Gruesome Torturing

[quasi-modo]

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.

Okay, well the next time you walk by my cell I will toss more urin on you. It wouldn't make me mad... it would just invite me to do it again.

[Adron]

Revocation of privileges or luxuries, temporary solitary confinement?

what privileges? What luxuries? Here lets put him in time out... that is going to straighten him out.

Perhaps you need to add some privileges or luxuries so you have something to revoke? Simple.

[Adron]

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.

That's not true. Some of IRA could not be bargained with. And Saddam Hussein could be bargained with, you just didn't offer enough.

Can USA be bargained with? Hmm.. Didn't sign Kyoto agreement yet... I guess not. Let's destroy them?

You may be the biggest bully right now, but it won't last forever.

[Adron]

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.

I don't agree with this. Terrorist attacks virtually always have some sort of reasoning behind them. Perhaps it's your financial support to Israel (their enemies)? (Compare to attacking someone for giving support to what you call "terrorist groups")

The school bully is the one who doesn't listen to others, who makes up his own rules for others to follow and uses his superior strength to enforce them. It's the one whom others will tread carefully around, agree with as long as he's in sight, and perhaps some day secretly get a bit of cheap revenge on by pissing in his shoes. Or flying jets into a couple of his towers.

[MyndFyre]

I don't agree with this. Terrorist attacks virtually always have some sort of reasoning behind them. Perhaps it's your financial support to Israel (their enemies)? (Compare to attacking someone for giving support to what you call "terrorist groups")

The school bully is the one who doesn't listen to others, who makes up his own rules for others to follow and uses his superior strength to enforce them. It's the one whom others will tread carefully around, agree with as long as he's in sight, and perhaps some day secretly get a bit of cheap revenge on by pissing in his shoes. Or flying jets into a couple of his towers.

Why is Israel the enemy of al-Qaeda?  Undoubtedly we have contributed to the Saud family, and the Israelis.  But is that direct provocation?  What has Israel done to the members of al-Qaeda?  They're busy with the PLO (an group with actual goals).

No; al-Qaeda will not be satisfied until they see the destruction of what they believe are "apostate" regimes.

By the way, TehUser, "apostate" is not a political science word.  Mormons consider the Christian church "apostate," just as the radical Islamic fundamentalists consider the Saudis, Iran, and Iraq (including Saddaam) "apostate."  It means "fallen."  Get a damn dictionary and look it up.  It's not jargon.

[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?

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.

If somebody shot one of your loved ones, would you just keep on walking because you're not a violent person?

[Hitmen]

If somebody shot one of your loved ones, would you just keep on walking because you're not a violent person?

Can you really compare someone shooting someone you love to having liquid thrown at you? I think there's quite a big fucking difference.

[Adron]

Why is Israel the enemy of al-Qaeda?  Undoubtedly we have contributed to the Saud family, and the Israelis.  But is that direct provocation?  What has Israel done to the members of al-Qaeda?  They're busy with the PLO (an group with actual goals).

I think they'll consider anything done against a muslim. So the less you do against muslims, the better. It doesn't have to be done against them personally either. Weren't all Americans upset by the WTC going down (or at least more than those who were inside the towers)? In the way that something done against some Americans is picked up by all of America, something done against some muslims could be picked up by al-Qaeda.

No; al-Qaeda will not be satisfied until they see the destruction of what they believe are "apostate" regimes.

Some in al-Qaeda won't, just like some Americans won't be satisfied until they see the death of all abortionists. You'll have to try harder to convince me that Saddam couldn't be satisfied until he saw the destruction of all apostate regimes though. Or the Taliban government. I think some more negotating and some bigger offers would've swayed them. Lots of money perhaps could've done it even, the cost of the war paid in cash.

[MyndFyre]

You're a jackass, TehUser.  I'm glad I have the time to cogently respond.  I have not made any personal attack on you, and yet you appear to have no problem attacking me.

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).

As I explained what an apostate regime is above, I will not visit it again.  However, "millenarian," whether or not it is "in context" (whatever that means), is a distinguishing adjective to separate terrorist groups like the IRA from al-Qaeda.  I believe I have clearly defined it several times, so I'm not sure what your problem with it is.

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.

Why is it absurd?  Because it isn't possible?  Correct!  That was the point I'm trying to make.  However, your assertion that I am a retard is, again, a personal attack.  Check the rules for this forum.

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. 

You seem to be conveniently and consistently ignoring a dependent clause that I have repeatedly emphasized:

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.

My assertion is that these groups do not have goals that we can meet.  Al Qaeda does not like the United States; it views the US as an "apostate" (or religiously fallen) regime, as it does Iran, Iraq (again, even when Saddaam was in power), Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc.

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.

That is what the terrorist groups that I just described are called, "millenarian."  As I said above, it is not (in this case) referent of the "millenialism" argument that Christians discuss in Revelation (pre-, during, or post-Armageddon war).  I am not familiar with the etymology of the word, but since you seem to be stuck on it, I will try to find out.

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.

I'm pretty sure we've talked about its relevance and being on-topic.  I explained what I thought through (which you viciously attacked, to which I respond below).  I notice that no moderators have split the topic either.

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.

How does one derive someone else's misunderstandings?  In any case, I appreciate the fact that you're criticizing my knowledge in a field in which I've chosen to make my career.  It certainly gives you credibility.

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.

Another attack on my person.

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.

So, in your opinion, the US should not posess (at state level of analysis) self control and dignity?  I was incorrect in inferring that?  I apologize for having learned the principle that, "Before you do something, ask yourself how things would be if everybody in the group did that."  But yes, I do believe that, generally speaking, what is good for an individual tends to be good for the whole.

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...

That's how capitalism works.  I don't see a tremendous number of horrible scenarios that happen.  People realize that acting altruistically and not only helping themselves but also helping each other will get them farthest.  And no, I'm not suggesting that people do that because I say so (another personal attack?), but because that's how the system works now, and it seems to work rather effectively.

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...

The UN does all that, but do you see terrorist actions on the UN?  No.  If France says it's okay, apparrently it's legitimate.  But when the UN (in my opinion, an illegitimate authority anyway, because while people institute governments, in this case, governments have instituted a government) says it's okay to do something, all of a sudden it's legitimated.  Or is the UN also a bully in your eyes?

Let's take North Korea as an example of a state that we have imposed economic sanctions on.  We have good reasons for not liking them -- indeed, they are a so-called "rogue" state.  Even China has pulled out its support of the DPRK, which, in the years following the end of the Cold War, was its biggest supporter.  The reason they seem to be a rogue state (according to literature) is that they perceive the US as a threat.  We are not; Communism is dead, and I believe that, should the DPRK disarm, we would pull out of Seoul.  Why do we not pull out of Seoul first, though?  Well, the ROK is one of our most important allies in the region.  With about a million North Korean troops forward-deployed just at the end of the DMZ, we do not feel we can.

While Kim Jong-Il has his troops supplied (though untrained -- the most recent intelligence suggests that a ration of 1:12 exists for our troops to those of the DPRK), his people are starving.  And to get money, he sells WMDs such as the Taepodong I and II missiles, which are able to carry a nuclear payload (the Taepodong II capable of reaching areas in an arc from Phoenix to Madison, Wisconsin, according to recent intelligence), to terrorist groups.  He defined the international community last year in the "nuclear revelation" by pulling the cameras out of his nuclear facilities.

Should we stop the sanctions?  Would that help?  Give him more money to develop his weapons and nuclear facilities?  I think not.  I think there is a diplomatic solution available, but it isn't just buying him out.

[edit: removed an attack and corrected a spelling error, clarified my position on North Korea]

[quasi-modo]

Revocation of privileges or luxuries, temporary solitary confinement?

what privileges? What luxuries? Here lets put him in time out... that is going to straighten him out.

Perhaps you need to add some privileges or luxuries so you have something to revoke? Simple.

Then how is it punishment to begin with? This is a prison, not a classy hotel.

[quasi-modo]

If somebody shot one of your loved ones, would you just keep on walking because you're not a violent person?

Can you really compare someone shooting someone you love to having liquid thrown at you? I think there's quite a big fucking difference.

I think he was making an allusion to terrorist attacks....

[Adron]

Revocation of privileges or luxuries, temporary solitary confinement?

what privileges? What luxuries? Here lets put him in time out... that is going to straighten him out.

Perhaps you need to add some privileges or luxuries so you have something to revoke? Simple.

Then how is it punishment to begin with? This is a prison, not a classy hotel.

Hehe, actually, I'm making just that argument about Swedish prisons in another argument going on. I think we're a bit far towards the classy hotel end.

Anyway, if there are no privileges or luxuries you can remove from the prisoners to punish them without resorting to physical punishment, I think you're too far on the other end. There has to be rewards for behaving well as well as punishment for behaving bad, and the easiest way of accomplishing this is by having some kind of privileges. Perhaps better food, more time in gym or outside, that sort of thing.

[Hazard]

In Sweedish prisons they sing songs and hold hands while skipping merrily through the gumdrop fields and sprinkle pastures, with flowing chocolate rivers and all the children are merry.

[MyndFyre]

Why is Israel the enemy of al-Qaeda?  Undoubtedly we have contributed to the Saud family, and the Israelis.  But is that direct provocation?  What has Israel done to the members of al-Qaeda?  They're busy with the PLO (an group with actual goals).

I think they'll consider anything done against a muslim. So the less you do against muslims, the better. It doesn't have to be done against them personally either. Weren't all Americans upset by the WTC going down (or at least more than those who were inside the towers)? In the way that something done against some Americans is picked up by all of America, something done against some muslims could be picked up by al-Qaeda.

But you have to stop and ask yourselves -- was al-Qaeda going after only Christians and Jews who were in the towers, or were they going after Americans, or even a larger scale, Westerners?  I think that America (and the western world) rightly rallied when the towers were attacked because it was in fact an attack on the Western world.

No; al-Qaeda will not be satisfied until they see the destruction of what they believe are "apostate" regimes.

Some in al-Qaeda won't, just like some Americans won't be satisfied until they see the death of all abortionists. You'll have to try harder to convince me that Saddam couldn't be satisfied until he saw the destruction of all apostate regimes though. Or the Taliban government. I think some more negotating and some bigger offers would've swayed them. Lots of money perhaps could've done it even, the cost of the war paid in cash.

I'm not making the case for the war in Iraq here.  I support it on the basis of human security, not that Saddaam was aiming to take down apostate regimes.  As states go, generally speaking I believe you are correct -- they can't handle those kinds of apolitical goals.  But I am referring to non-state actors, and I do honestly believe that some of these groups cannot be dealt with.  How does one bargain with someone who is willing to blow himself up?

An aside: while I am vehemently against abortion, I think it's just silly that we should kill abortionists.

[quasi-modo]

Revocation of privileges or luxuries, temporary solitary confinement?

what privileges? What luxuries? Here lets put him in time out... that is going to straighten him out.

Perhaps you need to add some privileges or luxuries so you have something to revoke? Simple.

Then how is it punishment to begin with? This is a prison, not a classy hotel.

Hehe, actually, I'm making just that argument about Swedish prisons in another argument going on. I think we're a bit far towards the classy hotel end.

Anyway, if there are no privileges or luxuries you can remove from the prisoners to punish them without resorting to physical punishment, I think you're too far on the other end. There has to be rewards for behaving well as well as punishment for behaving bad, and the easiest way of accomplishing this is by having some kind of privileges. Perhaps better food, more time in gym or outside, that sort of thing.

The reward for being good in prison would ideally be parol. If you are bad you should be punished acordingly. For example, if you throw piss on a guard you should expect the guard to turn around and mace you for doing it. Its not torture because the prisoner brought it on himself. I bet the prisoner expected to be punished for it too. If you do not want to get hit do not attack a guard, if you do not want to be maced, do not throw shit at guards.