire of hearing about how those they capture are coddled and, in some cases, released to re-enter the fray (as has been done by some released from Gitmo).
If I were to encounter an enemy combatant in Iraq or Afghanistan it might take me a bit longer than it used to for me to see the white flag.
Why do the right wingers here think our soldiers are so mentally fragile?
There are few boundaries in war. Look to the history of WWII. We bombed
the civilian population of every major city of our enemies. We took no
prisoners in the Pacific theater for a long period of time.
No my friend. Don't be fooled by those that say we are better, we were
just the winners. War is to all involved. About the only humane
thing we did was with the POW's. And we even in a way cir vented
the Geneva convention on the matter of labor. We used German and
Italian prisoners on farms and ranches and the owners of these farms
and ranches fed them and gave them a few pennies an hour for their
labor.
I repeat there are few boundaries in war. Only winners and losers.
You seem to be expressing a <blind> hatred for Muslims based on your faulty interpretation of their holy literature. So seem a bit cavalier in telling other faiths what they believe while becoming quite defensive when someone suggests a different interpretation of your faith.
So, who is the fool?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
