FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Guantanamo Suicides (Page 2)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Guantanamo Suicides
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bob_Scopatz
Member
Member # 1227

 - posted      Profile for Bob_Scopatz   Email Bob_Scopatz         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robin Kaczmarczyk
Member
Member # 9067

 - posted      Profile for Robin Kaczmarczyk   Email Robin Kaczmarczyk         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 379 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robin Kaczmarczyk
Member
Member # 9067

 - posted      Profile for Robin Kaczmarczyk   Email Robin Kaczmarczyk         Edit/Delete Post 
suicide protest thogh.. is innovative, and certainly it has honor
Posts: 379 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
Robin,
I think you shoot way past your target with much of what you've said here.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bob_Scopatz
Member
Member # 1227

 - posted      Profile for Bob_Scopatz   Email Bob_Scopatz         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bean Counter
Member
Member # 6001

 - posted      Profile for Bean Counter           Edit/Delete Post 
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

Posts: 1249 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bob_Scopatz
Member
Member # 1227

 - posted      Profile for Bob_Scopatz   Email Bob_Scopatz         Edit/Delete Post 
Hmm...so your conclusion is that the guy who was due to be released was a hard-bitten terrorist?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bean Counter
Member
Member # 6001

 - posted      Profile for Bean Counter           Edit/Delete Post 
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 ]

Posts: 1249 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bean Counter
Member
Member # 6001

 - posted      Profile for Bean Counter           Edit/Delete Post 
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

Posts: 1249 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ketchupqueen
Member
Member # 6877

 - posted      Profile for ketchupqueen   Email ketchupqueen         Edit/Delete Post 
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?
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robin Kaczmarczyk
Member
Member # 9067

 - posted      Profile for Robin Kaczmarczyk   Email Robin Kaczmarczyk         Edit/Delete Post 
A most interesting discussion.

Do go on.

Posts: 379 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkKnight
Member
Member # 7536

 - posted      Profile for DarkKnight   Email DarkKnight         Edit/Delete Post 
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?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mig
Member
Member # 9284

 - posted      Profile for Mig   Email Mig         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
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. [Wink]

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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
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 ]

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bean Counter
Member
Member # 6001

 - posted      Profile for Bean Counter           Edit/Delete Post 
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

Posts: 1249 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robin Kaczmarczyk
Member
Member # 9067

 - posted      Profile for Robin Kaczmarczyk   Email Robin Kaczmarczyk         Edit/Delete Post 
BC: Roll a d20.
Posts: 379 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkKnight
Member
Member # 7536

 - posted      Profile for DarkKnight   Email DarkKnight         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
how the heck did the USA establish a military prison smack dab in the middle of Castro's Cuba?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xavier
Member
Member # 405

 - posted      Profile for Xavier   Email Xavier         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base

Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sterling
Member
Member # 8096

 - posted      Profile for Sterling   Email Sterling         Edit/Delete Post 
If such an incosistency exists.

Which remains debatable.

Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_raven
Member
Member # 3383

 - posted      Profile for Dan_raven   Email Dan_raven         Edit/Delete Post 
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?

Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
Clearly, Dan, their suicides were declarations of war. Once it was declared, they became prisoners of war who happened to be dead.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
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?"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Nikisknight
Member
Member # 8918

 - posted      Profile for Nikisknight   Email Nikisknight         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 105 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
More like a hundred bullets. Not everyone is a sniper, and we don't execute people with pistols.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
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?

Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
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. [Wink]
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robin Kaczmarczyk
Member
Member # 9067

 - posted      Profile for Robin Kaczmarczyk   Email Robin Kaczmarczyk         Edit/Delete Post 
Oooops.
Posts: 379 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robin Kaczmarczyk
Member
Member # 9067

 - posted      Profile for Robin Kaczmarczyk   Email Robin Kaczmarczyk         Edit/Delete Post 
How in all the bloody hells are we ever going to 'civilize war'????
Posts: 379 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aspectre
Member
Member # 2222

 - posted      Profile for aspectre           Edit/Delete Post 
bump
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2