Gruesome Torturing

[quasi-modo]

Well, perhaps in your world there's no solution other than a violent one, so I'm just banging my head against the wall here.

After all, the world is just a set of problems with military solutions, right? 

*sigh*

No, but these people seem to only understand violence.

Remember that whole road map to peace thing? That really stopped the palestinian terrorists.

This reminds me a lot of that southpark episode where chris and saddam hussain are fighting for satan's affection. You are a lot like chris.

Bending over for your enemies is not going to get them to leave you alone, it just gives them a chance to rape you.


Also: I want to know what your reaction would be to someone throwing some unidentified fluid (keep in mind, this unidentified fluid probably is not water) on you or spitting on you arta. You can respond to this as if you were a guard or if this was just some random guy on the street. What would you do, what would you see fit?

[TehUser]

Also: I want to know what your reaction would be to someone throwing some unidentified fluid (keep in mind, this unidentified fluid probably is not water) on you or spitting on you arta. You can respond to this as if you were a guard or if this was just some random guy on the street. What would you do, what would you see fit?

If you have any sort of self-control or dignity, you realize that it's someone who needs your pity, not your anger and retaliation.  The only way to get above that sort of petty action is to be above it.

[Arta]

Also: I want to know what your reaction would be to someone throwing some unidentified fluid (keep in mind, this unidentified fluid probably is not water) on you or spitting on you arta. You can respond to this as if you were a guard or if this was just some random guy on the street. What would you do, what would you see fit?

If you have any sort of self-control or dignity, you realize that it's someone who needs your pity, not your anger and retaliation.  The only way to get above that sort of petty action is to be above it.

I *totally* agree.

Quasi, I don't think I've ever seen you advocate a non-violent solution... Its been my observation that America, currently, seems only to understand violence. 

The fact that being violent towards terrorists will only ever create more terrorists is another matter, but a pertinent one.

[muert0]

Why not take away the freedom of one person to safe guard the lives (freedom to live) or a lot more freedom? If he is nto a terrorist I failt to see why he would have a problem. I just cannot grasp the logic of this forum.

You fail to see why a person locked up for something they didn't do would mind? You could of headed the salem witch trials... Why lock one person up let's lockeveryone who doesn't agree with America up isn't that what America is all about?

You can lock a person up for something something they did not do without the patriot act. A person is not 'officially' guilty of a crime until he has had his trial. Until then the person can be held in jail without bond. That does not mean they did it. I see no problem with a suspected terrorist being incarcerated until a proper investigation is completed, and if the state chooses, a trial occurs. That is the way our justice system works now, except right now the person needs to be arrested by the cop when he is caught doing something or there is an arrest warrent. To my knowlege this just changes the warrent system for suspected terrorists... the local judge no longer makes the call on weather to detain the guy or not.

No judge makes the call as far as I know. I believe it's the constables decision and only the constables decision but I may be wrong. And if what I was told is right the supreme court can't even control the situation if you are arrested by a constable for being a "suspected terrorist". I'd say it's a system but I wouldn't really label it justice.

[MyndFyre]

If you have any sort of self-control or dignity, you realize that it's someone who needs your pity, not your anger and retaliation.  The only way to get above that sort of petty action is to be above it.

Okay.  Well I'll tell you what -- you and John Kerry can get together, have tea with Osama and try and work out a peaceful solution.

Wait!  They are not after any kind of political end; they are millenarian terrorists.  They see the United States, the UK, Saudi Arabia, Iran -- all of them are apostate regimes and deserve to be destroyed.

There is no political goal that they can achieve that would satisfy them.  Whereas, the IRA, the Chechnyan group -- they all have specific goals they want met, and they can be bargained with.

[TehUser]

Okay.  Well I'll tell you what -- you and John Kerry can get together, have tea with Osama and try and work out a peaceful solution.

Wait!  They are not after any kind of political end; they are millenarian terrorists.  They see the United States, the UK, Saudi Arabia, Iran -- all of them are apostate regimes and deserve to be destroyed.

There is no political goal that they can achieve that would satisfy them.  Whereas, the IRA, the Chechnyan group -- they all have specific goals they want met, and they can be bargained with.

Wow, way to be on target with what you said.  I am just shocked and amazed that anyone could come to have such synchronicity to my thoughts.  Oh wait, you couldn't be further off.  I was explicitly talking about quasi-modo's example of having an unknown fluid thrown onto me by a random person/prisoner, which should have been clearly evidenced by the fact that I quoted him.  Nowhere did I address international policy on terrorism or fringe groups.  Thanks for degrading the thread with an off-topic post and your worthless conservative opinion on an entirely different subject.

[Stealth]

I respectfully disagree. His "worthless conservative opinion" is merely taking what you said and applying it to the considerably parallel situation involving American foreign policy, specifically our response to terrorism.

[hismajesty]

Also: I want to know what your reaction would be to someone throwing some unidentified fluid (keep in mind, this unidentified fluid probably is not water) on you or spitting on you arta. You can respond to this as if you were a guard or if this was just some random guy on the street. What would you do, what would you see fit?

If you have any sort of self-control or dignity, you realize that it's someone who needs your pity, not your anger and retaliation. The only way to get above that sort of petty action is to be above it.

I *totally* agree.

Quasi, I don't think I've ever seen you advocate a non-violent solution... Its been my observation that America, currently, seems only to understand violence.

The fact that being violent towards terrorists will only ever create more terrorists is another matter, but a pertinent one.

Arta, with all due respect, why don't you answer the question?

[TehUser]

I respectfully disagree. His "worthless conservative opinion" is merely taking what you said and applying it to the considerably parallel situation involving American foreign policy, specifically our response to terrorism.

What?  How are they even remotely parallel?  Let me examine his response more closely...

Okay. Well I'll tell you what -- you and John Kerry can get together, have tea with Osama and try and work out a peaceful solution.

Useless attack on my person, rather than the issue...  How relevant.

Wait! They are not after any kind of political end; they are millenarian terrorists. They see the United States, the UK, Saudi Arabia, Iran -- all of them are apostate regimes and deserve to be destroyed.

That's fantastic, but doesn't involve any sort of personal affront or confrontation.  Not to mention, it's wildly unclear who he's calling an "apostate regime" as neither side can hardly be considered apostate by the other.

There is no political goal that they can achieve that would satisfy them. Whereas, the IRA, the Chechnyan group -- they all have specific goals they want met, and they can be bargained with.

To say that any individual has absolutely no goal is wildly ignorant, so I hardly find anything he said to even resemble the initial point.

[MyndFyre]

Allow me to clarify.

Okay. Well I'll tell you what -- you and John Kerry can get together, have tea with Osama and try and work out a peaceful solution.

Useless attack on my person, rather than the issue...  How relevant.

It is not an attack on your person.  It is an offer and a suggestion that you and the most recent American political leader collaborate on this issue.  Nowhere in that did I attack your person or your character.

Wait! They are not after any kind of political end; they are millenarian terrorists. They see the United States, the UK, Saudi Arabia, Iran -- all of them are apostate regimes and deserve to be destroyed.

That's fantastic, but doesn't involve any sort of personal affront or confrontation.  Not to mention, it's wildly unclear who he's calling an "apostate regime" as neither side can hardly be considered apostate by the other.

I don't know what is so difficult to understand about this snippet.  They [the terrorist groups] are not after any kind of political end; they are millenarian terrorists.  They [the terrorist groups] see the US, the UK, Saudi Arabia, Iran -- all of them [the four countries that I just listed and then more] are apostate regimes and deserve to be destroyed [in the eyes of the millenarian terrorists].

There is no political goal that they can achieve that would satisfy them. Whereas, the IRA, the Chechnyan group -- they all have specific goals they want met, and they can be bargained with.

To say that any individual has absolutely no goal is wildly ignorant, so I hardly find anything he said to even resemble the initial point.

Whether or not it resembles the original post is irrelevant, as we are completely off the topic at this point anyway (which was the abuse of guards towards prisoners).  In this snippet that you quoted, I was not saying that any individuals had absolutely no goals.  Rather, I said that the millenarian terrorist groups are defined by the fact that they collectively have no political goals (brace yourself for the dependent clause) that can be politically met.  The IRA and the Chechnyan terrorist groups are not millenarian terrorist groups because they have goals that can be met, and they can be brought to the table to bargain.  Al Qaeda cannot; they will not be satisfied until all Christian presence is out of the Middle East, the United States is cowering in its part of the world, the Saudi and Iranian regimes (among others) are toppled, and the Arab Nation follows the Taliban's laws.  These are clearly not something that we can agree to or bargain with.

By the way, my "worthless conservative opinion" is direct from my graduate-level national security class, the professor of which is an ardent Bush-despiser and who is against current US foreign policy.  It wasn't even opinion -- it was fact.  (Except for the You and Kerry should have Tea thing).

As to how they are parallel -- you said:

If you have any sort of self-control or dignity, you realize that it's someone who needs your pity, not your anger and retaliation.  The only way to get above that sort of petty action is to be above it.

If you are questioning my drawing a parallel between the individual guards and prisoners vs. US foreign policy and millenarian terrorist groups, you need to reevaluate your values.  Why should your method be applied to an individual but not more generally to a group?  When I read what you said, I inferred:
Self control and dignity are desireable traits.
The US should have those traits.
To have those traits means to not retaliate in anger, but to pity others and be above pettiness.
Therefore, US foreign policy should be adapted to pity the terrorists, not kill them.

This line of inferences (which I do not think is unreasonable given what you suggested) led me to say what I said about Kerry and you getting together for tea with Osama.  Again, it wasn't a personal attack, but rather a demonstration of what I inferred from your logic.

[quasi-modo]

I am just having so much trouble graping this mentality that no recourse is going to solve the problem.

The fact is that if we ignore the problem and stop fighting it it is not going to get better. There is no way to affectively negotiate with terrorists unless we let Israel rot or we all convirt to Islam. Our only recourse is by a show of force aimed at the terrorists groups themselves.

If we try to be nice it is going to show these people that there are no consiquences for their actions because we are a bunch of vaginas and their membership is just going to increase. You say if we piss them off and fight them it will get more members, I disagree because they may recruit some newbies, but we will have killed plenty of the existing members. There will also be a disencentive to join.

Let me compare this to the school bully. If you do not do anything to stand up for yourself he is going to keep picking on you and taking your lunch money. But if you beat the shit out of him he is not going to do it anymore. We can't bend over for the terrorists or they are just going to keep on attacking. The only possible solution is to attack them.


Back to the guards in particular. Arta I would love it if you would answer my questions.

[GaiDaL]

Let me compare this to the school bully. If you do not do anything to stand up for yourself he is going to keep picking on you and taking your lunch money.

Don't you see that We are the school bully here?  We are stronger, bigger, and more capable of doing what we want than any other country in the world.  Terrorists are the little kids trying to stick up for themselves, albeit in the wrong way.  Yes they deserve our pity, and yes we need to respond militarily if need be, but your idea of us just sticking up for ourselves is wrong.  If the bully was spat on in retaliation, do you think it is justified for the bully to beat the piss out of him?

[MyndFyre]

Let me compare this to the school bully. If you do not do anything to stand up for yourself he is going to keep picking on you and taking your lunch money.

Don't you see that We are the school bully here?  We are stronger, bigger, and more capable of doing what we want than any other country in the world.  Terrorists are the little kids trying to stick up for themselves, albeit in the wrong way.  Yes they deserve our pity, and yes we need to respond militarily if need be, but your idea of us just sticking up for ourselves is wrong.  If the bully was spat on in retaliation, do you think it is justified for the bully to beat the piss out of him?

What did we do as the "school bully" to provoke an attack such as the '93 WTC bombing?  The bombing of the USS Cole?  The 9/11 attacks?

Absolutely nothing.

We're an apostate regime that in the eyes of the terrorists must be changed.  It is a pitiful attitude, but how do you deal with a group of people that is willing to go blow themselves up to see that your ends are not met?  Not by handing out pity.

The school bully is the one who often provokes the attacking of the little kids.  We did nothing; we simply were.  That is nothing like any kind of justifiable basis for self-defense or murder.

[TehUser]

MyndFyre: Everything I read of yours reminds me of the quote from "The Princess Bride."  It is as follows:

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

You seem to enjoy bringing up terms from political science that really are used way the f*ck out of context (i.e. millenarian and apostate).

But anyhow, let's address what you've said.  First of all, your "suggestion" is clearly absurd as it has no practical value whatsoever, so either you're a retard for suggesting it or it was your idea of a clever attack.

Secondly, how can you possibly say that the terrorists seek no ends?  They aren't exactly out there killing people for the fun of it, they have goals, based on their faith, that they're obviously adhering to rather closely.  Furthermore, what does them being "millenarian" have to do with anything?  The destruction of the western world will usher in an era of peace?  Perhaps...  But I doubt it.

Thirdly, if you hadn't noticed, before you brought up your "graduate level political science" that you're oh-so-proud to flaunt, my post was directly on topic relating to the abuses of a prison guard inflicted upon my person in answer to the question that some conservative member of the board had asked.

Fourthly, I suggest you go learn the meanings of apostate and millenarian before you continue to reply using them, because you've clearly derived someone's misunderstanding of their meanings.

Lastly, I think it's great you can draw these unfounded assumptions out of what people say.  No wonder you always think you're right.  But now, let's think about this claim you've made that says, "What's good for the individual is good for the group."  I mean, obviously you must believe that to take my example, which was clearly based on a single person and instance, and turn it into an issue of national policy.  Do you not see problems there?  A tremendous number of horrible scenarios in which people do what they feel is best for themselves because MyndFyre says that's what's best for the whole of society?  Sounds like a bad time to me...

Now, onto the next post...  What did we do to provoke terrorist attacks?  You mean aside from deploy troops all over the world into places they aren't wanted?  You mean aside from committing atrocities and bending our own laws when it suits us (Guantanamo Bay)?  How about imposing sanctions when we don't like a certain form of government?  Oh no, clearly we're not doing any bullying...

[Arta]

Also: I want to know what your reaction would be to someone throwing some unidentified fluid (keep in mind, this unidentified fluid probably is not water) on you or spitting on you arta. You can respond to this as if you were a guard or if this was just some random guy on the street. What would you do, what would you see fit?

If you have any sort of self-control or dignity, you realize that it's someone who needs your pity, not your anger and retaliation. The only way to get above that sort of petty action is to be above it.

I *totally* agree.

Quasi, I don't think I've ever seen you advocate a non-violent solution... Its been my observation that America, currently, seems only to understand violence.

The fact that being violent towards terrorists will only ever create more terrorists is another matter, but a pertinent one.

Arta, with all due respect, why don't you answer the question?

I believe I did, in mny agreement with Tehuser:

I *totally* agree.

For whatever the reason, I don't think I would go start a fight. I am not a violent person. I would be pissed as hell, but I'd probably just keep on walking.