So, do you think these were acts of warfare or acts of despair? (Or is that a false dichotomy?)
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
...how the hell is killing oneself an act of warfare?
-pH
Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
When I read it, I assumed they meant it could be considered warfare if these men committed suicide with the intent to spur worldwide criticism of the U.S. and Guantanamo Bay.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: The suicides of three detainees at the US base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, amount to acts of war, the US military says.
That'd be an intriguing military strategy: "Suicide Squad, advance!"
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
Oh please! They were in a Cuban military prison! I think they were probably just sick of life. I doubt it was a political statement.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
To call the suicides "assymetrical warfare" is some real full-bore match-grade horseshit.
This is the Spin of Desperation. Only 10 of the some 465 men held at Guantánamo have been charged before military tribunals, the reputation of the government to give accurate portrayal about the conditions within the camp is essentially broken, it's condemned by about every respectable human rights watch organization in the entire world, and the place is going to be shut down. It's only a matter of time.
I want to see it shut down, and not out of love for the men caged within; it's because the psychological effect of Guantánamo -- and our association with it -- hurts our credibility and causes negative issues which will always eclipse any useful utility that the facility could ever provide. Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Masada anyone?
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
The fact that they simultaneously committed suicide makes it obvious that they coordinated the action. To do so without a plan ahead of time would have been impossible.
Since this is not likely to be a Romeo and Juliet scenario of star crossed gay romance it is likely that these individuals knew they were in for life, since they deserved death and would not receive it.
So what was left for them? If they could make their deaths make as much of a splash as possible it is sure that they would do more by death then they ever could by living on in prison.
I consider it to be an admirable strategy, it has CNN crying for the end of the lock up and all sorts of watchdogs are barking. It shows that the terrorist understand how we are manipulated by our media far more then we understand it. I think it is because they lie so much they do not consider media to have any credibility whereas we are used to assuming the bias is not there.
This week alone I have seen CNN talk about how killing Zaquawii changes nothing, how Ann Coulter is a hysterical madwoman and how Fox News has a vendetta against the UN, and this is all without the suicides. Moreover I do not watch CNN that is just what I saw surfing by!
The Enemy knows how to fight us in our hearts and minds and they have a willing and eager media as their ally.
This Suicide is clearly an attempt at headlines, interpret it as a 'cry for help' if you want just remember it is a cry for help by determined enemies of everything we love and hold dear, so help them if you want but I for one am glad we no longer have to pay for their upkeep. Nooses should be issued to save them the trouble of using makeshift versions.
BC
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
The Utility of such facilities is that they take terrorist out of the war. When Ramadan ended with the release of 200 prisoners who were low risk and well behaved while I was in Iraq, we found four of the released the next day putting in an IED.
Luckily it proved to be a death sentence for these second offenders because soldiers were free to engage under ROE. So case closed, but how many bombs were placed after that by othersfrom tht release? If we do not have the stomach for imprisoning them then they will be the cause of and recipients of more death.
BC
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Ann Coulter IS a hysterical madwoman. Who the hell has the adacity to criticize women who have lost their husbands in 9/11? How is that intelligent?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The Utility of such facilities is that they take terrorist out of the war
The utility provided to 'the enemy' is far greater than the utility provided to us. They can point to it and call us hypocrites, and weave not-so-tall-tales about how our administration talks big on human rights and the due process of law, whilst discarding it at convenience.
Guantánamo is a fountain of anti-American casus belli, and we needn't bother pointing hysterical fingers at the media for that. The operating conditions and systems of Guantanamo are immediately objectionable and counterproductive whether or not we have a 'manipulating' 'willing and eager ally' in the media that is bound to point out the fact that an objectionable practice is an objectionable practice.
The misplaced interpretations of that last point are many and varied but completely astounding.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: This week alone I have seen CNN talk about how killing Zaquawii changes nothing, how Ann Coulter is a hysterical madwoman and how Fox News has a vendetta against the UN, and this is all without the suicides.
Um....Aren't all three of these things basically true?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Yes.
However, I don't think this is all spin. These men were willing and able to kill themselves for their cause before they were captured, and I doubt that changed once they were caught.
A lot of what the insurgents are trying to do is weaken the U.S.A's resolve to stay the course in Iraq, as well as try to undermine the U.S.A's standing in the international setting as well, causing us to pull out before we are ready to do so. This act of coordinated violence between the prisoners shows that they are still willing to give their lives for their cause.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:"I am often asked if I still think we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity. The answer is: Now more than ever!"
You don't even need to misquote AC to make her sound like a complete idiot.
Calling her an intellectual of ANY sort is nauseating.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: However, I don't think this is all spin. These men were willing and able to kill themselves for their cause before they were captured, and I doubt that changed once they were caught.
Well, I think that running around in areas where bullets are being fired indicates a willingness to die, if not a willingness to kill oneself. So in that sense, it's not that different from being an American soldier in combat.
-pH
Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
Do we have rules against posting entire articles? I think The New York Times article is much better, but it's long.
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
Suicide bombers.
That's warfare.
But this is not that, is it?
What if they were murdered and the suicide bit is just.. Y'know.. Propaganda?
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
Hm . . .
Let's look at it yet another way, just for the sake of argument. This could just as easily be considered another peaceful protest, like hunger-striking. Yes, they are trying to draw the American media's attention to the prison and its conditions, but isn't that what you do? If you are abused and disenfranchised, you find a way to appeal to a higher power. Let's see this a bit more objectively.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:The fact that they simultaneously committed suicide makes it obvious that they coordinated the action. To do so without a plan ahead of time would have been impossible.
Okay, first of all, it could be coincidence. But I'm not stupid enough to argue that it is.
However, suicide pacts among friends are not uncommon (among friends who are suicidal, anyway.) When you're planning suicide, sometimes it gives you the courage to do it to know that you're not alone (or so I've heard.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk: Suicide bombers.
That's warfare.
But this is not that, is it?
What if they were murdered and the suicide bit is just.. Y'know.. Propaganda?
The Saudis already suspect so, since they totally distrust the United States to a ridiculous degree.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
quote:Ann Coulter IS a hysterical madwoman. Who the hell has the audacity to criticize women who have lost their husbands in 9/11? How is that intelligent?
That is exactly her point, the Left keeps putting up poster children that nobody dares argue with because they are "suffering" so their agenda gets swallowed with the sympathy they generate.
As for Gitmo being a banner against due process, well since when did we guarantee due process to foreign fighters? Seems a waste of time, soldiers do not collect much evidence, we have no CSI we do not 'Read them their rights' we do not do anything like that. If we do not kill someone it is because they chose not to fight when they were caught red handed or we shot them and they lived.
Like any war, I suppose they will be processed after they are no longer a potential threat. In the meantime they are not killing my friends.
BC
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Any points Anne Coulter ever makes are tainted simply by her speaking at the time they're made.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
The poor Left... Suffering for us while the rest of us lack the understanding and the time to think for ourselves at their level.
If only I could take the time to feel others pain like those in Hollywood. If only I could understand that the rest of the world deserves to take what my forefathers gave to me because they were wrong to get it in the first place.
It is so sad to have a society that so weakens the enlightened few that they cannot rule us all for our own good.
BC
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Do you just agree with her because she's on your side? If someone from the so-called left spouted the sort of crap Ann Coulter spouts out about WIDOWS who lost their husbands and are crushed and devastated, you'd be up in arms. I'm tired of this left-right nonsense. I'm tired of both sides not seeing the whole picture. It's just so damn idiotic. It doesn't help a damn thing either.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
BC, just to use the 9/11 widows point -- hardly the only point on which I can criticize Coulter -- it's worth noting that she's alleged that they don't even mourn their husbands. Do you believe that such a claim is accurate, or that she'd have any way to obtain information to that effect?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Actually she also said that they were in fact "enjoying" their husbands deaths. She said something to the effect of 'I've never seen someone enjoy the death of their husbands so much.'
BC -
Come off it. Even if the left was purposely using suffering widows as pawns in their political game (which I wouldn't put past them, but no one can prove anything), does that negate the point these women are trying to make? They aren't stupid. If they didn't want the message they're spouting to be heard, they wouldn't say it. So far as I'm concerned, they are using whoever gives them a mic just as much as the mic giver is using them. Does that justify Coulter's personal attacks? She isn't attacking the message, she's going right for the messenger.
And what's with this continual usage of "Hollywood" as if that city is somehow representative of the nation's liberals? Just because ultra right wing Coulter-like conservatives like to bash Hollywood liberals doesn't mean they alone are icons of the nation's left leaners. I don't know, nor do I care, about the political policies of anyone in Hollywood. Where are conservatives like Coulter (and BC for that matter) getting the idea that anyone else does? Either they have a magic Zogby poll that no one else has seen, or they are just plain making it up. But I credit them with doing it even so, good job. It doesn't seem to matter what the facts are behind what they say, they package it so well the nation always seems to buy it at face value. Bean Counter is proof enough of that.
I'm sick grouping, and the lying, the vengeful hate filled personal attacks like those that Coulter is making. If she cared that much about America, I'd think she'd have her ass on the phone calling her Senators and her Congressmen and asking them why they can't balance the friggin budget, why they can't come up with energy legislation that works, why they can't simplify the tax code, why they can't seem to control pork barrel spending at a time when our national debt is at an all time high, why the world at large seems to have forsaken friendship with our country, why millions of Americans have no health care coverage, why millions of Americans can't afford post-secondary education, why millions of American students are failing, dropping out of, or graduating below par with other industrialized nations in school.
All of that, and she bitches about friggin 9/11 widows protesting? Where the hell are her priorities?
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
The question is what are the rest of media's priorities? Polls of all 911 widows show that like the rest of the country they support the war on terror and break down pretty normally politically, Anne just acts as the 'pit bull' that is willing to attack the four that happen to be loud mouth Left Wingers as being loud mouth left wingers instead of 'speaking for all the widow's of 911'.
Further this group is not the only case of the Left pulling out the sympathy card. Remember brave Christopher Reeve who would walk again if only we got rid of Bush? Remember Cindy Sheehan? Using the death of her son to push her lifelong political agenda?
Coulter is calling for the stripping of personal sympathy from the issues, like most conservatives she is a fiscal conservative who is not in favor of big government spending except on the National Defense issue.
Her priorities are where they have always been, but the ridiculousness of the Left's tactic needs challenging and that is what she is courageous enough to do.
As for referring to the whole thing a Hollywood Left, it is I think pretty much to point out that the people there live in a fantasy world that does not connect to the rest.
Do the people in other countries, billions of them, sit around worried that the cannot find other nations that they can call friends? I think they sit around worried that their neighbors may be enemies, it is a far more realistic position.
BC
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Anne just acts as the 'pit bull' that is willing to attack the four that happen to be loud mouth Left Wingers...
Yes. Because Lord knows we need a pit bull to attack outspoken widows.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Pretty much the standard reaction, and the one the Left hopes for so congratulations on being the target audience, their opinion carries no more weight nor is it more sacred because their husbands are dead.
BC
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Where in the hell did you ever hear me say I hate my country? I love my country more then I love my life, and I really love my life.
I think you suffer from illiteracy at the worst, or maybe ignorance at best.
The lack of a State run media is great so long as it does not mean that some other interest runs it instead. It is no better to have a 'Girl Scout' run media then a State run one. The current issue is the fact that the media does have an agenda and bias that is drawn from the Left. Essential a 'State run Media' for an out of power minority.
quote:their opinion carries no more weight nor is it more sacred because their husbands are dead
No, true. But I submit that the widows' relationships with and feelings towards their dead husbands ARE more "sacred" as a consequence of their husbands' deaths.
Coulter does not attack their OPINIONS. She is attacking THEM. She doesn't say "we shouldn't care what they have to say because they're uninformed;" she says "we shouldn't care what they have to say because they're glad their husbands are dead."
The latter IS in fact beyond the pale. And I actually lose a bit of respect for you, BC, knowing that you'd defend that approach.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: That'd be an intriguing military strategy: "Suicide Squad, advance!"
So a suicide bombing is not a military strategy? The Japanese did not use human wave attacks? I think the Suicide Squad, advance military strategy has been used many many many times.
This week alone I have seen CNN talk about how killing Zaquawii changes nothing, how Ann Coulter is a hysterical madwoman and how Fox News has a vendetta against the UN, and this is all without the suicides. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Um....Aren't all three of these things basically true?
Not unless your specific opinion counts as truth, which it does not.
quote: BC, just to use the 9/11 widows point -- hardly the only point on which I can criticize Coulter -- it's worth noting that she's alleged that they don't even mourn their husbands. Do you believe that such a claim is accurate, or that she'd have any way to obtain information to that effect?
Freedom of speech for everyone who agrees with your point of view but not for those who want to express their own opinion?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So a suicide bombing is not a military strategy?
I'm not sure how we got from killing yourself in your cell as a military strategy to blowing yourself up along with several others as a military strategy. I believe these are qualitatively different.
quote:Not unless your specific opinion counts as truth, which it does not.
1) Killing Zarqawi changes basically nothing. It's a start, but the organization will not fall apart without him. It's a PR victory, but not anything too major.
2) Ann Coulter is beyond doubt hysterical. Whether she's actually mad is possibly up for debate.
3) Fox News DOES appear to have a strong editorial slant against the U.N. Do you dispute this?
quote:Freedom of speech for everyone who agrees with your point of view but not for those who want to express their own opinion?
I'm fairly sure that no one here has said that Coulter can't legally say something reprehensible. Just that she's a loathsome person for saying it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Thinking Coulter is cruel and wrong is saying she shouldn't have a right to say it? Who knew!
*makes note that from now on he's not allowed to disagree with anybody because that would be infringing his or her freedom of speech*
C'mon, DK, you're descending to absurdism.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I love Ann Coulter as little as the next guy, but back here in the land of "On Topic" I was wondering what people think about the suicides (I know, I know, discussions that can't digress aren't worth having).
I personally think the administration's characterization is accurate, that these were terrorists looking to turn public opinion against using what has so far been a successful resource (operationally speaking).
I think the reason I believe this is that I assume most of the people imprisioned at Guantanamo actually are trained combatants, rather than innocents who have been swept up in a too-broadly applied net. I wonder if people who believe the suicides weren't political assume the opposite (that the suicide-commiters were not enemy combatants, but innocents who just couldn't take the interminable waiting).
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I think the reason I believe this is that I assume most of the people imprisioned at Guantanamo actually are trained combatants, rather than innocents who have been swept up in a too-broadly applied net. I wonder if people who believe the suicides weren't political assume the opposite (that the suicide-commiters were not enemy combatants, but innocents who just couldn't take the interminable waiting).
I'm not sure why everything is so black and white in some people's eyes.
So say they were "trained combatants". Under most circumstances, they would then be considered prisoners of war. When the war ended, they would be returned home and could reunite with their families, friends, and lives.
But since these men were night fighting as representitives of a recognized nation-state, they are not prisoners of war. And because they were fighting in a war which by its very definition cannot ever end (the "War on Terror"), they will never be returned home. Ever.
They get to look forward to spending the rest of their lives in a prison, without ever even having a trial.
If I were in their shoes, suicide might look awfully tempting, especially if I thought it could hurt my those who have imprisoned me.
So I think that it was both of these reasons. Despair with no hope of ever having any sort of happiness, and an opportunity to make a political attack. I don't see how its either/or.
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
I think, if the Bush administration knew what to do to make this war, they would
1. Do not try to spin it. Show it as it is and why it is really happening. Lets see those blown up babies you get on Aztlan and Aljazeeira daily. See how long support for the war takes you there.
2. Put 24-7 cameras in ALL the cells on Gitmo and other holding facilities to demonstrate to the world, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the USA is acting in a manner beffiting the 'moral' leaders of the world.
A war, as far as I know, is an expansion of a political/economic interest through violence. Well, politics and economics will not be served best by violence in the age of videotape and instant internet access because minds are much easier to sway to your point of view if you are not pointing a gun at someone.
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
I think, if the Bush administration knew what to do to make this war, they would
1. Do not try to spin it. Show it as it is and why it is really happening. Lets see those blown up babies you get on Aztlan and Aljazeeira daily. See how long support for the war takes you there.
2. Put 24-7 cameras in ALL the cells on Gitmo and other holding facilities to demonstrate to the world, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the USA is acting in a manner beffiting the 'moral' leaders of the world.
A war, as far as I know, is an expansion of a political/economic interest through violence. Well, politics and economics will not be served best by violence in the age of videotape and instant internet access because minds are much easier to sway to your point of view if you are not pointing a gun at someone.
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
I think, if the Bush administration knew what to do to make this war, they would
1. Do not try to spin it. Show it as it is and why it is really happening. Lets see those blown up babies you get on Aztlan and Aljazeeira daily. See how long support for the war takes you there.
2. Put 24-7 cameras in ALL the cells on Gitmo and other holding facilities to demonstrate to the world, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the USA is acting in a manner beffiting the 'moral' leaders of the world.
A war, as far as I know, is an expansion of a political/economic interest through violence. Well, politics and economics will not be served best by violence in the age of videotape and instant internet access because minds are much easier to sway to your point of view if you are not pointing a gun at someone.
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
I think, if the Bush administration knew what to do to make this war, they would
1. Do not try to spin it. Show it as it is and why it is really happening. Lets see those blown up babies you get on Aztlan and Aljazeeira daily. See how long support for the war takes you there.
2. Put 24-7 cameras in ALL the cells on Gitmo and other holding facilities to demonstrate to the world, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the USA is acting in a manner beffiting the 'moral' leaders of the world.
A war, as far as I know, is an expansion of a political/economic interest through violence. Well, politics and economics will not be served best by violence in the age of videotape and instant internet access because minds are much easier to sway to your point of view if you are not pointing a gun at someone.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:politics and economics will not be served best by violence in the age of videotape and instant internet access because minds are much easier to sway to your point of view if you are not pointing a gun at someone.
I disagree. I think the terrorists have shown themselves uniquely capable of winning political and economic battles through the use of video-taped violence spread across instant global media.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Many of those imprisoned in Guantanamo have never been charged with anything. It serves as an off-shore holding facility beyond the rule of law. Committing suicide isn't "asymetric warfare"; it may be the only way for someone so imprisoned to be heard.
As far as Coulter goes, funny thing: being the subject of tragedy does not deny one the right to a political voice, especially with regard to seeking policies that one sees as possibly preventing further such tragedies from occurring.
No one argues that making such statements should protect one from criticism or analysis of the statement. Attacking the messenger on a personal level, however, falls to people like Coulter. Having made herself prominent by shilling for the right on issues surrounding 9/11, to personally attack those who have directly suffered from the event for *gasp* using it for political purposes is more than indecent. It's sheerest hypocrisy.
It continues to amaze me that with significant control of all three branches of government, some conservatives continue to show the chutzpah to suggest that *they* are the downtrodden, voiceless oppressed.
[ June 12, 2006, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: Sterling ]
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk: I think, if the Bush administration knew what to do to make this war, they would
1. Do not try to spin it. Show it as it is and why it is really happening. Lets see those blown up babies you get on Aztlan and Aljazeeira daily. See how long support for the war takes you there.
2. Put 24-7 cameras in ALL the cells on Gitmo and other holding facilities to demonstrate to the world, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the USA is acting in a manner beffiting the 'moral' leaders of the world.
1) I suspect the majority of those babies were blown up by terrorists targeting their own people. And honestly, I hope you're not holding up Al-Jazzera as a beacon of journalistic integrity that does not spin the news. 2) Then there would be an outcry on the lack of privacy. If someone is determined to find fault, fault will be found Robin. Although personally I wouldn't mind your suggestion at all.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Committing suicide isn't "asymetric warfare"; it may be the only way for someone so imprisoned to be heard.
Committing suicide is a classic form of asymetric warfare. It can have an effect dramatically disporotinate to the resources consumed, thus making it attractive to combatants who are disadvantaged with regards to traditional military capabilities. Whether the Guantanamo suicides were an act of asymmetric warfare is debatable, but suicide itself is a textbook method of waging asymmetric war.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Committing suicide isn't "asymetric warfare"; it may be the only way for someone so imprisoned to be heard.
Committing suicide is a classic form of asymetric warfare. It can have an effect dramatically disporotinate to the resources consumed, thus making it attractive to combatants who are disadvantaged with regards to traditional military capabilities. Whether the Guantanamo suicides were an act of asymmetric warfare is debatable, but suicide itself is a textbook method of waging asymmetric war.
You'll forgive me for suggesting that definition seems to come from the same playbook under which "civilian casualties" become "collateral damage."
Sure, you can define virtually anything as an aggressive act. But one needs to be careful to draw the line between honest and useful evaluations of potential impacts on an ongoing military campaign and PR-speak that may serve largely to allow acts of despair to be described as outward-directed violence.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That's not exactly accurate, Senoj, Destructive suicide, ala suicide bombing or kamakazi attacks, is an acknowledged part of asymmetric war. Non-destructive suicide, such as was done here, could at best be considered a form of protest/propoganda.
You want to call it part of war, I guess you could make a case for it, but you need to drastically redefine what you mean by war then. Unless you do a remarkably good job of it, you're running a big risk of sounding pretty stupid, which, to many people, is what happened here.
I think it's likely that these suicides were aimed at achieving an objective rather than just acts of desperation, but I think it's really reaching (and obviously so, which is the really damaging part) to equate this with an act of war.
[ June 12, 2006, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:I think it's really reaching (and obviously so, which is the really damaging part) to equate this with an act of war.
I don't see why. The detention facility is inhibiting the terrorists ability to carry out their military operations. They want it shut down. They know there's a lot of international pressure to shut it down. They take advantage of that through a suicide mission, thereby achieving a military objective through untraditional methods. To me, that scenario (again, it's all conjecture, I'm not saying it's fact, merely plausible) is an act of war. Terming these "non-destructive" suicides underestimates the destructive capabilities of Psy-ops in modern warfare, IMO.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Also, just to clarify that I apply these definitions to both sides of the conflict, I would say that the US announcement that the tips that led to Zarqawi's death came from the inner-circle of al-Qaeda in Iraq was also an act of war. It's not destructive in the sense of blowing things up, inflicting material damage, etc., but it is significantly inhibitory to the enemy's ability to wage an effective war.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
UPDATE:
United States now backing away from previous statements.
IN MY OPINION: Obviously the only intelligent move, considering that the rationale presented to explain the suicides as being 'acts of war' actually, when analyzed, describe acts of protest.
In a 'ghoulish' manner of spin, no less.
..
I like how all the freed former inmates of Guantanamo, upon hearing that people had killed themselves, were just saying "well, yeah, big surprise there."
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
As far as the comment about it being an act of war, there has been no retraction. The only retraction was of a statement that it had been a good PR move by the suicidees.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's certainly too soon to tell if the suicides were an 'act of war' or an outlet of misery and suffering.
However, I think we can all safely agree that people who have ambitions such as killing themselves while murdering enemies to ascend to Paradise do not necessarily have the same views and rationales about suicide as we do.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I have the following questions I would like to see answered by the US military about this event before I decide what these acts were:
1) What were the men being held for precisely? Inmates as G-mo are reportedly a mixed bag of taxi drivers on up to stone-cold killers. What category of detainee were these guys?
2) What evidence was there against them?
3) Had they been given any opportunity to plead their cases in the military tribunals? If not, why not? If yes, what happened at the trial?
4) What exactly is the nature of the confinement at Guantanamo? These men are described as being held in the highest security section of the prison, and had taken part in several prior protest actions (starvations, suicide attempts). How is it that they were able to communicate with each other in order to coordinate their suicides?
5) If someone is on suicide watch (as these men were, or rather should have been given the reported past attempts), what precautions are taken with respect to bed sheets and other items that could be converted to a noose?
6) Who else was in their group and what changes have been made to ensure that they aren't also planning to kill themselves?
Here's a question I have for the American people:
If despair is enough to drive ordinary people in the US to commit suicide, and the rate of suicide attempts at Guantanamo is at least an order of magnitude higher than the highest rate sub-populations in the US, is there really "absolution" for us if prisoners in our custody are doing this? Can we be sure that conditions are adequate at this facility that despair over their plight as our prisoners was not a major contributing factor to this event?
Can we so easily dismiss their deaths as the acts of people who aren't like us, who are "committed" and who don't care about life?
Let's at least find out who they were and why we were holding them before we just say "oh, yeah, these were sick individuals who cared more about their radical cause than they did about life..."
Let's not just take the convenient and conscience-soothing assumption here. Let's at least ask some questions and find out what the truth of these men's lives and deaths was.
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:politics and economics will not be served best by violence in the age of videotape and instant internet access because minds are much easier to sway to your point of view if you are not pointing a gun at someone.
I disagree. I think the terrorists have shown themselves uniquely capable of winning political and economic battles through the use of video-taped violence spread across instant global media.
Certainly you do not mean that. Remember that what you want is to win peole's hearts over. Have the terrorists won your hearts through wanton murder? No. Has our government done so? No.
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
suicide protest thogh.. is innovative, and certainly it has honor
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I don't see why. The detention facility is inhibiting the terrorists ability to carry out their military operations. They want it shut down. They know there's a lot of international pressure to shut it down. They take advantage of that through a suicide mission, thereby achieving a military objective through untraditional methods. To me, that scenario (again, it's all conjecture, I'm not saying it's fact, merely plausible) is an act of war.
No, it's not. It's an act of protest/propoganda. There was no "mission" here. There may (or may not) have been a plan for people to coordinate their actions.
Because an action has an effect that a group of people that is fighting a war would like, doesn't mean that it's an act of war. Or, would a hunge-strkie be an act of war? How about if these people wre in contact with their lawyers and through this contact hindered the functioning of the camp?
War (and acts thereof) has a specific definition for very good purposes. You've turned it into something that "consulting a lawyer" fits. I just don't think that's tenable.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Robin, I think you shoot way past your target with much of what you've said here.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I just read that one of the three was due to be released...just as soon as we figured out which country to send him to.
The other two had al-Qaeda links and at least one of those two was believed to have participated in hundreds of killings.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
I figured these where hard bitten terrorists, as the news shows, one was even one of the ten formally indited. It is rare to find actual courage in these terrorist.
Once resolved to follow through with a headline grabbing death they had the determination to do it, It could be that there where others who where supposed to participate in the action and they failed in courage. I wonder if they could meet each others eyes in the food line the next day. I wonder if they called each other cowards or if the called the hanging men fools...
BC
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Hmm...so your conclusion is that the guy who was due to be released was a hard-bitten terrorist?
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
I saw nothing speaking of release, only that one was indicted, and the rest were pretty well documented bad guys.
BC
[ June 13, 2006, 02:58 AM: Message edited by: Bean Counter ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I figured these where hard bitten terrorists, as the news shows, one was even one of the ten formally indited. It is rare to find actual courage in these terrorist.
I'm assuming you don't count sacrificing one's life to kill a bunch of people in a war one believes in as being courageous? Cause I know some of the terrorists have done that.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bean Counter: The question is what are the rest of media's priorities? Polls of all 911 widows show that like the rest of the country they support the war on terror and break down pretty normally politically, Anne just acts as the 'pit bull' that is willing to attack the four that happen to be loud mouth Left Wingers as being loud mouth left wingers instead of 'speaking for all the widow's of 911'.
Further this group is not the only case of the Left pulling out the sympathy card. Remember brave Christopher Reeve who would walk again if only we got rid of Bush? Remember Cindy Sheehan? Using the death of her son to push her lifelong political agenda?
Coulter is calling for the stripping of personal sympathy from the issues, like most conservatives she is a fiscal conservative who is not in favor of big government spending except on the National Defense issue.
Her priorities are where they have always been, but the ridiculousness of the Left's tactic needs challenging and that is what she is courageous enough to do.
As for referring to the whole thing a Hollywood Left, it is I think pretty much to point out that the people there live in a fantasy world that does not connect to the rest.
Do the people in other countries, billions of them, sit around worried that the cannot find other nations that they can call friends? I think they sit around worried that their neighbors may be enemies, it is a far more realistic position.
BC
Bullshit. She's part of the media. You really think that the rest of the country cares enough about what four widows of 9/11 victims have to say to REALLY change their opinion? I mean seriously. We all feel sympathy for them, we all want to help them, but do we really care about their politics? I don't think a majority, or even a large minority of the people do. What we DO care about, is fixing domestic issues, which those women, and Sheehan, haven't even talked about.
Speaking of domestic issues. You say that Coulter is a fiscal conservative? Then where the hell is her ire at out of control Republican spending? Democrats have been trying a lot harder than most Republicans to halt out of control spending, and Bush has refused to veto a single bill at all, let alone a spending bill. Yet what do we see from Coulter? She still attacks the Democrats on spending, instead of god forbid, going after the faults of her own party.
You say the "left's tactics" as if Sheehan and the 9/11 widows are the mainstream liberals. They aren't. And neither is Hollywood. The fact that you think that just means you're buying into Coulter's crap.
And no, I'm not convinced that the rest of the world is more worried about enemies than friends. FRIENDS help you AGAINST enemies. And now we have a lot less of that help out there in the world. Friends have your back when you need to gather world support against, say, Iran, or other enemies you might have a problem with. Friends get together to help you deal with China. We're the ones who are forcing Europe to NOT sell China advanced weapons. How long does that last without friends? How long before they start selling JSF fighters to China without friendship with the US? You're drastically underestimating the power of friendship in international politics. It's a very simplistic, militaristic, close minded view you have.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Friends that re armed Iraq behind our back? Friends that undercut us within the UN for a piece of Oil for Food money? Friends that sat on their hands and cried foul when we went in without them and discovered their deception?
Europe is a hell of a lot closer to China then we are, I think it is in their best interest to keep China off the cutting edge of the weapons industry.
My view is simple because it is refined, we are the hope of humanity, we are the good guys, if you want to be on the side of the angels jump on the bandwagon, but do not get in the way because we ain't stopping for you...
If you do not get it, well cry cry cry, We hold the keys to the kingdom in the material sense, with our active efforts mankind may leap over extinction into infinite possibility, without us, mankind is not going to make it any higher then we are now, instead there will be a slide into ruin, a delay that could be disastrous because many an event outside of mans scope of control can reset the game to LV 1.
BC
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:As for referring to the whole thing a Hollywood Left, it is I think pretty much to point out that the people there live in a fantasy world that does not connect to the rest.
Um... Ever been to Hollywood?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Sounds like they were right to sit on their hands, considering the presentation we gave them at the UN was a pack of lies. Who is the worse offender? The friend who lies, or the friend who doesn't believe the lies? They were well within their rights to not support us. Friendship isn't a suicide pact, and considering there was zero imminant danger from Iraq, I think their hesitance was justified, and our urgency was incredibly odd. Iraq has killed more Americans, and become far more dangerous a place to the world since we invaded it, than it ever was beforehand.
I don't see how you really think China would ever invade Europe. Beyond the technical difficulties, the military gap between them, and geographic issues, France's and the UK's nukes would put a damper on their plans. When was the last time you saw a nuclear power invade another nuclear power? Besides, who is China's closest neighbor with tons of unused space and tons of untapped natural resources? Russia. And Russia has been responsible for China's massive buildup in arms for the last decade or more. So your logic doesn't really hold up. At least not in the real world. Europe will begin to sell them weapons when the word of America stops meaning anything to them, and everytime we piss them off, we get closer to that point. We already call the French traitors, what's to stop them from selling China weapons? They might as well get value from our name calling.
As for your last point. Wow, I don't know what to say. That's an extreme case of Ameri-centrism (or whatever the technical term is for thinking America is THAT integral to mankind's future). We aren't the be all end all of the world. We've done a ton of good in the past, but who are you kidding? Europe and East Asia are starting to (and in many cases already have) outpace us in manufacturing, science, research and development, military power and in China's case, GDP. We aren't going to be the big kid on the block for much longer, and living in the past, as it appears you are doing, is going to seriously stunt our future growth, and our position in the world. It's been a decade or two since America was the leader of anything resembling a real coalition. We don't really do the whole teamwork thing, we do things OUR way, or tell them to hit the highway.
Thing is, if they all hit the highway, where does that leave us? You know in the next twenty years, pollution from Chinese coal mines is going to start having a noticeable, and serious effect on the health of Americans living on the west coast. It's already effecting South Korea and Japan, and the two of them are attempting to sway China to curb it's pollution. What are we going to do if we have no pull with China? or anyone else in the world for that matter? Invade? Bully them? Kinda hard to tell a nuclear power with a multi million man army, with (what will be by then) the largest economy in the world what to do. We used to play that card didn't we?
Face the facts BC, you're America doesn't exist. Or at least, the leaders you imagine to be leading America to that kind of world aren't in power.
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
A most interesting discussion.
Do go on.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: I'm not sure how we got from killing yourself in your cell as a military strategy to blowing yourself up along with several others as a military strategy. I believe these are qualitatively different.
I don't believe that they are. I believe that the enemy combatants, either the suicide bomber or committing suicide in their cell, know full well that their deaths will have an impact on thier enemy. The enemy combatants know full well how killing themselves while in our custoday will cause many media pundits to react. They do know how the press will cover these events.
quote: 1) Killing Zarqawi changes basically nothing. It's a start, but the organization will not fall apart without him. It's a PR victory, but not anything too major.
I would think that a start to the end of foreign terrorists in Iraq is much better than "basically nothing". When you take out probably the top strategist in Iraq I think you have a lot more differences than "basically nothing".
quote: 2) Ann Coulter is beyond doubt hysterical. Whether she's actually mad is possibly up for debate
Hysterical? No. Opinionated, passionate and very blunt to the point of being very rude about it? Yes. She's no more hysterical than Al Gore is.
quote: 3) Fox News DOES appear to have a strong editorial slant against the U.N. Do you dispute this?
Fox news shows have brought forth many many crimes that the UN has committed, has shown corruption at every level, and hypocrisy on an enormous scale. So if CNN runs their anti-Bush editorial slant 24/7 that is just speaking truth to power and not a strong editorial slant against Bush? Can you show that Fox is wrong about the UN? The UN is not corrupt? The UN troops have not raped and killed? There was no Oil for Food scandal?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:My view is simple because it is refined, we are the hope of humanity, we are the good guys...
Someday, BC, I hope you'll be right about this.
--------
quote:I believe that the enemy combatants, either the suicide bomber or committing suicide in their cell, know full well that their deaths will have an impact on thier enemy.
Are we defining an act of war, then, as anything that has an impact? Would the publication of an article critical of the war effort be "an act of war," for example?
quote:Hysterical? No. Opinionated, passionate and very blunt to the point of being very rude about it?
Ah. You perhaps believe that when she's calling for planes to destroy the Times building, she's speaking out of calculated logic? I'd like to give her a little more credit than that.
quote:Can you show that Fox is wrong about the UN?
That's not the question, is it? The question isn't "should Fox News have a strong editorial slant against the U.N." The question is "does Fox News have a strong editorial slant against the U.N." And I think it's pretty clear that it does; you concede as much, although you believe this slant is justified.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: No, it's not. It's an act of protest/propoganda. There was no "mission" here. There may (or may not) have been a plan for people to coordinate their actions.
Because an action has an effect that a group of people that is fighting a war would like, doesn't mean that it's an act of war. Or, would a hunge-strkie be an act of war? How about if these people wre in contact with their lawyers and through this contact hindered the functioning of the camp?
War (and acts thereof) has a specific definition for very good purposes. You've turned it into something that "consulting a lawyer" fits. I just don't think that's tenable.
I agree, that wouldn't be tenable. I'm still trying to work out what I see as the distinction, but I certainly believe there is one. To answer your hypotheticals: a hunger strike would not be an act of war, unless it was made to look like forced starvation in which case it would. Hinderment through contact with lawyers would not be an act of war (nor an act of protest).
My presumption (and I'll caveat again that it I'm perfectly willing to change my mind given evidence to the contrary) is that the intent of this act was to dishonestly (as with the hunger-strike/forced starvation, I think a key difference is the distinction between actual conditions and perceived conditions) discredit the military in the eyes of the US community and thereby deny the US the use of a military resource. I consider that an act of war because my presumption is that these were militant enemies, acting as agents of an enemy militia to accomplish a military goal.
I would agree that if they were simply depressed individuals who saw no way out and were attempting to bring to light the horrible conditions in which they lived (a presumption that I don't currently accept, but will certainly consider given more information), then I would consider it an act of protest. And, back to Xavier's point from page 1, perhaps there were elements of both.
BTW, Bob, I appreciated your post. I agree with all the questions you asked. I agree that greater transparency would help me feel better about the conditions there, either because I would know to call for change or because I would be assured that conditions weren't inhumane. As it is, I'm forced to work off of assumptions and presumptions that aren't necessarily grounded in a substantiable reality.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
I love Ann Coulter. I get most of my political analysis from the National Review, whose writers are ususally more reserved and less satirical than Coulter, but her biting political wit make her a great read every week. Love when she goes on one of her rants against Kennedy, murderer of Mary Jo Kopechne and elder statesman of the Democrat Party. She may say some things that sound outrageous, especially to those on the left, but frankly, I hear more outrageous things on a weekly basis from the luminaries of the left like Howard Dean and Babs Striesand, for example, although the later has been, thankfully, quite of late.
An earlier poster criticised her for being soft on the Bush administration and the current spending practices of the the Republican Congress. Well, such criticism only highlight the poster's lack of familiarity with Ann's writtings. I can't think of another conservative writer that has been more critical of this administration and the Repuplicans in Congress (and their spending) than Coulter.
Don't judge her on just this one comment that has gotten so much attention. Read one her books (I recommend Treason and How to Talk to a Liberal, the later is a collection of her columns). Those of you who've formed a negative opinion of Coulter should read her writings, and if you are open minded and willing to hear an opinion that differs from your own, you may learn a thing or two.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I love Ann Coulter. I get most of my political analysis from the National Review
It's possible to stop reading here and safely extrapolate the rest of your post, you realize.
quote:I hear more outrageous things on a weekly basis from the luminaries of the left like Howard Dean and Babs Striesand
Seriously? Tell you what: you pick the most outrageous quotes from either of these two "luminaries," and I'll match you quote for quote with Coulter.
quote:I can't think of another conservative writer that has been more critical of this administration and the Repuplicans in Congress (and their spending) than Coulter.
Seriously? But you read the National Review. I mean, c'mon, what about George Will? Bruce Bartlett? Even Bernard Goldberg's been a little hostile lately.
quote:Don't judge her on just this one comment that has gotten so much attention. Read one her books...
Yes, please do. They're genuinely enlightening, and give all SORTS of reasons to loathe and despise her. And deeply distrust the people who don't. Seriously, they're that divisive. I'd be happy to provide links to some choice quotes from Treason, if you think that'll encourage people to find her books less pathetic than her articles.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:She may say some things that sound outrageous, especially to those on the left, but frankly, I hear more outrageous things on a weekly basis from the luminaries of the left like Howard Dean and Babs Striesand, for example, although the later has been, thankfully, quite of late.
I see little point in debating Ann Coulter, in that if this weren't a site where only the very small, isolated fringe accepted her, I wouldn't belong here, but I'd like to point out for what is probably around the 134th time that the idea that it's okay or even admirable that someone does something wrong because other people have done things that are wrong is not something we'd accept from a 10 year old. As such, it has no place in a debate among people purporting to be adults.
[ June 13, 2006, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
What makes us unique is not just our economic influence and power, but the fact that we are geographically and militarily in a position with breathing room.
Europe has Russia and the Middle East on its doorstep. China and India will always overwhelm the East, Japan must depend on us to protect her.
There is no other place with the room and head start to begin the climb out of the gravity well. Before anyone else makes it to the window, which I see as being between sixty and one hundred years from now, they will be dragged back by economic, religious and political forces.
Europe and even Israel will have Muslim majorities to contend with, China will be caught in the crossfire of too many people treated too badly. Russia is still struggling with its identity making all the same mistakes and Africa seethes with genocide.
We cannot go about doing the things that must be done with buildings falling down around us and our people in danger for their lives. That is why we fight, why those willing to carry the fight to the terrorist are forward in Iraq and Afghanistan, so that the business of making a future for humanity can continue back here in the States.
BC
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
BC: Roll a d20.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Are we defining an act of war, then, as anything that has an impact? Would the publication of an article critical of the war effort be "an act of war," for example?
Totally irrelevant question. No one is defining anything here as "an act of war". Well, no one but you. You are attempting to equate taking your own life with writing an article critical of the war. Death is vastly different than printed words.
quote: Ah. You perhaps believe that when she's calling for planes to destroy the Times building, she's speaking out of calculated logic? I'd like to give her a little more credit than that.
Did I say that she was speaking out of calculated logic? Please show me the post where I said that. Perhaps your belief that she is hysterical is clouding your judgement? Do you believe that she is literally calling for planes to destroy the Times?
quote: That's not the question, is it? The question isn't "should Fox News have a strong editorial slant against the U.N." The question is "does Fox News have a strong editorial slant against the U.N." And I think it's pretty clear that it does; you concede as much, although you believe this slant is justified.
Nothing you said is the actual question. You are just attempting to be clever by slanting your question to obtain a desired response and change the discussion. I concede that Fox is reporting the crimes, abuse, and ineptitude of the UN and nothing more. Is reporting on events happening in the UN slanting the news? If so, then you are also saying that CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, NPR and on and on are all a bunch of left wing partisan hacks for the Democratic party. You cannot have it both ways.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk: BC: Roll a d20.
Remember he gets a saving throw too, you should also factor in his charisma score.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Totally irrelevant question. No one is defining anything here as "an act of war".
Um. Perhaps you didn't read the very first post on this thread...?
quote:Did I say that she was speaking out of calculated logic? Please show me the post where I said that. Perhaps your belief that she is hysterical is clouding your judgement? Do you believe that she is literally calling for planes to destroy the Times?
No, sorry. I went to the other extreme, and assumed that because you didn't think she was hysterical that she was in fact logical and well-informed. I concede the possibility that you believe her to be only a marginally competent thinker.
And while I don't think she's literally calling for planes to destroy the Times, I believe it is both hysterical and reprehensible of her to openly wish for such destruction -- whether or not she means it. In fact, if she doesn't mean it, using that sort of rhetoric is hypocritically inflammatory; if she does, hiding behind the possibility that she doesn't is cowardly.
quote:Nothing you said is the actual question.
Yes, it is. I refer you to Bean Counter's exact quote -- which I helpfully quoted it in my initial reply, in fact -- that references the possibility of an anti-UN bias at Fox News. The fact that you freely admit to an anti-UN bias at Fox News pretty much ends that conversation, I'd think.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
how the heck did the USA establish a military prison smack dab in the middle of Castro's Cuba?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
The base has been there long before Castro. He can't exactly try and take it from us either, as we would then have the excuse our government has been looking for to remove him from power since the day he took command.
quote:I see little point in debating Ann Coulter, in that if this weren't a site where only the very small, isolated fringe accepted her, I wouldn't belong here, but I'd like to point out for what is probably around the 134th time that the idea that it's okay or even admirable that someone does something wrong because other people have done things that are wrong is not something we'd accept from a 10 year old. As such, it has no place in a debate among people purporting to be adults.
And yet, pointing out the inconsistency of the response to person A doing a thing compared to person B doing a thing is something that has a very valid place in debate among adults.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
If such an incosistency exists.
Which remains debatable.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Back to the main subject.
Prisoners A,B, and C committ Suicide.
The Prison keepers say it is an act of War that continues thier lives of commiting acts of War.
Yet the prison keepers refuse to call the prisoners, Prisoners of War. They are at war with us. We are at war with them. They are/were prisoners.
What am I missing?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Clearly, Dan, their suicides were declarations of war. Once it was declared, they became prisoners of war who happened to be dead.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Dan-
Assuming for the moment that it was a deliberate military attack (which may not be your position; I don't know), what would you suggest calling it other than an act of war?
I agree there's an inconsistency, but I also think there's a valid distinction to be made between captured militants who represent a recognized nation (prisoners of war) and those who represent a non-state organization (enemy combatants). The Geneva Convention wasn't written to address the situations of captured non-state actors. Perhaps the same restrictions should apply as to state actors, but I think the point is at least debatable.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Assuming for the moment that it was a deliberate military attack (which may not be your position; I don't know), what would you suggest calling it other than an act of war?
Why not call it a PR campaign? When we drop leaflets over an Iraqi village, is that an "act of war?" Is every broadcast of Radio Free Europe a "military attack?"
Posted by Nikisknight (Member # 8918) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: snip
Yet the prison keepers refuse to call the prisoners, Prisoners of War. They are at war with us. We are at war with them. They are/were prisoners.
What am I missing?
You are missing a lot. Prisoner of War is a legal term, as opposed to people taken captive in war because they are shooting you and you want to interogate them rather than kill them, Being a Prisoner of War gives certain rights, as defined by (iirc) the Geneva Convention. These rights are not given because we admire the courage of those who fight against us. They are given for two reasons 1) reciprocity--see berg, nick. See--well, you know the story. 2) To civilize war. In order to qualify as PoW, combatants must be in uniform, be a part of an army, not attack civilians, and follow other specific guidlines. To give PoW status to those who do not earn it is to take away any incentives for those soldiers to behave in ways other than barbarism. (Which is a pretty good descriptor for beheaded aid workers, shooting school teachers, strapping bombs on children, etc.)
Regarding the three desperate souls who killed themselves at G. Bay--saves us 3 bullets.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
More like a hundred bullets. Not everyone is a sniper, and we don't execute people with pistols.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:To give PoW status to those who do not earn it is to take away any incentives for those soldiers to behave in ways other than barbarism. (Which is a pretty good descriptor for beheaded aid workers, shooting school teachers, strapping bombs on children, etc.)
Are you saying that each of the enemy combatants has personally beheaded aid workers or strapped bombs on children?
In practice, how do you know if a particular prisoner has "earned" POW status?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk: BC: Roll a d20.
Remember he gets a saving throw too, you should also factor in his charisma score.
I am positive it is a -5 modifier here, too. Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
Oooops.
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
How in all the bloody hells are we ever going to 'civilize war'????
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, it's been awhile since I've seen a major first world power conquer an enemy and then rape the women, sell the children into slavery, and kill everyone else.
I'd say we've at least made SOME progress.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)