This puts Guantanamo in perspective.
March 6, 2002 6:57 AM Subscribe
This puts Guantanamo in perspective. I'm waiting to hear the outcry from Europe and the human rights organizations. Somehow, I doubt I'll hear much.
5
Could it be that the actions of Taliban/Al Quaeda are not controlled by a democratic government? The point of protesting about Guantanamo is that democratic governments can be and should be persuaded to change when they act atrociously. But that's enough feeding...
posted by Gaz at 7:14 AM on March 6, 2002
Could it be that the actions of Taliban/Al Quaeda are not controlled by a democratic government? The point of protesting about Guantanamo is that democratic governments can be and should be persuaded to change when they act atrociously. But that's enough feeding...
posted by Gaz at 7:14 AM on March 6, 2002
I'm totally confused as to how the two are even connected. This says nothing of the fact that just because we are embroiled in conflict with people who behave in reprehensible and shameful ways we can somehow justify shameful behavior ourselves.
All the stories I have read suggest that this battle has generated hundreds of Afgan corpses over the last 24 hours. Somehow, the word massacre does come to mind. There had to have been another way.
posted by shagoth at 7:17 AM on March 6, 2002
All the stories I have read suggest that this battle has generated hundreds of Afgan corpses over the last 24 hours. Somehow, the word massacre does come to mind. There had to have been another way.
posted by shagoth at 7:17 AM on March 6, 2002
"This puts Guantanamo in perspective"
I must be very dense, because it failed to put it into perspective for me.
Here's a new perspective for you. Violence is bad.
posted by Outlawyr at 7:18 AM on March 6, 2002
I must be very dense, because it failed to put it into perspective for me.
Here's a new perspective for you. Violence is bad.
posted by Outlawyr at 7:18 AM on March 6, 2002
"There was an American, for whatever reason, [who] was left behind. And we don't leave Americans behind," said Brig Gen. John Rosa, deputy director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Wow. That gives me a chill.
posted by ColdChef at 7:33 AM on March 6, 2002
Wow. That gives me a chill.
posted by ColdChef at 7:33 AM on March 6, 2002
"Violence is bad". Oh, is it now? Does this judgement extend to the various forms of violence imposed globally, which coincidentally enable you to enjoy a lifestyle that is far beyond the reach of the majority of humanity?
Every penny you have above what is necessary to keep you alive is a penny you might have used to keep someone else from dying. And yet you appear to have access to a computer -- that's at least a couple human beings you could have saved. You chose not to. You chose to use the computer.
So I guess violence is only bad if it doesn't help you personally?
posted by aramaic at 7:36 AM on March 6, 2002
Every penny you have above what is necessary to keep you alive is a penny you might have used to keep someone else from dying. And yet you appear to have access to a computer -- that's at least a couple human beings you could have saved. You chose not to. You chose to use the computer.
So I guess violence is only bad if it doesn't help you personally?
posted by aramaic at 7:36 AM on March 6, 2002
"I don't understand."
"I'm totally confused"
"I must be very dense"
I'm no genius, but it sounds like CRS is simply saying that instead of taking the soldier as an American POW off to an encampment and giving him three meals a day and medical attention, they executed him on the spot. And that no one else in the world is standing up and calling it a "violation of civil rights". It's probably not accurate to compare the two situations, but I don't think CRS's comments are unclear.
posted by Karl at 7:36 AM on March 6, 2002
"I'm totally confused"
"I must be very dense"
I'm no genius, but it sounds like CRS is simply saying that instead of taking the soldier as an American POW off to an encampment and giving him three meals a day and medical attention, they executed him on the spot. And that no one else in the world is standing up and calling it a "violation of civil rights". It's probably not accurate to compare the two situations, but I don't think CRS's comments are unclear.
posted by Karl at 7:36 AM on March 6, 2002
Aramaic: did you use a computer to post your message about saving people by using money to help rather than to buy computers? what's good for the goose is good for the gooser. I gave at the office.
posted by Postroad at 7:42 AM on March 6, 2002
posted by Postroad at 7:42 AM on March 6, 2002
OK, set aside the Guantanamo comparison for a second and take a look at the other point. What if the world learned that a Taliban soldier had fallen out of an armored personnel carrier that was fleeing the scene under heavy U.S. fire. Instead of detaining the solider (which it could have done), the U.S. had dragged him away and summarily executed him. Would you have been outraged? Of course. Would human rights organizations have complained? Of course. I don't think the outrage would only be due to the fact that we were a party to the Geneva convention, nor do I think the Taliban shouldn't be held to the same standards just because they weren't part of the convention.
I'm not agreeing with the implications raised by CRS, but the readiness to label "troll" is getting a bit out of hand.
posted by pardonyou? at 7:45 AM on March 6, 2002
I'm not agreeing with the implications raised by CRS, but the readiness to label "troll" is getting a bit out of hand.
posted by pardonyou? at 7:45 AM on March 6, 2002
Just for the record - there are European soldiers involved in this battle.
posted by RobertLoch at 7:45 AM on March 6, 2002
posted by RobertLoch at 7:45 AM on March 6, 2002
Violence is bad? Please, Outlawyr -- move beyond truisms.
And I would certainly like to hear a forceful condemnation when our soldiers are mistreated. If I did, I just might be tempted to treat the moral high-horsery with a little more respect; as it is, the one-sided nature of such criticism demonstrates that it is politicized and thereby compromised, that laws of war are being abused, stretched, bent, and broken so that they will have the effect of laws against war. This makes them useless in the real world and puts the "laws of war" in serious danger of becoming completely irrelevant -- or don't they realize that?
jonnyp, of course, your statement suggesting that we disrespected the laws of war first (when, in fact, those very same laws contain provisions for treating combatants of non-state actors) shows that you are interested in placing moral judgement on the United States -- yet perfectly willing to ignore the horrendous attack on civilians that started the whole thing. Who, after all, was "FIRST"? Hm? Us, putting people in sunny, balmy Guantanamo with three squares a day -- or them callously murdering 3000 people? If you're going to say somebody started it -- which is a rather specious argument in the first place -- I don't think it's us.
shagoth: far be it from me to criticize your pacifism, but get a frigging clue. These are trained killers who have chosen fighting to the death out of religious conviction, and as was stated yesterday, though they have the option at all times, they are not surrendering. (We are under no obligation to "negotiate" surrender terms with them.) By the way, most of al Qaeda is not, in fact, Afghan and a good number of the Taliban are Pakistani volunteers -- or had you forgotten that?
posted by dhartung at 7:58 AM on March 6, 2002
And I would certainly like to hear a forceful condemnation when our soldiers are mistreated. If I did, I just might be tempted to treat the moral high-horsery with a little more respect; as it is, the one-sided nature of such criticism demonstrates that it is politicized and thereby compromised, that laws of war are being abused, stretched, bent, and broken so that they will have the effect of laws against war. This makes them useless in the real world and puts the "laws of war" in serious danger of becoming completely irrelevant -- or don't they realize that?
jonnyp, of course, your statement suggesting that we disrespected the laws of war first (when, in fact, those very same laws contain provisions for treating combatants of non-state actors) shows that you are interested in placing moral judgement on the United States -- yet perfectly willing to ignore the horrendous attack on civilians that started the whole thing. Who, after all, was "FIRST"? Hm? Us, putting people in sunny, balmy Guantanamo with three squares a day -- or them callously murdering 3000 people? If you're going to say somebody started it -- which is a rather specious argument in the first place -- I don't think it's us.
shagoth: far be it from me to criticize your pacifism, but get a frigging clue. These are trained killers who have chosen fighting to the death out of religious conviction, and as was stated yesterday, though they have the option at all times, they are not surrendering. (We are under no obligation to "negotiate" surrender terms with them.) By the way, most of al Qaeda is not, in fact, Afghan and a good number of the Taliban are Pakistani volunteers -- or had you forgotten that?
posted by dhartung at 7:58 AM on March 6, 2002
pardonyou?: I'm not agreeing with the implications raised by CRS, but the readiness to label "troll" is getting a bit out of hand.
Oh come on, look at the post:
I'm waiting to hear the outcry from Europe and the human rights organizations.
CRS is trying to troll an entire continent! To imply that Europe is on the side of the Taliban is utterly absurd - as RobertLoch points out. The reason that there's no 'outcry' against the Taliban is that we're fighting them instead! Complaints (rather than fighting) are the favoured method of correcting the excesses of allies - how is that unreasonable?
posted by Gaz at 7:59 AM on March 6, 2002
Oh come on, look at the post:
I'm waiting to hear the outcry from Europe and the human rights organizations.
CRS is trying to troll an entire continent! To imply that Europe is on the side of the Taliban is utterly absurd - as RobertLoch points out. The reason that there's no 'outcry' against the Taliban is that we're fighting them instead! Complaints (rather than fighting) are the favoured method of correcting the excesses of allies - how is that unreasonable?
posted by Gaz at 7:59 AM on March 6, 2002
Postroad: yes, I'm using a computer. And you know what? I don't pretend to care that people are dying because of my choice! That's my point.
...there's nothing more irritating than people who sit on their throne of corpses and whinge about the poor starving masses, the poor oppressed workers, and those poor poor unfortunates in the warzone. Hypocrites.
posted by aramaic at 8:03 AM on March 6, 2002
...there's nothing more irritating than people who sit on their throne of corpses and whinge about the poor starving masses, the poor oppressed workers, and those poor poor unfortunates in the warzone. Hypocrites.
posted by aramaic at 8:03 AM on March 6, 2002
Yes, it does put Guantanamo into perspective for me. It reminds me of the importance of making sure that you don't reach into the morality of your enemies in order to defeat them. Hearing about what the al Qaeda fighters did to Mr. Roberts makes it all the more important that Guantanamo prisoners are treated humanely; that the US doesn't move itself any closer to being like al Qaeda.
posted by holycola at 8:04 AM on March 6, 2002
posted by holycola at 8:04 AM on March 6, 2002
I love the way a statement like "violence is bad" can be treated as somehow astonishing or controversal. aramaic and dhartung seem upset that I would dare to say such a thing. Especially using, gasp, a computer, when everyone knows that computers are created using violence. Huh?
posted by Outlawyr at 8:05 AM on March 6, 2002
posted by Outlawyr at 8:05 AM on March 6, 2002
...there's nothing more irritating than people who sit on their throne of corpses and whinge about the poor starving masses, the poor oppressed workers, and those poor poor unfortunates in the warzone. Hypocrites.
[OT] Well, on the plus side it can get you laid in college. That always disgusted me.
posted by estopped at 8:06 AM on March 6, 2002
[OT] Well, on the plus side it can get you laid in college. That always disgusted me.
posted by estopped at 8:06 AM on March 6, 2002
Hmm. See, the problem with comparing this to Guantanamo is very obvious:
When we want someone summarily executed, we have the Northern Alliance do it for us.
Doesn't that still count? I mean, by all accounts the NA is operating under American supervision (after all, we're the ones taking credit for the war). We are clearly responsible for all of their human rights violations, which are manifold. Among these violations would be summary executions of surrendered Taliban in the field. Like the ones we've seen, on tape.
And anyway, this is nothing compared to what they did to the Soviets. Remember the stories of inviting officers over for dinner, then taking away their weapons, tying them to trees, slashing them, cutting their bodies up, and leaving their flesh boiling in pots of water for the other Soviet soldiers to find?
posted by Ptrin at 8:12 AM on March 6, 2002
When we want someone summarily executed, we have the Northern Alliance do it for us.
Doesn't that still count? I mean, by all accounts the NA is operating under American supervision (after all, we're the ones taking credit for the war). We are clearly responsible for all of their human rights violations, which are manifold. Among these violations would be summary executions of surrendered Taliban in the field. Like the ones we've seen, on tape.
And anyway, this is nothing compared to what they did to the Soviets. Remember the stories of inviting officers over for dinner, then taking away their weapons, tying them to trees, slashing them, cutting their bodies up, and leaving their flesh boiling in pots of water for the other Soviet soldiers to find?
posted by Ptrin at 8:12 AM on March 6, 2002
These are trained killers who have chosen fighting to the death out of religious conviction, and as was stated yesterday, though they have the option at all times, they are not surrendering. (We are under no obligation to "negotiate" surrender terms with them.)
At the rate bodies are reported to be piling up, I doubt that a white flag would be seen in the shower of blood, bullets and sinew. I could be wrong. Painting the opponent as crazed and committed to their own demise has been used for centuries to dehumanize the enemy and rationalize piling up their corpses. If we as a nation have no respect for human life, I suppose that's ok (I won't like it) but to give lip service to our moral superiority while running questionable prison camps and generating dead folk by the hundreds is just total hypocrisy.
posted by shagoth at 8:12 AM on March 6, 2002
At the rate bodies are reported to be piling up, I doubt that a white flag would be seen in the shower of blood, bullets and sinew. I could be wrong. Painting the opponent as crazed and committed to their own demise has been used for centuries to dehumanize the enemy and rationalize piling up their corpses. If we as a nation have no respect for human life, I suppose that's ok (I won't like it) but to give lip service to our moral superiority while running questionable prison camps and generating dead folk by the hundreds is just total hypocrisy.
posted by shagoth at 8:12 AM on March 6, 2002
And I would certainly like to hear a forceful condemnation when our soldiers are mistreated. If I did, I just might be tempted to treat the moral high-horsery with a little more respect; as it is, the one-sided nature of such criticism demonstrates that it is politicized and thereby compromised, that laws of war are being abused, stretched, bent, and broken so that they will have the effect of laws against war. This makes them useless in the real world and puts the "laws of war" in serious danger of becoming completely irrelevant -- or don't they realize that?
One of the problems is that the Taliban have made no pretense of interest in human rights, while the United States claims to be the world defender of human rights. Therefore, criticizing the Taliban for their human rights violations is rather like stating the obvious, while criticizing the United States is basically a request that our government should practice what it preaches.
But I'm not witnessing a lack of criticism of the Taliban. In fact, one of the ironies of the war is that the American right-wing are Johnny-come-latelies when it comes to criticizing the Taliban, and in fact the apparent success the Taliban had in reducing some types of crimes was frequently held up as an example of the Old Testament style justice advocated by many conservatives. (In actual fact it turns out that the Taliban just held the monopoly on sexual slavery and prostitution.) Before the war conservatives argued that it was not the problem of United States if Afghanistan did not adopt "Western-style" feminist reforms (such as teaching women to read and write).
The basic problem is that there's not much we can do about the fact that the Taliban operate by different rules. Over and over again over the last months the fact that they operate by different rules has been alternately condemned as an example of their barbarity, and paraded as proof of superiority for Western civilization. Criticism of the Taliban is more muted by the fact that such criticism falls on deaf ears, than by any sympathy for them.
Of course discussion about this issue is politicized, and saying that it is politicized is basically just stating the obvious. That doesn't mean that the discussion is compromised, unless you insist that the basic concept of democracy is flawed. As an American citizen I do not have any power over how the Taliban treats its prisoners, but I do have a say in how the United States treats its prisoners.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:30 AM on March 6, 2002
One of the problems is that the Taliban have made no pretense of interest in human rights, while the United States claims to be the world defender of human rights. Therefore, criticizing the Taliban for their human rights violations is rather like stating the obvious, while criticizing the United States is basically a request that our government should practice what it preaches.
But I'm not witnessing a lack of criticism of the Taliban. In fact, one of the ironies of the war is that the American right-wing are Johnny-come-latelies when it comes to criticizing the Taliban, and in fact the apparent success the Taliban had in reducing some types of crimes was frequently held up as an example of the Old Testament style justice advocated by many conservatives. (In actual fact it turns out that the Taliban just held the monopoly on sexual slavery and prostitution.) Before the war conservatives argued that it was not the problem of United States if Afghanistan did not adopt "Western-style" feminist reforms (such as teaching women to read and write).
The basic problem is that there's not much we can do about the fact that the Taliban operate by different rules. Over and over again over the last months the fact that they operate by different rules has been alternately condemned as an example of their barbarity, and paraded as proof of superiority for Western civilization. Criticism of the Taliban is more muted by the fact that such criticism falls on deaf ears, than by any sympathy for them.
Of course discussion about this issue is politicized, and saying that it is politicized is basically just stating the obvious. That doesn't mean that the discussion is compromised, unless you insist that the basic concept of democracy is flawed. As an American citizen I do not have any power over how the Taliban treats its prisoners, but I do have a say in how the United States treats its prisoners.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:30 AM on March 6, 2002
Outlawyr: the economy that permits you to use/possess a computer is built on exploitation. Every dime you spend on electrical power is a dime you could have spent to give food/medicine/shelter to someone that's going to die.
Therefore, you have made an implicit choice to let someone potentially die, rather than give up your computer access or other niceties. Meaning that you value your own comforts above human life.
...which makes your claim that violence is bad ring somewhat hollow, since you are permitting people to die rather than surrender your relatively cushy lifestyle. I guess it's OK to let someone die an agonizing death by starvation, but it's not OK to shoot someone? The end result is the same.
(note: any lifestyle that permits use of a computer is, in a global sense, cushy. That doesn't mean that you are leading what Westerners might call a "cushy life").
posted by aramaic at 8:32 AM on March 6, 2002
Therefore, you have made an implicit choice to let someone potentially die, rather than give up your computer access or other niceties. Meaning that you value your own comforts above human life.
...which makes your claim that violence is bad ring somewhat hollow, since you are permitting people to die rather than surrender your relatively cushy lifestyle. I guess it's OK to let someone die an agonizing death by starvation, but it's not OK to shoot someone? The end result is the same.
(note: any lifestyle that permits use of a computer is, in a global sense, cushy. That doesn't mean that you are leading what Westerners might call a "cushy life").
posted by aramaic at 8:32 AM on March 6, 2002
No, it doesnt bring Guantanemo to perspective because:
1) There is no precedent of a Prisinor of War situation in this war up to date. Those who are at Guantanamo are strictly there as a means to greater knowledge of the workings of Taleban and Al-Qaeda, meaning that they are there to be questioned, not as Prisinors of War. This has been stated by the US all the time.
2) Where would the Al-Qaeda people take the man? I doubt there is a facitlity in the caves where they can take him. The logistics are hard to overcome. Where would they keep him. What would they feed him. Since they are willing to fight till death, I am sure they do not have arrangements for meals at the end of the day. And on top of that, It is dangerous to take an enemy soldier back to the caves. Every one knows these US soldiers have all kinda fancy devices with them like GPS.
I think when the US sends its people down there, it should expect to sacrifice some lives. Because they are not there for a survivor contest. They are down there for war.
posted by adnanbwp at 8:37 AM on March 6, 2002
1) There is no precedent of a Prisinor of War situation in this war up to date. Those who are at Guantanamo are strictly there as a means to greater knowledge of the workings of Taleban and Al-Qaeda, meaning that they are there to be questioned, not as Prisinors of War. This has been stated by the US all the time.
2) Where would the Al-Qaeda people take the man? I doubt there is a facitlity in the caves where they can take him. The logistics are hard to overcome. Where would they keep him. What would they feed him. Since they are willing to fight till death, I am sure they do not have arrangements for meals at the end of the day. And on top of that, It is dangerous to take an enemy soldier back to the caves. Every one knows these US soldiers have all kinda fancy devices with them like GPS.
I think when the US sends its people down there, it should expect to sacrifice some lives. Because they are not there for a survivor contest. They are down there for war.
posted by adnanbwp at 8:37 AM on March 6, 2002
Quote from the article:
"We body slammed them today and killed hundreds of those guys," Hagenbeck said.
The higher moral ground?
posted by brettski at 8:42 AM on March 6, 2002
"We body slammed them today and killed hundreds of those guys," Hagenbeck said.
The higher moral ground?
posted by brettski at 8:42 AM on March 6, 2002
"Outlawyr: the economy that permits you to use/possess a computer is built on exploitation"
That may be so, but I fail to see the logic in your position. Are you saying that anyone who uses a computer is a hypocrit if they also dislike violence? I shouldn't speak out against violence unless I'm poor? The media should not portray an anti-violence position since they use computers? Anyone with money can't be for peace. This is an absurd position.
posted by Outlawyr at 8:44 AM on March 6, 2002
That may be so, but I fail to see the logic in your position. Are you saying that anyone who uses a computer is a hypocrit if they also dislike violence? I shouldn't speak out against violence unless I'm poor? The media should not portray an anti-violence position since they use computers? Anyone with money can't be for peace. This is an absurd position.
posted by Outlawyr at 8:44 AM on March 6, 2002
"We body slammed them today and killed hundreds of those guys," Hagenbeck said.
uhgh.
posted by Dom at 8:46 AM on March 6, 2002
uhgh.
posted by Dom at 8:46 AM on March 6, 2002
Let me ask this: Who gives a shit?
All I see is that we're treating those jerks at camp X-ray pretty darned well, according to media reports I've seen. I don't see any need to treat them any better. Hell, I'd give my right testicle for a vacation to camp x-ray right about now...
And yes, I see what CRS was implying. We kill their people with bullets, they beat ours to crap... But if we come up to them face to face and they surrender, they probably won't get shot... instead, they'll get a nice, all-expenses-paid stay in tropical Guantanamo Bay.
Someone needs to teach them the same lesson I learned in kindergarten... "What goes around, comes around."
posted by SpecialK at 8:51 AM on March 6, 2002
All I see is that we're treating those jerks at camp X-ray pretty darned well, according to media reports I've seen. I don't see any need to treat them any better. Hell, I'd give my right testicle for a vacation to camp x-ray right about now...
And yes, I see what CRS was implying. We kill their people with bullets, they beat ours to crap... But if we come up to them face to face and they surrender, they probably won't get shot... instead, they'll get a nice, all-expenses-paid stay in tropical Guantanamo Bay.
Someone needs to teach them the same lesson I learned in kindergarten... "What goes around, comes around."
posted by SpecialK at 8:51 AM on March 6, 2002
P.S. - I'm sure I'll regret saying this later, but will you bleeding-heart dweebs get a life? There's a couple of billion of us on the planet - it's not like human life is sacred.
posted by SpecialK at 8:51 AM on March 6, 2002
posted by SpecialK at 8:51 AM on March 6, 2002
yeah it puts Gitmo in perspective for me...we are way too soft. Everybody down there needs a bullet in the head yesterday. Apparently some people have still failed to grasp that WWWIII has now commenced, just not totally heated up yet. Nuclear weapons will be used. The US is truly fighting for its very existence. BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY-live it.
posted by quercus at 8:54 AM on March 6, 2002
posted by quercus at 8:54 AM on March 6, 2002
"We body slammed them today and killed hundreds of those guys"
People seem to be jumping on this quote. How do you expect the generals to react? Their job is to destroy the enemy and they're doing it. Don't expect them to feel bad because they're winning (in a tactical sense.) It doesn't even get close to surrendering any moral high ground as long as the other guys keep fighting back.
posted by Cyrano at 8:55 AM on March 6, 2002
People seem to be jumping on this quote. How do you expect the generals to react? Their job is to destroy the enemy and they're doing it. Don't expect them to feel bad because they're winning (in a tactical sense.) It doesn't even get close to surrendering any moral high ground as long as the other guys keep fighting back.
posted by Cyrano at 8:55 AM on March 6, 2002
Outlawyr: I am trying, and clearly failing, to draw a distinction between speaking out about violence and actually doing anything about it.
Speaking out about violence, while enjoying the fruits of that violence is meaningless. It's like ranting about poor drivers, while cutting across three lanes of traffic.
posted by aramaic at 9:00 AM on March 6, 2002
Speaking out about violence, while enjoying the fruits of that violence is meaningless. It's like ranting about poor drivers, while cutting across three lanes of traffic.
posted by aramaic at 9:00 AM on March 6, 2002
It's not like human life is sacred.
Mine is, you fucking moron.
posted by magullo at 9:02 AM on March 6, 2002
Mine is, you fucking moron.
posted by magullo at 9:02 AM on March 6, 2002
Well then you shouldn't mind us offing some people who want to take it from you, should you magullo?
posted by quercus at 9:04 AM on March 6, 2002
posted by quercus at 9:04 AM on March 6, 2002
"Speaking out about violence, while enjoying the fruits of that violence is meaningless"
Then no one can speak out against violence. Ever. Because every living thing on this planet derives at least some indirect benefit from violence of some sort. Again, I find this position unsupportable. Don't censor me with your illogic.
posted by Outlawyr at 9:10 AM on March 6, 2002
Then no one can speak out against violence. Ever. Because every living thing on this planet derives at least some indirect benefit from violence of some sort. Again, I find this position unsupportable. Don't censor me with your illogic.
posted by Outlawyr at 9:10 AM on March 6, 2002
Wow!
Nice setup and execution there, quercus. That has got to be the very best sucker punch trap I have ever seen. I like it even better since I agree with you.
posted by Irontom at 9:12 AM on March 6, 2002
Nice setup and execution there, quercus. That has got to be the very best sucker punch trap I have ever seen. I like it even better since I agree with you.
posted by Irontom at 9:12 AM on March 6, 2002
Outlawyr: perhaps you aren't familiar with the idea of censorship, because you have clearly posted your remarks; or have you posted other remarks that we haven't seen?
Oh wait, let me guess: someone stating that they find your position hypocritical constitutes censorship? You should (again) consider looking into the difference between speech and action. Censorship is an action, which I've failed to take.
posted by aramaic at 9:20 AM on March 6, 2002
Oh wait, let me guess: someone stating that they find your position hypocritical constitutes censorship? You should (again) consider looking into the difference between speech and action. Censorship is an action, which I've failed to take.
posted by aramaic at 9:20 AM on March 6, 2002
Whoa some people didn't get their coffee today, eh?
posted by cell divide at 9:31 AM on March 6, 2002
posted by cell divide at 9:31 AM on March 6, 2002
"Oh wait, let me guess: Fart fart fartus fart farting fart."
I'm sorry, I had to censor you. You are using a computer, and that is hypocritical.
posted by Outlawyr at 9:34 AM on March 6, 2002
I'm sorry, I had to censor you. You are using a computer, and that is hypocritical.
posted by Outlawyr at 9:34 AM on March 6, 2002
Aramaic: do you support white guilt? Because it seems that that's the only empathic belief system you would find morally consistant :/
(I'm really not trying to bait you here, I'm just curious. I've rarely seen someone as driven by moral consistancy as you seem to be, and it intrigues me)
posted by Ptrin at 9:42 AM on March 6, 2002
(I'm really not trying to bait you here, I'm just curious. I've rarely seen someone as driven by moral consistancy as you seem to be, and it intrigues me)
posted by Ptrin at 9:42 AM on March 6, 2002
I: Wow!
Nice setup and execution there, quercus. That has got to be the very best sucker punch trap I have ever seen. I like it even better since I agree with you.
O: I'm sorry, I had to censor you. You are using a computer, and that is hypocritical.
True that, especially if this is the mark's best response.
posted by estopped at 9:43 AM on March 6, 2002
Nice setup and execution there, quercus. That has got to be the very best sucker punch trap I have ever seen. I like it even better since I agree with you.
O: I'm sorry, I had to censor you. You are using a computer, and that is hypocritical.
True that, especially if this is the mark's best response.
posted by estopped at 9:43 AM on March 6, 2002
quercus - human life sacred...Well then you shouldn't mind us offing some people who want to take it from you, should you...?
i trust you are refering to the us military/industrial complex, in which case it would seem to be the only language they understand. go get'em!
posted by asok at 9:44 AM on March 6, 2002
i trust you are refering to the us military/industrial complex, in which case it would seem to be the only language they understand. go get'em!
posted by asok at 9:44 AM on March 6, 2002
quercus:I'm Spanish, which amounts to be half Arab . I do not worry the least bit about dirt poor Muslims taking my life. I do worry about people like you, supposedly civilized, supposedly democratic, supposedly reasonable, supposedly rich (in comparison), yet in reality having the same thoughts as an illiterate Pashtun herder. Now that's progress, mate.
posted by magullo at 9:45 AM on March 6, 2002
posted by magullo at 9:45 AM on March 6, 2002
So, Magullo, if we are to be more progressive than the illiterate Pashtun herder, what is the appropriate response to the events of 9-11?
Please explain to those of us who are not as clear on it.
posted by Irontom at 9:51 AM on March 6, 2002
Please explain to those of us who are not as clear on it.
posted by Irontom at 9:51 AM on March 6, 2002
Speaking out about violence, while enjoying the fruits of that violence is meaningless.
This quote and others in this thread leading up to it make it very clear that it is truly meaningless to discuss violence in terms of bad and good. Think about the dilemma: Violence is bad vs. Violence is good. WTF? If you think either side of an argument framed this way is supportable, you have been brainwashed by the TV soundbite/1h drama approach to conflict into thinking a problem can be boiled down to obvious sides with uncompromising positions that go head-to-head until one prevails. Turn off your TV and peer out your window at the REAL WORLD!! It's not like that. If you exist today, even in the worst shithole in afganistan, you are the beneficiary of some violent action taken in the past. Get over it and move on to meaningful discussion that embraces the complexities of a problem where there are multiple interacting motives, ethical systems, and necessities. Personally I support some actions that are violent (like the war in afganistan) and not others (like abortion...I am pro choice though) and my reasoning is deeply personal, complex, and tends to shift with input from outside sources and could never, ever, ever be simplified down to the very ridiculous statement: Violence is bad.
posted by plaino at 10:07 AM on March 6, 2002
This quote and others in this thread leading up to it make it very clear that it is truly meaningless to discuss violence in terms of bad and good. Think about the dilemma: Violence is bad vs. Violence is good. WTF? If you think either side of an argument framed this way is supportable, you have been brainwashed by the TV soundbite/1h drama approach to conflict into thinking a problem can be boiled down to obvious sides with uncompromising positions that go head-to-head until one prevails. Turn off your TV and peer out your window at the REAL WORLD!! It's not like that. If you exist today, even in the worst shithole in afganistan, you are the beneficiary of some violent action taken in the past. Get over it and move on to meaningful discussion that embraces the complexities of a problem where there are multiple interacting motives, ethical systems, and necessities. Personally I support some actions that are violent (like the war in afganistan) and not others (like abortion...I am pro choice though) and my reasoning is deeply personal, complex, and tends to shift with input from outside sources and could never, ever, ever be simplified down to the very ridiculous statement: Violence is bad.
posted by plaino at 10:07 AM on March 6, 2002
Magullo, mi amigo, dirt poor Muslims don't concern me either. Heavily armed troops who have already expressed a desire to kill me do cause concern. And why do you think I should operate on some higher ethical and civilized plane than an "illiterate Pashtun herder." No. 1-we are not battling herdsmen 2.- fighting in self-defense is a noble and universal value of all but the most religiously deluded.
posted by quercus at 10:09 AM on March 6, 2002
posted by quercus at 10:09 AM on March 6, 2002
When did this thread become a discussion about violence. It is war people. The ppl who crashed planes into buildings were looking for war. The US and them are in a war. Violence begets more violence no matter who starts it OR who ever has a higher moral stand.
I thought the thread was about the treatment of an American soldier "forgotten/left" behind by his peers and the prisinors at Guantanamo.
It is totally absurd to say that every one who uses a computer is abetting violence in some way or doesnt get to say anything in reference to the FPP.
posted by adnanbwp at 10:16 AM on March 6, 2002
I thought the thread was about the treatment of an American soldier "forgotten/left" behind by his peers and the prisinors at Guantanamo.
It is totally absurd to say that every one who uses a computer is abetting violence in some way or doesnt get to say anything in reference to the FPP.
posted by adnanbwp at 10:16 AM on March 6, 2002
"the very ridiculous statement: Violence is bad"
Why is it ridiculous? Sometimes to some people violence may seem like a necessity, or the appropriate response to other violence (and one could argue with that point of view), but I don't think that the statement "violence is bad" is inherently ridiculous.
How about this; justifying the mistreatment of prisoners at Guantanamo by pointing to the gross mistreatment of soldiers in Afghanistan is wrong, because it ignores so much, including the fact that the US purports to be the defender of all that is right and good. Violence in one case does not justify violence in another, or lessen the seriousness of any of the violence.
posted by Outlawyr at 10:28 AM on March 6, 2002
Why is it ridiculous? Sometimes to some people violence may seem like a necessity, or the appropriate response to other violence (and one could argue with that point of view), but I don't think that the statement "violence is bad" is inherently ridiculous.
How about this; justifying the mistreatment of prisoners at Guantanamo by pointing to the gross mistreatment of soldiers in Afghanistan is wrong, because it ignores so much, including the fact that the US purports to be the defender of all that is right and good. Violence in one case does not justify violence in another, or lessen the seriousness of any of the violence.
posted by Outlawyr at 10:28 AM on March 6, 2002
quercus - 'Heavily armed troops who have already expressed a desire to kill me do cause concern'
still refering to the american military/industrial complex?
in that case, i agree that they are dangerous, but with the backing of the richest government on the earth, what can we do?
posted by asok at 10:37 AM on March 6, 2002
still refering to the american military/industrial complex?
in that case, i agree that they are dangerous, but with the backing of the richest government on the earth, what can we do?
posted by asok at 10:37 AM on March 6, 2002
quercus, you must be joking. Do I really need to explain why should you operate in a higher ethical level than an illeterate, almost medieval herder?
FYI, I never implied you were fighting herders. The thing is a lot of Americans think American lives are worth more than Afghani ones. I don't know if that is the case with you, but let me suspect so given your disrespectful comments regarding the human life. I don't think a human life is more valuable than another, but any doubt to that respect dissapears when a "superior" being acts exaclt like an "inferior" one, if not worse.
And if you refer to Al-Quaida fighters as "heavily armed troops", what do you call the U.S. soldiers? Not only they have far superior equipment, they also control the air space ...
One last thing: you do not invade a country in "self defense". That's a contradiction in terms. You don't fight in foreign soil in self-defense. In fact you probably would have a hard case convincing a judge that if you kill you neighbor in his house, it was self defense.
posted by magullo at 10:42 AM on March 6, 2002
FYI, I never implied you were fighting herders. The thing is a lot of Americans think American lives are worth more than Afghani ones. I don't know if that is the case with you, but let me suspect so given your disrespectful comments regarding the human life. I don't think a human life is more valuable than another, but any doubt to that respect dissapears when a "superior" being acts exaclt like an "inferior" one, if not worse.
And if you refer to Al-Quaida fighters as "heavily armed troops", what do you call the U.S. soldiers? Not only they have far superior equipment, they also control the air space ...
One last thing: you do not invade a country in "self defense". That's a contradiction in terms. You don't fight in foreign soil in self-defense. In fact you probably would have a hard case convincing a judge that if you kill you neighbor in his house, it was self defense.
posted by magullo at 10:42 AM on March 6, 2002
nothing like precision, just which part of europe are you referring to you imbecile. Europe most certainly does not sing off the same song sheet on this and many other matters.
I presume that your coarse implication is something along the lines that the prisoners i gutanamo bay should be rejoicing. Well, if the premier democracy on earth (purportedly) cannot stick to international agreements then what hope for the rest of us paupers.
posted by johnnyboy at 10:45 AM on March 6, 2002
I presume that your coarse implication is something along the lines that the prisoners i gutanamo bay should be rejoicing. Well, if the premier democracy on earth (purportedly) cannot stick to international agreements then what hope for the rest of us paupers.
posted by johnnyboy at 10:45 AM on March 6, 2002
On the original subject of the post (thanx adnanbwp for the reminder): Pointing out that Al-Queada executes their prisoners and we feed/house/question ours offers no perspective because it only points out contrast that reinforces what we already believe (they are bad; we aren't as bad). If they captured our guy and treated him even better than we treat their guys, THAT would offer perspective, and give us pause to think, I think.
posted by plaino at 10:46 AM on March 6, 2002
posted by plaino at 10:46 AM on March 6, 2002
Yeah, but they didnt do that, did they?
So, how to gain perspective here?
posted by Irontom at 10:53 AM on March 6, 2002
So, how to gain perspective here?
posted by Irontom at 10:53 AM on March 6, 2002
The thing is a lot of Americans think American lives are worth more than Afghani ones.
With just a little reworking, that sentence becomes:
The thing is a lot of (people from country X) think (Country X) lives are worth more than (Country Y) ones.
magullo, all humans act in their own perceived self interest (at some level). Americans certainly don't have a monopoly on that behaviour...
I don't think a human life is more valuable than another,
I'm willing to bet that this last statement is patently untrue. Who was it who said, "mine is [sacred], you fucking moron," just a few posts ealier in this discussion?
posted by syzygy at 11:39 AM on March 6, 2002
With just a little reworking, that sentence becomes:
The thing is a lot of (people from country X) think (Country X) lives are worth more than (Country Y) ones.
magullo, all humans act in their own perceived self interest (at some level). Americans certainly don't have a monopoly on that behaviour...
I don't think a human life is more valuable than another,
I'm willing to bet that this last statement is patently untrue. Who was it who said, "mine is [sacred], you fucking moron," just a few posts ealier in this discussion?
posted by syzygy at 11:39 AM on March 6, 2002
Magullo, yes you should explain what your beef is with these irrelevant Pashtun herdsmen that you regard as so apparently backward and Neanderthalish that an American is immediately placed on a higher ethical plane. I didn't realize illiterate herdsmen weren't fully human.
posted by quercus at 11:43 AM on March 6, 2002
posted by quercus at 11:43 AM on March 6, 2002
HAW HAW THE US MILITARY WANTS TO KILL EVERYONE IN THE WORLD.
asok, just shut up.
posted by darukaru at 11:49 AM on March 6, 2002
asok, just shut up.
posted by darukaru at 11:49 AM on March 6, 2002
quercus, you must be joking. Do I really need to explain why should you operate in a higher ethical level than an illeterate, almost medieval herder?
I'm sure there are many illiterate, mostly medieval herders who stand on higher moral ground than the average North American who's sitting at home on the couch and eagerly anticipating "Celebrity Boxing" on FOX.
Lets restrict our insults to the murderous religious fanatics, least we pick a fight with more than we can handle.
posted by astirling at 12:06 PM on March 6, 2002
I'm sure there are many illiterate, mostly medieval herders who stand on higher moral ground than the average North American who's sitting at home on the couch and eagerly anticipating "Celebrity Boxing" on FOX.
Lets restrict our insults to the murderous religious fanatics, least we pick a fight with more than we can handle.
posted by astirling at 12:06 PM on March 6, 2002
Hmm, magullo writes:
One last thing: you do not invade a country in "self defense". That's a contradiction in terms. You don't fight in foreign soil in self-defense. In fact you probably would have a hard case convincing a judge that if you kill you neighbor in his house, it was self defense.
Yeah, we should have never taken on Germany in WWII. Or Japan.
Statements like that simply make you look stupid. You are simply another apologist for a bunch of muslim murderers. Everyone - every country - has the right to defend itself, and the best way to do that is to take the fight to the back yard of those who attack you.
You don't sit around, waiting for them to strike again, saying "gee, what ever did I do to make them mad at me? Well, while I'm waiting and thinking I guess I'll bury these dead..." You go to them and kill them there.
As to our being "uncivilized" with regards to Gitmo - bullshit. A "less civilized" country would have simply tortured the information out of them and then put a bullet in their head. They get food, shelter, and medical care. It's more than the 3,000+ dead in New York got. And it is a lot more than they deserve.
posted by hadashi at 12:20 PM on March 6, 2002
One last thing: you do not invade a country in "self defense". That's a contradiction in terms. You don't fight in foreign soil in self-defense. In fact you probably would have a hard case convincing a judge that if you kill you neighbor in his house, it was self defense.
Yeah, we should have never taken on Germany in WWII. Or Japan.
Statements like that simply make you look stupid. You are simply another apologist for a bunch of muslim murderers. Everyone - every country - has the right to defend itself, and the best way to do that is to take the fight to the back yard of those who attack you.
You don't sit around, waiting for them to strike again, saying "gee, what ever did I do to make them mad at me? Well, while I'm waiting and thinking I guess I'll bury these dead..." You go to them and kill them there.
As to our being "uncivilized" with regards to Gitmo - bullshit. A "less civilized" country would have simply tortured the information out of them and then put a bullet in their head. They get food, shelter, and medical care. It's more than the 3,000+ dead in New York got. And it is a lot more than they deserve.
posted by hadashi at 12:20 PM on March 6, 2002
~sigh~
The young American was dragged off and executed. Can any one of us sitting here so comfortably begin to imagine the terror and pain he must have experienced during those last moments of his life? I imagine he felt great fear. Perhaps he thought of his family and in his thoughts sent them his love. Perhaps he had time to look at his own beautiful hands and finally understand that he would never touch or be touched again.
"We body slammed them today and killed hundreds of those guys" The Taliban soldiers apparently died in droves before the unimaginable machines from hell. Can any one of us here begin to imagine the terror and pain they must have experienced during those last moments of life? I imagine they felt great fear. Perhaps they thought of their families. Perhaps they had time to look at their own beautiful hands and finally understand that they would never touch or be touched again.
Fear, and pain, and death. In skyscraper. In village beneath precision guided bombs.
Flanders, Poland, Dresden, Auschwitz, Palestine, Israel, Kuwait, Iraq, New York City, Afghanistan. Violence. It's taken us this far. Really. Why fight against such a noble and effective and humane instinct?
Understand this: vicious-thug-Taliban-humans and sweet-American-apple-pie-humans and right-wing humans and left-wing humans and any humans who are afraid and enraged and far from love will kill and maim without any regard for the niceties, just as they did in the Ardennes, on Bataan, at No Gun Ri and My Lai. I can assure you that "prisoners" are killed continually in every war, on both sides. No doubt both sides in this cowardly sidelight of history are doing just that at this very moment, and will continue to do so with the blessings of the craven.
Our friends who advocate violence, those calling for still more bombs and still more guns, are themselves more fearful than we can imagine. They learned violence by suffering from violence, in word or deed, and for them the world is a place of a thousand anxieties. That is their world, and they continue to choose to live in it.
One may be tempted to inquire of those advocating violence here and across America exactly when they will sign military enlistment papers and put their bodies where their mouths are. But let it be. We don't need any more hired killers, and like the wounded animal clawing and snapping in its fear at anyone who approaches to help, they deserve our understanding and continued confrontation and help more than anything.
Violence begets violence. Reap the whirlwind. That young Navy SEAL certainly reaped it. You who advocate violence...happy?
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 12:55 PM on March 6, 2002
The young American was dragged off and executed. Can any one of us sitting here so comfortably begin to imagine the terror and pain he must have experienced during those last moments of his life? I imagine he felt great fear. Perhaps he thought of his family and in his thoughts sent them his love. Perhaps he had time to look at his own beautiful hands and finally understand that he would never touch or be touched again.
"We body slammed them today and killed hundreds of those guys" The Taliban soldiers apparently died in droves before the unimaginable machines from hell. Can any one of us here begin to imagine the terror and pain they must have experienced during those last moments of life? I imagine they felt great fear. Perhaps they thought of their families. Perhaps they had time to look at their own beautiful hands and finally understand that they would never touch or be touched again.
Fear, and pain, and death. In skyscraper. In village beneath precision guided bombs.
Flanders, Poland, Dresden, Auschwitz, Palestine, Israel, Kuwait, Iraq, New York City, Afghanistan. Violence. It's taken us this far. Really. Why fight against such a noble and effective and humane instinct?
Understand this: vicious-thug-Taliban-humans and sweet-American-apple-pie-humans and right-wing humans and left-wing humans and any humans who are afraid and enraged and far from love will kill and maim without any regard for the niceties, just as they did in the Ardennes, on Bataan, at No Gun Ri and My Lai. I can assure you that "prisoners" are killed continually in every war, on both sides. No doubt both sides in this cowardly sidelight of history are doing just that at this very moment, and will continue to do so with the blessings of the craven.
Our friends who advocate violence, those calling for still more bombs and still more guns, are themselves more fearful than we can imagine. They learned violence by suffering from violence, in word or deed, and for them the world is a place of a thousand anxieties. That is their world, and they continue to choose to live in it.
One may be tempted to inquire of those advocating violence here and across America exactly when they will sign military enlistment papers and put their bodies where their mouths are. But let it be. We don't need any more hired killers, and like the wounded animal clawing and snapping in its fear at anyone who approaches to help, they deserve our understanding and continued confrontation and help more than anything.
Violence begets violence. Reap the whirlwind. That young Navy SEAL certainly reaped it. You who advocate violence...happy?
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 12:55 PM on March 6, 2002
Hadashi Before I go to bed, the attack on Berlin or the atomic bombs in Japan were not self-defense. They were maybe born out of self-defense, but many years of fighting ended with what were clearly offensive actions by the Allies. Justified and all, but not self-defense.
Like, duh.
quercus I do think access to education places responsibilities on people. I also might be thinking of apologizing for calling you a fucking moron, but read below for details.
syzygy Nationalism is a nasty cancer, love. On another level, ask yourself: "isn't my life sacred?".
posted by magullo at 1:37 PM on March 6, 2002
Like, duh.
quercus I do think access to education places responsibilities on people. I also might be thinking of apologizing for calling you a fucking moron, but read below for details.
syzygy Nationalism is a nasty cancer, love. On another level, ask yourself: "isn't my life sacred?".
posted by magullo at 1:37 PM on March 6, 2002
Fold and Mutilate: I was not present at the death of Officer Roberts. I know you weren't. So I do not think you should assume he died in terror or in fear. Many men and women are quite capable of facing death bravely and without illusion. As Marcus Aurelius noted "All men have to die, but not all men have to die whining."
Did he die regretting he gave his life for me-i hope not. I'd say "and you" too, but I'm sure you disassociate yourself from his actions.
Thank you Mr. Roberts.
posted by quercus at 1:54 PM on March 6, 2002
Did he die regretting he gave his life for me-i hope not. I'd say "and you" too, but I'm sure you disassociate yourself from his actions.
Thank you Mr. Roberts.
posted by quercus at 1:54 PM on March 6, 2002
"the attack on Berlin or the atomic bombs in Japan were not self-defense."
That's just nitpicking. The same could be said of the invasion of Normandy, or Italy, or and Pacific island you care to name.
Just because your army is on the offensive doesn't mean you're no longer fighting in self-defense. If you stop attacking and just hunker down you leave you enemy with the capability to hurt you again.
It's cliche, but "the best defense is a good offense" applies in cases like this.
posted by Cyrano at 2:32 PM on March 6, 2002
That's just nitpicking. The same could be said of the invasion of Normandy, or Italy, or and Pacific island you care to name.
Just because your army is on the offensive doesn't mean you're no longer fighting in self-defense. If you stop attacking and just hunker down you leave you enemy with the capability to hurt you again.
It's cliche, but "the best defense is a good offense" applies in cases like this.
posted by Cyrano at 2:32 PM on March 6, 2002
What in God's name is this thread?
I'm thinkin' it's what passes for a tag-team cage rumble on MeFi. To some degree, I'm beginning to believe that we need outright shit-storms like this every once in a while, just so people can get their frustrations out on the intellectual enemy (whomever they might be). Whatever, its pretty painful. Tune in next week on Fox for F_and_M and asok takin' on the power duo of darukaru and Hildago.
(I actually am glad these things happen every now and then. A good fart does the body good...)
And I agree with quercus. Thank you P.O. Roberts. Rest In Peace.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:55 PM on March 6, 2002
I'm thinkin' it's what passes for a tag-team cage rumble on MeFi. To some degree, I'm beginning to believe that we need outright shit-storms like this every once in a while, just so people can get their frustrations out on the intellectual enemy (whomever they might be). Whatever, its pretty painful. Tune in next week on Fox for F_and_M and asok takin' on the power duo of darukaru and Hildago.
(I actually am glad these things happen every now and then. A good fart does the body good...)
And I agree with quercus. Thank you P.O. Roberts. Rest In Peace.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:55 PM on March 6, 2002
Bad bad bad, Wulfgar! I meant hadashi, not Hildago. Sorry for any offense. *slinking away*
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:58 PM on March 6, 2002
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:58 PM on March 6, 2002
What in God's name is this thread?
Apparently it's a trolling competition. SpecialK is still out in front, but asok and quercus get full marks for effort.
But we shouldn't ruin should a free and open-minded exchange of ideas with mockery. Flame on.
posted by Gaz at 3:21 PM on March 6, 2002
Apparently it's a trolling competition. SpecialK is still out in front, but asok and quercus get full marks for effort.
But we shouldn't ruin should a free and open-minded exchange of ideas with mockery. Flame on.
posted by Gaz at 3:21 PM on March 6, 2002
Everyone - every country - has the right to defend itself, and the best way to do that is to take the fight to the back yard of those who attack you.
Man, I guess thats what the Palestinians and the Israelis are doing right ? Thats what the Bin Laden group said it was doing ? Thats what the Chechens and Russians are upto. Do you support the activities of these groups ?
posted by adnanbwp at 3:35 PM on March 6, 2002
Man, I guess thats what the Palestinians and the Israelis are doing right ? Thats what the Bin Laden group said it was doing ? Thats what the Chechens and Russians are upto. Do you support the activities of these groups ?
posted by adnanbwp at 3:35 PM on March 6, 2002
fold_and_mutilate: To answer your question, I did sign enlistment papers and served this country for three years. I have even considered re-enlisting so that I could stand side-by-side with men like Officer Roberts in the defense of this country and its citizens.
Look at the reaction of his fellow servicemen when they discovered him missing. Despite not even being in the same branch of the military, these men rushed into what they had to have known would be an ambush and fought under heavy fire for 12 hours just to reclaim the lifeless body of a fallen comrade. Or look at the Delta Force snipers in Somalia who made repeated requests to secure the second blackhawk and protect the crew of the downed helicopter despite knowing that several hundred Somali were on route to the location and would surely surround them.
Yes, any day of the week I would rather die next to those men than have to stomach the weak-spirited intellectual who goes around pontificating about what's right or wrong. When you're under fire, things get real fucking simple real fucking fast and it is that ability to view life in its most simplistic form that actually seperates those who know about and have lived life and those who read about it and talk about it. I highly doubt that Officer Roberts went out whimpering. And while he may have thought about his family in the moments before his death, I'd bet my last dollar he was also thinking about the men who would die attempting to recover him.
Perhaps you should stick to topics you actually have some knowledge of, instead of telling me, how I would or would not feel. I've served, would serve again and my greatest fear would not be dying but letting down the guy fighting next to me.
posted by billman at 3:42 PM on March 6, 2002
Look at the reaction of his fellow servicemen when they discovered him missing. Despite not even being in the same branch of the military, these men rushed into what they had to have known would be an ambush and fought under heavy fire for 12 hours just to reclaim the lifeless body of a fallen comrade. Or look at the Delta Force snipers in Somalia who made repeated requests to secure the second blackhawk and protect the crew of the downed helicopter despite knowing that several hundred Somali were on route to the location and would surely surround them.
Yes, any day of the week I would rather die next to those men than have to stomach the weak-spirited intellectual who goes around pontificating about what's right or wrong. When you're under fire, things get real fucking simple real fucking fast and it is that ability to view life in its most simplistic form that actually seperates those who know about and have lived life and those who read about it and talk about it. I highly doubt that Officer Roberts went out whimpering. And while he may have thought about his family in the moments before his death, I'd bet my last dollar he was also thinking about the men who would die attempting to recover him.
Perhaps you should stick to topics you actually have some knowledge of, instead of telling me, how I would or would not feel. I've served, would serve again and my greatest fear would not be dying but letting down the guy fighting next to me.
posted by billman at 3:42 PM on March 6, 2002
I was not present at the death of Officer Roberts. I know you weren't. So I do not think you should assume he died in terror or in fear. Many men and women are quite capable of facing death bravely and without illusion. As Marcus Aurelius noted "All men have to die, but not all men have to die whining."
No, I'm sure you're right. I'm quite sure that young man died singing the Star Spangled Banner to his captors, and wished only for a last MacDonald's hamburger. Just like all those Taliban soldiers chanted "Bin Laden" in unison as the life drained from their bodies.
Sell patriotic swill about bravery and "dying without illusion" somewhere else. These deaths in Afghanistan are about nothing BUT illusion, just like the deaths and illusions of millions of young people who succumbed to the lies of chair-borne "patriots" of the past.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 3:51 PM on March 6, 2002
No, I'm sure you're right. I'm quite sure that young man died singing the Star Spangled Banner to his captors, and wished only for a last MacDonald's hamburger. Just like all those Taliban soldiers chanted "Bin Laden" in unison as the life drained from their bodies.
Sell patriotic swill about bravery and "dying without illusion" somewhere else. These deaths in Afghanistan are about nothing BUT illusion, just like the deaths and illusions of millions of young people who succumbed to the lies of chair-borne "patriots" of the past.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 3:51 PM on March 6, 2002
Actually "that young man" was 32. Not old, surely, but certainly mature, and definitely not the 18 year brainwashed cannon fodder your tired fantasy seems to depend on. Read Billman's post again.
posted by quercus at 4:09 PM on March 6, 2002
posted by quercus at 4:09 PM on March 6, 2002
fold_and_mutilate: To answer your question, I did sign enlistment papers and served this country for three years. I have even considered re-enlisting so that I could stand side-by-side with men like Officer Roberts in the defense of this country and its citizens.
Well, color me downright impressed and awestruck that you "considered it". One wonders if the military will strike spanking new medals for "gallantry in considering joining Afghan expeditionary force." Did you consider it more than once? You may qualify for oak leaf clusters...
I served in the armed forces of this country as well. I was wrong to have done so. So were you. So are all the brave and pathetic idiots sent off by the rich and powerful to fight their stinking, miserable, cowardly little wars.
Like I said, sell John Wayne somewhere else. It's utter bullshit. I'm quite sure young Roberts and your average Taliban cannon fodder came to that stark realization recently.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 4:09 PM on March 6, 2002
Well, color me downright impressed and awestruck that you "considered it". One wonders if the military will strike spanking new medals for "gallantry in considering joining Afghan expeditionary force." Did you consider it more than once? You may qualify for oak leaf clusters...
I served in the armed forces of this country as well. I was wrong to have done so. So were you. So are all the brave and pathetic idiots sent off by the rich and powerful to fight their stinking, miserable, cowardly little wars.
Like I said, sell John Wayne somewhere else. It's utter bullshit. I'm quite sure young Roberts and your average Taliban cannon fodder came to that stark realization recently.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 4:09 PM on March 6, 2002
Again, f_and_m, your sarcasm overwhelms the idiot meter.
These deaths in Afghanistan are about nothing BUT illusion
I'm sure that we could all just will this conflict into the ether too, couldn't we? What planet are you from? On either side, people are dying for what they believe and what they have sworn to protect. Your solipsistic denial is wearing way thin. You have no omniscience about what these soldiers (on either side) believe. Your protestations aren't real, they're imagined based on your delusions of greater knowledge. Just because your experience with the military left you jaded doesn't give you superior intellect. It just proves your bad attitude towards your fellow human beings.
By the way, please please please tell me you're not some wacko living in a cabin in Montana. That would depress me possibly more than I can bear. If you are, then move. Nobody wants you here.
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:24 PM on March 6, 2002
These deaths in Afghanistan are about nothing BUT illusion
I'm sure that we could all just will this conflict into the ether too, couldn't we? What planet are you from? On either side, people are dying for what they believe and what they have sworn to protect. Your solipsistic denial is wearing way thin. You have no omniscience about what these soldiers (on either side) believe. Your protestations aren't real, they're imagined based on your delusions of greater knowledge. Just because your experience with the military left you jaded doesn't give you superior intellect. It just proves your bad attitude towards your fellow human beings.
By the way, please please please tell me you're not some wacko living in a cabin in Montana. That would depress me possibly more than I can bear. If you are, then move. Nobody wants you here.
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:24 PM on March 6, 2002
You know, for someone who proclaims the sanctity of all life at every opportunity, f&m sure as hell gloats a lot when Americans die.
Wulfgar!, I'm going to have to pass on that Fox opportunity, as entertaining as it might be. I just get tired of asok demeaning intelligent leftist thinking every time he opens his mouth.
posted by darukaru at 4:26 PM on March 6, 2002
Wulfgar!, I'm going to have to pass on that Fox opportunity, as entertaining as it might be. I just get tired of asok demeaning intelligent leftist thinking every time he opens his mouth.
posted by darukaru at 4:26 PM on March 6, 2002
fold_and_mutilate: Considered but then discovered that I am actually too old to be admitted back into the Army. But since your point was that those doing the talking should put their money where there mouth is, well, I did and would have again given the chance.
I'm not selling John Wayne. You're trying to sell us your cowardly view of the world.
posted by billman at 4:28 PM on March 6, 2002
I'm not selling John Wayne. You're trying to sell us your cowardly view of the world.
posted by billman at 4:28 PM on March 6, 2002
Actually "that young man" was 32. Not old, surely, but certainly mature, and definitely not the 18 year brainwashed cannon fodder your tired fantasy seems to depend on.
That's right. It's well known that 32 year old soldiers aren't afraid. Especially Americans. Our soldiers are brave. The enemy is cowardly. We are brave. Begin Sousa march music now...
Here's a little riddle for you. Why do soldiers wear different uniforms?
Answer: to tell themselves apart.
Read Billman's post again.
Thanks, but once was more than enough. I think his post could have been used just as it is to recruit young folks into the Taliban, or any ol' given terrorist organization.
Let's all die bravely for motherland and the little emperor and the glorious Fuhrer and Bin Laden and Bush, shall we?
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 4:28 PM on March 6, 2002
That's right. It's well known that 32 year old soldiers aren't afraid. Especially Americans. Our soldiers are brave. The enemy is cowardly. We are brave. Begin Sousa march music now...
Here's a little riddle for you. Why do soldiers wear different uniforms?
Answer: to tell themselves apart.
Read Billman's post again.
Thanks, but once was more than enough. I think his post could have been used just as it is to recruit young folks into the Taliban, or any ol' given terrorist organization.
Let's all die bravely for motherland and the little emperor and the glorious Fuhrer and Bin Laden and Bush, shall we?
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 4:28 PM on March 6, 2002
f&m, man . . . I have never read so much bs coming from one person, on one thread before. Your contempt for everyone and everything is just too much. You must be so enlightened. Is there a class we can take to learn all that you know about life and how people you don't know would or wouldn't react in any given situation? Is there any sort of crossing into parallel universes involved? Are you writing a book anytime soon so the rest of the world can simply stop war, hate, ingrown toenails, etc. by following your advice? Is it tough being that smart? How can you put up with all of us simpletons?
posted by billman at 4:38 PM on March 6, 2002
posted by billman at 4:38 PM on March 6, 2002
On either side, people are dying for what they believe and what they have sworn to protect.
Well imagine my surprise, if you can. Someone "got it."
You know, for someone who proclaims the sanctity of all life at every opportunity, f&m sure as hell gloats a lot when Americans die.
Nope. I mourn their death just as I mourn the people who die on both sides of this mess. THEY ARE THE SAME, IN EVERY WAY. Now do you get it?
The only people I see who are gloating about death are those who glorify it.
Again, f_and_m, your sarcasm overwhelms the idiot meter.
By the way, please please please tell me you're not some wacko living in a cabin in Montana.
Personal insult isn't really much of a reasoned or compelling or even a very clever argument, but hey, if that's all you've got, I guess...use it.
~wink~
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 4:40 PM on March 6, 2002
Well imagine my surprise, if you can. Someone "got it."
You know, for someone who proclaims the sanctity of all life at every opportunity, f&m sure as hell gloats a lot when Americans die.
Nope. I mourn their death just as I mourn the people who die on both sides of this mess. THEY ARE THE SAME, IN EVERY WAY. Now do you get it?
The only people I see who are gloating about death are those who glorify it.
Again, f_and_m, your sarcasm overwhelms the idiot meter.
By the way, please please please tell me you're not some wacko living in a cabin in Montana.
Personal insult isn't really much of a reasoned or compelling or even a very clever argument, but hey, if that's all you've got, I guess...use it.
~wink~
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 4:40 PM on March 6, 2002
f&m, man . . . I have never read so much bs coming from one person, on one thread before. Your contempt for everyone and everything is just too much. You must be so enlightened. Is there a class we can take to learn all that you know about life and how people you don't know would or wouldn't react in any given situation? Is there any sort of crossing into parallel universes involved? Are you writing a book anytime soon so the rest of the world can simply stop war, hate, ingrown toenails, etc. by following your advice? Is it tough being that smart? How can you put up with all of us simpletons?
There there now. I think you're all just wonderful.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 4:45 PM on March 6, 2002
There there now. I think you're all just wonderful.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 4:45 PM on March 6, 2002
I'm not selling John Wayne. You're trying to sell us your cowardly view of the world.
Well, I suppose you're right. I really should join with those very few U.S citizens bravely supporting our just war (a war fought bravely and safely away from our fair land and our new SUVs). I really should do a gut-check and buckle down to defy the hundreds of millions of Americans who have rallied behind the pacifist movement, a vast bloc that threatens our very civil liberties.
~clearing throat~
I guess many of us questioning the war really don't pack the kind of testosterone it takes to bravely parrot what the entire American political, military, industrial, and financial establishment, as well as the vast majority of what the damned sheep-herded population so solemnly proclaims.
Sorry.
~wink~
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 5:51 PM on March 6, 2002
Well, I suppose you're right. I really should join with those very few U.S citizens bravely supporting our just war (a war fought bravely and safely away from our fair land and our new SUVs). I really should do a gut-check and buckle down to defy the hundreds of millions of Americans who have rallied behind the pacifist movement, a vast bloc that threatens our very civil liberties.
~clearing throat~
I guess many of us questioning the war really don't pack the kind of testosterone it takes to bravely parrot what the entire American political, military, industrial, and financial establishment, as well as the vast majority of what the damned sheep-herded population so solemnly proclaims.
Sorry.
~wink~
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 5:51 PM on March 6, 2002
Again, f_and_m, your sarcasm overwhelms the idiot meter.
By the way, please please please tell me you're not some wacko living in a cabin in Montana.
Personal insult isn't really much of a reasoned or compelling or even a very clever argument, but hey, if that's all you've got, I guess...use it.
Dude, now you're scaring me. You haven't dealt with the fact that you have overrun the the very sarcasm that might be helpful, you've not even realized the arrogance your words profess, and you haven't answered the question: are you a wacko living in a cabin in the state I hold dear?
posted by Wulfgar! at 6:52 PM on March 6, 2002
By the way, please please please tell me you're not some wacko living in a cabin in Montana.
Personal insult isn't really much of a reasoned or compelling or even a very clever argument, but hey, if that's all you've got, I guess...use it.
Dude, now you're scaring me. You haven't dealt with the fact that you have overrun the the very sarcasm that might be helpful, you've not even realized the arrogance your words profess, and you haven't answered the question: are you a wacko living in a cabin in the state I hold dear?
posted by Wulfgar! at 6:52 PM on March 6, 2002
You're free to question the war m&f, but you have no right to question then men on the ground in combat. To project the terror and soul searching you might be experiencing in your final moments onto Officer Roberts is where the problem is. Question the war. I have no problem with that but don't try to make these guys into cowards just because you don't agree with the war. And just because somebody doesn't have an instant conversion to your views in their final moments doesn't make them John Wayne. Most of the guys I met at the Special Forces and above levels, are highly intelligent, extremley professional soldiers. I think there is a much higher likelyhood of Roberts thinking about the men who would be coming back for him than looking "at his own beautiful hands" and getting all weepy-eyed.
posted by billman at 7:04 PM on March 6, 2002
posted by billman at 7:04 PM on March 6, 2002
Yeah, whatever, foldy. Why don't you say 'reap the whirlwind' (which really means 'you deserve everything you get'—you think we're too stupid and bleating to notice it?) a couple dozen more times. And then follow it up with 'God ble$$ AmeriKKKa', we haven't heard that from you for a while.
posted by darukaru at 7:39 PM on March 6, 2002
posted by darukaru at 7:39 PM on March 6, 2002
<cheerleader post> kudos, fold_and_mutilate. And kudos to everyone else who decided that the easiest way to refute the statements was to cast aspersions on f_&_m's testicular mass.</cheerleader post>
posted by Nyx at 8:59 PM on March 6, 2002
posted by Nyx at 8:59 PM on March 6, 2002
I've got a question for both sides of this thread. What makes one set of warriors correct and noble, and the other set fools?
posted by Sqwerty at 11:51 PM on March 6, 2002
posted by Sqwerty at 11:51 PM on March 6, 2002
You're free to question the war m&f, but you have no right to question then men on the ground in combat.
Oh, we each have EVERY right to question and condemn those who actually do the killing on EITHER side, and you can be damned sure I and others will continue to do so....just as I will continue to question and condemn the unimaginable bastards who hide and wage war from the safety of their corporate and government offices.
You think the hands of these soldiers ("theirs" and "ours") are somehow free of blood because someone else is *telling* them to do it? That defense died at Nuremberg. Are you telling us we should shrink from questioning and condemning the suicide bombers who killed people at the WTC? After all, they were just "following orders." How about the suicide bombers walking into malls in Israel? Shall we just rally 'round the flag and shout "Good hunting" to them because, after all, they're just flunkies?
No? Then don't expect me or anyone else not to question continually those who yank on the trigger. Or to point out continually the unbelievable SAMENESS and banality and stupidity and tragedy and horror on both sides of this excrement.
To project the terror and soul searching you might be experiencing in your final moments onto Officer Roberts is where the problem is. Question the war. I have no problem with that but don't try to make these guys into cowards just because you don't agree with the war. And just because somebody doesn't have an instant conversion to your views in their finalmoments doesn't make them John Wayne. Most of the guys I met at the Special Forces and above levels, are highly intelligent, extremley professional soldiers. I think there is a much higher likelyhood of Roberts thinking about the men who would be coming back for him than looking "at his own beautiful hands" and getting all weepy-eyed.
Dehumanizing the deaths of others cheapens the price quite well, doesn't it? How easy it becomes to accept the deaths of others when we rationalize that they die without fear or pain...for glory and fatherland and king...their last thoughts only of their brave comrades, whether they be Wehrmacht or Viet Cong or 101st Airborne. What a glorious thing it need be...it must be...for the reality is more frightening and illusion shattering than some can bear.
Lies about the glorious deaths of soldiers make me sick. They perpetuate violence. They are contemptible.
It hits a little too close to any conscience we may have left when we realize that such lies, and such patriotic flag waving, and our greed, and our willingness to take up arms over and over again, are all root causes of this endless cycle of pain and suffering.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 2:24 AM on March 7, 2002
Oh, we each have EVERY right to question and condemn those who actually do the killing on EITHER side, and you can be damned sure I and others will continue to do so....just as I will continue to question and condemn the unimaginable bastards who hide and wage war from the safety of their corporate and government offices.
You think the hands of these soldiers ("theirs" and "ours") are somehow free of blood because someone else is *telling* them to do it? That defense died at Nuremberg. Are you telling us we should shrink from questioning and condemning the suicide bombers who killed people at the WTC? After all, they were just "following orders." How about the suicide bombers walking into malls in Israel? Shall we just rally 'round the flag and shout "Good hunting" to them because, after all, they're just flunkies?
No? Then don't expect me or anyone else not to question continually those who yank on the trigger. Or to point out continually the unbelievable SAMENESS and banality and stupidity and tragedy and horror on both sides of this excrement.
To project the terror and soul searching you might be experiencing in your final moments onto Officer Roberts is where the problem is. Question the war. I have no problem with that but don't try to make these guys into cowards just because you don't agree with the war. And just because somebody doesn't have an instant conversion to your views in their finalmoments doesn't make them John Wayne. Most of the guys I met at the Special Forces and above levels, are highly intelligent, extremley professional soldiers. I think there is a much higher likelyhood of Roberts thinking about the men who would be coming back for him than looking "at his own beautiful hands" and getting all weepy-eyed.
Dehumanizing the deaths of others cheapens the price quite well, doesn't it? How easy it becomes to accept the deaths of others when we rationalize that they die without fear or pain...for glory and fatherland and king...their last thoughts only of their brave comrades, whether they be Wehrmacht or Viet Cong or 101st Airborne. What a glorious thing it need be...it must be...for the reality is more frightening and illusion shattering than some can bear.
Lies about the glorious deaths of soldiers make me sick. They perpetuate violence. They are contemptible.
It hits a little too close to any conscience we may have left when we realize that such lies, and such patriotic flag waving, and our greed, and our willingness to take up arms over and over again, are all root causes of this endless cycle of pain and suffering.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 2:24 AM on March 7, 2002
f_&_m's testicular mass.
~chuckle~
Obviously they didn't realize I'm sensitive only to volume aspersions.
Thanks for playing.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 2:33 AM on March 7, 2002
no tag team neccessary, as you can see f+m can take all comers without the need for covering fire.
whilst i admit that my posts in this thread may not have helped to foster an atmosphere where reasonable debate would be possible, i was hoping to reflect the stunted thinking and abrupt reasoning that i perceived.
darukaru - why not argue against my, er, arguments, instead of attacking me, again.
posted by asok at 4:32 AM on March 7, 2002
whilst i admit that my posts in this thread may not have helped to foster an atmosphere where reasonable debate would be possible, i was hoping to reflect the stunted thinking and abrupt reasoning that i perceived.
darukaru - why not argue against my, er, arguments, instead of attacking me, again.
posted by asok at 4:32 AM on March 7, 2002
Sqwerty - it all depends on your perspective, I guess.
For example, there was a Gallup poll conducted in Arab countries recently. Despite the fact that 15 of the 19 terrorists/hijackers/cowards/holy warriors/whatever were Saudis, 61% of those polled stated that the attacks were not carried out by Arabs.
**
Seems like we all do the best we can, and leave the judgement to history.
Although, F_&_M seems to think he knows the judgement of history - there is no nobility and no thuggery. Just people. Which, all other things being equal, I would agree with him or her.
The problem is that all other things are not equal. There are different ideologies and governments, and different views on life, the universe and everything (apologies to Douglas Adams).
posted by Irontom at 5:58 AM on March 7, 2002
For example, there was a Gallup poll conducted in Arab countries recently. Despite the fact that 15 of the 19 terrorists/hijackers/cowards/holy warriors/whatever were Saudis, 61% of those polled stated that the attacks were not carried out by Arabs.
**
Seems like we all do the best we can, and leave the judgement to history.
Although, F_&_M seems to think he knows the judgement of history - there is no nobility and no thuggery. Just people. Which, all other things being equal, I would agree with him or her.
The problem is that all other things are not equal. There are different ideologies and governments, and different views on life, the universe and everything (apologies to Douglas Adams).
posted by Irontom at 5:58 AM on March 7, 2002
<cheerleader post> kudos, fold_and_mutilate. And kudos to everyone else who decided that the easiest way to refute the statements was to cast aspersions on f_&_m's testicular mass.</cheerleader post>
It's a shame that those who've responded to f&m didn't look a little closer at the "statements" he's put forth in this thread. If they had, they might have realized that almost nothing he's said is worthy of a response.
"Violence is evil" (paraphrased). Right. Who doesn't know that? I would hazard a guess that everyone in this discussion is of the opinion that violence is something that humans should always try to avoid. Of course, to stop at saying "violence is evil" is rather simplistic and sophomoric. One who dwells in a world of such platitudes paints a self portrait of precious, guarded, willful naivete. Violence is evil; at the same time there are situations which require good men to do evil things with the intent of preventing greater evil. Violence is evil, but it exists, and will most likely always exist. The prudent thinker will realize this unfortunate fact and attempt to act in a manner that will minimize the total quotient of violence. The simpleton will wrap himself in platitudes and cry about the existence of violence.
"Violence begets violence." Again, the simpleton lives in a world of undeveloped truisms. Move along, folks - nothing to see here...
Or to point out continually the unbelievable SAMENESS and banality and stupidity and tragedy and horror on both sides of this excrement. The master of the obvious strikes again. Does he offer any solutions? No, he just points out the self evident fact the we live in an imperfect world inhabited by imperfect humans - a world in which evil exists. Perhaps he believes his valliant efforts to wish evil into nonexistence will some day prevail. I wish him the best of luck.
The rest is a pile of claptrap - the musings of a great and courageous keyboard marauder enjoying the sound of his own voice - insinuating his pusillanimity into the lives of those he has never met, operating from his personal plateau (the plateau where truism, simplicity and platitude rule the day) above the rest of us, dying the coward's 1000 deaths vicariously through those who actually live.
Bravo!
posted by syzygy at 6:37 AM on March 7, 2002
It's a shame that those who've responded to f&m didn't look a little closer at the "statements" he's put forth in this thread. If they had, they might have realized that almost nothing he's said is worthy of a response.
"Violence is evil" (paraphrased). Right. Who doesn't know that? I would hazard a guess that everyone in this discussion is of the opinion that violence is something that humans should always try to avoid. Of course, to stop at saying "violence is evil" is rather simplistic and sophomoric. One who dwells in a world of such platitudes paints a self portrait of precious, guarded, willful naivete. Violence is evil; at the same time there are situations which require good men to do evil things with the intent of preventing greater evil. Violence is evil, but it exists, and will most likely always exist. The prudent thinker will realize this unfortunate fact and attempt to act in a manner that will minimize the total quotient of violence. The simpleton will wrap himself in platitudes and cry about the existence of violence.
"Violence begets violence." Again, the simpleton lives in a world of undeveloped truisms. Move along, folks - nothing to see here...
Or to point out continually the unbelievable SAMENESS and banality and stupidity and tragedy and horror on both sides of this excrement. The master of the obvious strikes again. Does he offer any solutions? No, he just points out the self evident fact the we live in an imperfect world inhabited by imperfect humans - a world in which evil exists. Perhaps he believes his valliant efforts to wish evil into nonexistence will some day prevail. I wish him the best of luck.
The rest is a pile of claptrap - the musings of a great and courageous keyboard marauder enjoying the sound of his own voice - insinuating his pusillanimity into the lives of those he has never met, operating from his personal plateau (the plateau where truism, simplicity and platitude rule the day) above the rest of us, dying the coward's 1000 deaths vicariously through those who actually live.
Bravo!
posted by syzygy at 6:37 AM on March 7, 2002
It's a shame that those who've responded to f&m didn't look a little closer at the "statements" he's put forth in this thread. If they had, they might have realized that almost nothing he's said is worthy of a response.
And yet, your response is longer than most...
posted by robcorr at 7:04 AM on March 7, 2002
And yet, your response is longer than most...
posted by robcorr at 7:04 AM on March 7, 2002
And yet, your response is longer than most...
How marvellously pithy.
Has anyone ever told you that you have a keen eye for irony?
posted by syzygy at 7:12 AM on March 7, 2002
How marvellously pithy.
Has anyone ever told you that you have a keen eye for irony?
posted by syzygy at 7:12 AM on March 7, 2002
syzygy - sometimes the obvious has to be restated, as people can become estranged from common sense.
also, as you have read the thread, you will see that there is more to f+m's posts than the couple of summaries you have offered. dismissing his position as cowardly may make you feel some satisfaction, but it does not begin to address the issues raised above.
as a tangential note, if the most willfully ignorant, misonogystic profanity engine, that is tim dog, can produce this little germ of truth, then there is hope for all of us!
'I'm simplistic, imperialistic, idealistic
And I'm kicking ballistics
Having that gang war
We want to know what you're fighting for
Fighting over colors?
All that gang shit is for dumb muthaf*ckas'
posted by asok at 7:28 AM on March 7, 2002
also, as you have read the thread, you will see that there is more to f+m's posts than the couple of summaries you have offered. dismissing his position as cowardly may make you feel some satisfaction, but it does not begin to address the issues raised above.
as a tangential note, if the most willfully ignorant, misonogystic profanity engine, that is tim dog, can produce this little germ of truth, then there is hope for all of us!
'I'm simplistic, imperialistic, idealistic
And I'm kicking ballistics
Having that gang war
We want to know what you're fighting for
Fighting over colors?
All that gang shit is for dumb muthaf*ckas'
posted by asok at 7:28 AM on March 7, 2002
asok - I have no quarrel with one who wishes to point out obvious problems in the context of developing solutions to them. I do, however, have a quarrel with those who complain loudly about obvious problems in the context of complaining loudly about obvious problems.
I don't dismiss his position as cowardly. Instead, I dismiss his position (if it really deserves to be called that) as ludicrously oversimplified.
In my opinion, anyone who inhabits a world of truisim and oversimplification suffers from a form of mental cowardice known as denial. This is the person who says, "the world is too complicated for me to understand; it's safer if I just deny the complexity and hang steadfast to a few simple truths with which no one can argue." Now that's what I call taking a valliant stand...
In addition, f&m clearly thinks that every soldier and every advocate of violence* suffers from mortal fear. People's perceptions are colored by their own prejudices and experiences, and propensities, and if I am a liar, I am likely to believe that people I come into contact with are liars as well. f&m's propensity to believe that thousands or millions of people he has never met suffer from abject fear and cowardice makes me rather suspect of his personal valor. I think it would serve him well to know that not everyone suffers from the timidity he seems to wrestle with (or to have submitted to), whether he believes they do or not.
*Who advocates violence, by the way, the man who strikes an aggressive attacker in self defense or the man who attacks unarmed, unagressive civilians going about their daily lives?
posted by syzygy at 8:05 AM on March 7, 2002
I don't dismiss his position as cowardly. Instead, I dismiss his position (if it really deserves to be called that) as ludicrously oversimplified.
In my opinion, anyone who inhabits a world of truisim and oversimplification suffers from a form of mental cowardice known as denial. This is the person who says, "the world is too complicated for me to understand; it's safer if I just deny the complexity and hang steadfast to a few simple truths with which no one can argue." Now that's what I call taking a valliant stand...
In addition, f&m clearly thinks that every soldier and every advocate of violence* suffers from mortal fear. People's perceptions are colored by their own prejudices and experiences, and propensities, and if I am a liar, I am likely to believe that people I come into contact with are liars as well. f&m's propensity to believe that thousands or millions of people he has never met suffer from abject fear and cowardice makes me rather suspect of his personal valor. I think it would serve him well to know that not everyone suffers from the timidity he seems to wrestle with (or to have submitted to), whether he believes they do or not.
*Who advocates violence, by the way, the man who strikes an aggressive attacker in self defense or the man who attacks unarmed, unagressive civilians going about their daily lives?
posted by syzygy at 8:05 AM on March 7, 2002
Who knows what a man is thinking at the brink of death. I was watching veitnam veterans on MSNBC yesterday, and one of the guys said that the overwhelming feeling he felt was fear. But he also said that most of the soldiers overcome the fear because of adrenaline. He said things are confusing like, u dunno where ure commander is, or where are your people. This is when you are under heavy fire just as it happened in Afghanistan.
Then CNN showed interviews of young men, on the ground in Afghanistan. When asked what he was feeling, one of the young men said "its lucky not to get hit".
War is a dirty messy thing man. But war is not an instant death. Who knows what a person feels when he/she crosses into realization of imminent unavoidable death.
By the way, has this thread cooled down now ?
posted by adnanbwp at 8:34 AM on March 7, 2002
Then CNN showed interviews of young men, on the ground in Afghanistan. When asked what he was feeling, one of the young men said "its lucky not to get hit".
War is a dirty messy thing man. But war is not an instant death. Who knows what a person feels when he/she crosses into realization of imminent unavoidable death.
By the way, has this thread cooled down now ?
posted by adnanbwp at 8:34 AM on March 7, 2002
has this thread cooled down now ?
Probably, but I'd be careful. It has a very long half-life ...
posted by Wulfgar! at 8:51 AM on March 7, 2002
Probably, but I'd be careful. It has a very long half-life ...
posted by Wulfgar! at 8:51 AM on March 7, 2002
What arguments, asok? All you say is, basically, HAW HAW US MILITARY KILLS EVERYONE IN WORLD.
posted by darukaru at 9:05 AM on March 7, 2002
posted by darukaru at 9:05 AM on March 7, 2002
syzygy, It's hopeless to argue, since I recently learned that fold_and_mutilate is actually a script-based rejoinderbot, similar to Eliza, being developed by a joint project of MIT and the The Department of Artificial Intelligence at the University of Edinburgh. Matt volunteered to install the script into the metafilter code for testing almost seven months ago and, as you can see, the results are somewhat promising.
The rejoinderbot is programmed to recognize threads containing certain keywords like "Bush" and "war" and "battle" and can formulate almost 67,983,623 different responses from a relatively small number of programmed response words, including "testosterone" and "corporate" and "greed" and "violence".
While the script is capable of combining the response terms and phrases in a remarkably lifelike way, there remain many flaws that need to be worked out in time. For instance, the bot is incapable of deviating from the strictest line of argumentation and mainly uses one algorithm for concocting its rejoinders. The algorithm uses a simple tit-for-tat strategy, taking a respondant's post and simply flip-flopping the logic. FOr instance, if a poster calls an American soldier's actions in the face of ruthless Al Quaeda combatants bravery, the bot simply flips the logical structure, implying that it is "the American soldier who is ruthless and the Al Quaeda combatant who is brave."
The bot also takes specifics and reduces them to generalizations; if someone says "violence against American civilians is wrong" the bot simply removes words and replies that "violence is wrong". The reason the rejoinderbot was programmed to formulate its responses as a far left wing reactionary is simply because that is the simplest philosophical line for the script to follow, and the one requiring the least amount of human reasoning to put forward, rendering it a natural choice for the bot in these early stages of development. Later models will use a more complicated form of reasoning, even applying actual moral judgement to its posts to render it much more lifelike.
For a flawed beta version, I think the fold_and_mutilate bot is surprisingly successful, enough so that posters often confuse its mathematically chosen responses with the opinions of a live person, some even growing angry at it.
Another feature that the programmers may add soon is the inclusion of more social human responses, such as small talk and banter, giving the bot a more human quality. You'll notice that the bot has been incapable of such responses in its history here. Also in the works are giving the bot the ability to respond to a wide range of threads, instead of only those that contain concepts that are flagged by its currently narrow set of keywords.
You may notice that the bot has no email address or other personal information available. These features have been in development, but have taken quite a while to perfect, due to the much more complicated algorithms necessary to simulate personal human exchanges. The bot will have an email address implemented, so that it will be able to receive and respond to these more private messages, making it seem yet more human.
posted by evanizer at 9:10 AM on March 7, 2002
The rejoinderbot is programmed to recognize threads containing certain keywords like "Bush" and "war" and "battle" and can formulate almost 67,983,623 different responses from a relatively small number of programmed response words, including "testosterone" and "corporate" and "greed" and "violence".
While the script is capable of combining the response terms and phrases in a remarkably lifelike way, there remain many flaws that need to be worked out in time. For instance, the bot is incapable of deviating from the strictest line of argumentation and mainly uses one algorithm for concocting its rejoinders. The algorithm uses a simple tit-for-tat strategy, taking a respondant's post and simply flip-flopping the logic. FOr instance, if a poster calls an American soldier's actions in the face of ruthless Al Quaeda combatants bravery, the bot simply flips the logical structure, implying that it is "the American soldier who is ruthless and the Al Quaeda combatant who is brave."
The bot also takes specifics and reduces them to generalizations; if someone says "violence against American civilians is wrong" the bot simply removes words and replies that "violence is wrong". The reason the rejoinderbot was programmed to formulate its responses as a far left wing reactionary is simply because that is the simplest philosophical line for the script to follow, and the one requiring the least amount of human reasoning to put forward, rendering it a natural choice for the bot in these early stages of development. Later models will use a more complicated form of reasoning, even applying actual moral judgement to its posts to render it much more lifelike.
For a flawed beta version, I think the fold_and_mutilate bot is surprisingly successful, enough so that posters often confuse its mathematically chosen responses with the opinions of a live person, some even growing angry at it.
Another feature that the programmers may add soon is the inclusion of more social human responses, such as small talk and banter, giving the bot a more human quality. You'll notice that the bot has been incapable of such responses in its history here. Also in the works are giving the bot the ability to respond to a wide range of threads, instead of only those that contain concepts that are flagged by its currently narrow set of keywords.
You may notice that the bot has no email address or other personal information available. These features have been in development, but have taken quite a while to perfect, due to the much more complicated algorithms necessary to simulate personal human exchanges. The bot will have an email address implemented, so that it will be able to receive and respond to these more private messages, making it seem yet more human.
posted by evanizer at 9:10 AM on March 7, 2002
*Who advocates violence, by the way, the man who strikes an aggressive attacker in self defense or the man who attacks unarmed, unagressive civilians going about their daily lives?
Both.
Both responses are violent, and using the response is an advocation. No matter what you do, response to agressive acts with more of the same is an advocation of violence.
Of course, the idea that you can "win over your enemies with kindness" has been tested and is lacking in the case of holy war, but it doesn't mean that it isn't the best solution, when it works.
posted by dwivian at 9:12 AM on March 7, 2002
Both.
Both responses are violent, and using the response is an advocation. No matter what you do, response to agressive acts with more of the same is an advocation of violence.
Of course, the idea that you can "win over your enemies with kindness" has been tested and is lacking in the case of holy war, but it doesn't mean that it isn't the best solution, when it works.
posted by dwivian at 9:12 AM on March 7, 2002
here i've heard that some american students were sued because they were holding signs like "an eye for an eye makes the world blind" ... doesn't surprise me that you react like this here, if you're sued for this .......
and ... mm let me remember, a powerful country that
* threaten other countries and wishes to impose its will by force
* use about 40% of its budget for weapons
* denounce "enemy" people
* exacerbate patriotism
* uses olympics game to this end (patriotism)
* make all other powerful countries trying to temporize, as they wonder what to do
...
isn't it germany in 1933 ?? or is it the states in 2002 ?? wondering ... look alike ....
posted by aureliano buendia at 9:24 AM on March 7, 2002
and ... mm let me remember, a powerful country that
* threaten other countries and wishes to impose its will by force
* use about 40% of its budget for weapons
* denounce "enemy" people
* exacerbate patriotism
* uses olympics game to this end (patriotism)
* make all other powerful countries trying to temporize, as they wonder what to do
...
isn't it germany in 1933 ?? or is it the states in 2002 ?? wondering ... look alike ....
posted by aureliano buendia at 9:24 AM on March 7, 2002
Can you cite an instance where it has worked?
gandhi .. martin luther king ... thoreau ...
posted by aureliano buendia at 9:33 AM on March 7, 2002
gandhi .. martin luther king ... thoreau ...
posted by aureliano buendia at 9:33 AM on March 7, 2002
First off - where are you getting your numbers. The United States does not spend 40% of it's budget on defense/weapons/whatever. The following numbers were taken from the 2002 Budget Summary:
1998 - Defense outlays were 268 billion of 1.653 trillion (16.2%)
1999 - 274 billion of 1.703 trillion (16.09%)
2000 - 294 billion of 1.789 trillion (16.43%)
2001 - 299 billion of 1.856 trillion (16.11%) (estimated)
2002 - 319 billion of 1.961 trillion (16.27%) (estimated)
I'll skip all the other inflammatory rhetoric comparing the US to the Nazis. If you can't tell the difference, nothing I say will make any impression on you.
**
Ghandi used non-violent resistence to free his country from it's colonial power.
MLK used it to address institutionalized racism.
What did Thoreau do, exactly? Beyond writing a book, I am not aware that he really accomplished much beyond creating a lasting meme.
None of these things have anything to do with combat, or an attempt to destroy a culture. How do they relate to the subject at hand?
posted by Irontom at 9:51 AM on March 7, 2002
1998 - Defense outlays were 268 billion of 1.653 trillion (16.2%)
1999 - 274 billion of 1.703 trillion (16.09%)
2000 - 294 billion of 1.789 trillion (16.43%)
2001 - 299 billion of 1.856 trillion (16.11%) (estimated)
2002 - 319 billion of 1.961 trillion (16.27%) (estimated)
I'll skip all the other inflammatory rhetoric comparing the US to the Nazis. If you can't tell the difference, nothing I say will make any impression on you.
**
Ghandi used non-violent resistence to free his country from it's colonial power.
MLK used it to address institutionalized racism.
What did Thoreau do, exactly? Beyond writing a book, I am not aware that he really accomplished much beyond creating a lasting meme.
None of these things have anything to do with combat, or an attempt to destroy a culture. How do they relate to the subject at hand?
posted by Irontom at 9:51 AM on March 7, 2002
Gandhi ? non-violent resistance ? As long as I remember, the movement was called civil-disobedience movement. It was supposed to be non-violent. But it failed to that end. Destroying railway tracks, setting fire to police stations and all the other un rest is violent.
I do agree that the tactics like boycotting English products, huge sit-ins, long winded marches to the sea etc were non-violent. Most of did end violently.
posted by adnanbwp at 10:34 AM on March 7, 2002
I do agree that the tactics like boycotting English products, huge sit-ins, long winded marches to the sea etc were non-violent. Most of did end violently.
posted by adnanbwp at 10:34 AM on March 7, 2002
~ The strains of "Billy, Don't Be A Hero..." and a faint sound of retching come into the room ~
Oddly, news sources are reporting today quite a bit of confusion about whether young Roberts was "executed" or not, which certainly calls into question the original premise of this entire thread.
Or course, it might have happened. As noted, no doubt executions by Kalashnikov and B-1 on both sides will be the norm, as they have in every war.
And if it didn't, the young man is still as dead as he was before, right along side the Taliban dead.
At least they've seen the end of war. There they lie.
Watch for and report any differences in the dust they become, will you?
~ brrrrscrrrrrrrattttch...sound of needle sliding across phonograph record.."GODDAMNIT, who put that swill on the player?"....brrrapppppp...the gentle strains of "The Ballad of The Green Beret" by Barry Sadler [imprisoned in 1978 for manslaughter]..."GODDAMMIT, stick to the point..." fill the air softly... ~
"There they lie...in the dust they become." I hate that kind of weepy bullshit, don't you? And of course, propagandizing about your own soldiers vs. "the enemy" is so very useful, don't you know...
A new poster had suddenly appeared all over London. It had no caption, and represented simply the monstrous figure of a Eurasian soldier, three or four metres high, striding forward with expressionless Mongolian face and enormous boots, a submachine gun pointed from his hip. From whatever angle you looked at the poster, the muzzle of the gun, magnified by the foreshortening, seemed to be pointed straight at you. The thing had been plastered on every blank space on every wall, even outnumbering the portraits of Big Brother. The proles, normally apathetic about the war, were being lashed into one of their periodical frenzies of patriotism.
At the age of three Comrade Ogilvy had refused all toys except a drum, a sub-machine gun, and a model helicopter. At six - a year early, by a special relaxation of the rules - he had joined the Spies, at nine he had been a troop leader. At eleven he had denounced his uncle to the Thought Police after overhearing a conversation which appeared to him to have criminal tendencies. At seventeen he had been a district organizer of the Junior Anti-Sex League. At nine teen he had designed a hand-grenade which had been adopted by the Ministry of Peace and which, at its first trial, had killed thirtyone Eurasian prisoners in one burst. At twenty-three he had perished in action. Pursued by enemy jet planes while flying over the Indian Ocean with important despatches, he had weighted his body with his machine gun and leapt out of the helicopter into deep water, despatches and all - an end, said Big Brother, which it was impossible to contemplate without feelings of envy. Big Brother added a few remarks on the purity and single-mindedness of Comrade Ogilvy's life. He was a total abstainer and a nonsmoker, had no recreations except a daily hour in the gymnasium, and had taken a vow of celibacy, believing marriage and the care of a family to be incompatible with a twenty-four-hour-a-day devotion to duty. He had no subjects of conversation except the principles of Ingsoc, and no aim in life except the defeat of the Eurasian enemy and the hunting-down of spies, saboteurs, thoughtcriminals, and traitors generally.
[ironic smile]
Now hold the music, and also the rest of the 2-minute hate, please.
I say a better benediction for the young Americans, and their dead brothers in the Taliban, is this true one...
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 3:33 PM on March 7, 2002
Oddly, news sources are reporting today quite a bit of confusion about whether young Roberts was "executed" or not, which certainly calls into question the original premise of this entire thread.
Or course, it might have happened. As noted, no doubt executions by Kalashnikov and B-1 on both sides will be the norm, as they have in every war.
And if it didn't, the young man is still as dead as he was before, right along side the Taliban dead.
At least they've seen the end of war. There they lie.
Watch for and report any differences in the dust they become, will you?
~ brrrrscrrrrrrrattttch...sound of needle sliding across phonograph record.."GODDAMNIT, who put that swill on the player?"....brrrapppppp...the gentle strains of "The Ballad of The Green Beret" by Barry Sadler [imprisoned in 1978 for manslaughter]..."GODDAMMIT, stick to the point..." fill the air softly... ~
"There they lie...in the dust they become." I hate that kind of weepy bullshit, don't you? And of course, propagandizing about your own soldiers vs. "the enemy" is so very useful, don't you know...
A new poster had suddenly appeared all over London. It had no caption, and represented simply the monstrous figure of a Eurasian soldier, three or four metres high, striding forward with expressionless Mongolian face and enormous boots, a submachine gun pointed from his hip. From whatever angle you looked at the poster, the muzzle of the gun, magnified by the foreshortening, seemed to be pointed straight at you. The thing had been plastered on every blank space on every wall, even outnumbering the portraits of Big Brother. The proles, normally apathetic about the war, were being lashed into one of their periodical frenzies of patriotism.
At the age of three Comrade Ogilvy had refused all toys except a drum, a sub-machine gun, and a model helicopter. At six - a year early, by a special relaxation of the rules - he had joined the Spies, at nine he had been a troop leader. At eleven he had denounced his uncle to the Thought Police after overhearing a conversation which appeared to him to have criminal tendencies. At seventeen he had been a district organizer of the Junior Anti-Sex League. At nine teen he had designed a hand-grenade which had been adopted by the Ministry of Peace and which, at its first trial, had killed thirtyone Eurasian prisoners in one burst. At twenty-three he had perished in action. Pursued by enemy jet planes while flying over the Indian Ocean with important despatches, he had weighted his body with his machine gun and leapt out of the helicopter into deep water, despatches and all - an end, said Big Brother, which it was impossible to contemplate without feelings of envy. Big Brother added a few remarks on the purity and single-mindedness of Comrade Ogilvy's life. He was a total abstainer and a nonsmoker, had no recreations except a daily hour in the gymnasium, and had taken a vow of celibacy, believing marriage and the care of a family to be incompatible with a twenty-four-hour-a-day devotion to duty. He had no subjects of conversation except the principles of Ingsoc, and no aim in life except the defeat of the Eurasian enemy and the hunting-down of spies, saboteurs, thoughtcriminals, and traitors generally.
[ironic smile]
Now hold the music, and also the rest of the 2-minute hate, please.
I say a better benediction for the young Americans, and their dead brothers in the Taliban, is this true one...
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 3:33 PM on March 7, 2002
My rule of thumb, CRS, is that if you get more than 100 squealing responses from the die-hard, anti-antiterrorism folks, you probably hit the mark pretty well.
For all their noise, your point is clear and well-made. Complaining because a guard bumps off a terrorist's turban while praying in Guantanamo looks pretty stupid compared to his collegues butchering injured prisoners in Afghanistan.
posted by darren at 10:35 PM on March 7, 2002
For all their noise, your point is clear and well-made. Complaining because a guard bumps off a terrorist's turban while praying in Guantanamo looks pretty stupid compared to his collegues butchering injured prisoners in Afghanistan.
posted by darren at 10:35 PM on March 7, 2002
darukaru - here's a quote i just found.FWIW possible circular link, if you are really attempting to follow this subject on metafilter
Throughout the world, on any given day, a man, woman or child is likely to be displaced, tortured, killed "disappeared", at the hands of governments or armed political groups. More often than not, the United States shares the blame.
Amnesty International, 1996
and another, mandela rocks my world!
How can they have the arrogance to dictate to us where we should go or which countries should be our friends? Gadhafi is my friend. He supported us when we were alone and when those who tried to prevent my visit here today were our enemies. They have no morals. We cannot accept that a state assumes the role of the world's policeman.
Nelson Mandela, 1997
syzygy - i do not accept your argument that f+m is over-simplifying anything, care to give examples? denying all his points with this artifice could be equated to, er, denial.
also, fear is part of the range of human emotions, it could be claimed that someone who does not know fear is therefore not fully human.
darren - have to ask, have you read this thread?
posted by asok at 6:25 AM on March 8, 2002
Throughout the world, on any given day, a man, woman or child is likely to be displaced, tortured, killed "disappeared", at the hands of governments or armed political groups. More often than not, the United States shares the blame.
Amnesty International, 1996
and another, mandela rocks my world!
How can they have the arrogance to dictate to us where we should go or which countries should be our friends? Gadhafi is my friend. He supported us when we were alone and when those who tried to prevent my visit here today were our enemies. They have no morals. We cannot accept that a state assumes the role of the world's policeman.
Nelson Mandela, 1997
syzygy - i do not accept your argument that f+m is over-simplifying anything, care to give examples? denying all his points with this artifice could be equated to, er, denial.
also, fear is part of the range of human emotions, it could be claimed that someone who does not know fear is therefore not fully human.
darren - have to ask, have you read this thread?
posted by asok at 6:25 AM on March 8, 2002
i do not accept your argument that f+m is over-simplifying anything...denying all his points with this artifice could be equated to, er, denial.
I really am wondering if you're trying to provide comical relief here... Your statement is the definition of, er, denial. You've not refuted a single point that I made, only stated that you disagree with me. That's lächerlich, if I may...
I've already provided examples aplenty, and I supported them all. Feel free to continue groundlessly disagreeing with me, but until you come up with something better than a blanket, unsupported denial, I have nothing more to say to you...
posted by syzygy at 9:42 AM on March 8, 2002
I really am wondering if you're trying to provide comical relief here... Your statement is the definition of, er, denial. You've not refuted a single point that I made, only stated that you disagree with me. That's lächerlich, if I may...
I've already provided examples aplenty, and I supported them all. Feel free to continue groundlessly disagreeing with me, but until you come up with something better than a blanket, unsupported denial, I have nothing more to say to you...
posted by syzygy at 9:42 AM on March 8, 2002
You know, 1984-quoting by hard-left radicals is so much more ironic when you remember what Ingsoc stands for. It ain't capitalism.
posted by darukaru at 2:35 PM on March 8, 2002
posted by darukaru at 2:35 PM on March 8, 2002
flawed beta version or not, if he keeps winking and smiling at me, I'm gonna hit him.
posted by David Dark at 2:48 PM on March 8, 2002
posted by David Dark at 2:48 PM on March 8, 2002
« Older Arundhati Roy Fined, Sent to Jail for a Day. | darwin's famous apostle Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
The US is claiming that Al-Queda fighters are terrorists and should not get Geneva convention protections. Are you seriously expecting people to condemn Al-Queda for not respecting Geneva conventions FIRST? That's silly. Al-Queda isn't a national government and never signed the treaty (unlike say, the US).
posted by jonnyp at 7:12 AM on March 6, 2002