Camp Guantanamo

[Haezed]

Haezed You posed a question and I will try to answer it.

"Originally Posted by JohnB

Well you could try actually answering the damn question, that way other people don't have to guess. For the record, here they are again.

1.Who are you fighting?

2.How will you identify them?

3.How will you know it's over?

4.Who will sign the Armistice?

 

4 questions, can you provide 4 answers? "

To which Haezed, you replied

"Four questions can have a single answer. I've given that answer which acknowledges that you have asked difficult questions that help distinguish this from a prototypical "war." However, there are also similarities with a war even though we are not fighting a traditional nation state.

 

For this reason, I have repeatedly said that the US, as the primary leader in this fight, is struggling to develop new rules that will apply to this fight of the 21st century.

 

Why is this not an adequate answer? "

OK, I will try to explain.

Imagine this; I'm at the station trying to get a train to London. I don't know when the train is due and the information boards are not working (trust me that's not an unreasonable scenario).

I want to know if I have time to go and get a magazine and a coffee before I catch the train; I know the current time, but lack the information on the departure time of the train.

I ask somebody when the next train to London arrives and they tell me that it's due at 17:00.

 

Before I asked, I didn't know when the train was due. I asked a question and, because I got an answer, afterwards, I did know when the train was due.

That's what makes it an answer.

If I had asked someone and they had said "I don't know", "that's a very interesting question" or "wibble nuff nuff fishcakes!" this would have been a reply but, since it failed to convey the information I sought, it wouldn't have been an answer.

Do you understand the difference between a reply and an answer now?

 

I'm sorry if I failed to give the answer you wanted to hear. Seriously, this issue is not going to yield to simple answers or questions like, "when is a train due." Terrorists and legal systems don't operate on schedules.

 

Your questions are rhetorical but if you really want an answer (and you REALLY appear to want an answer), here goes:

 

1.Who are you fighting?

 

Al Qaeda and their ilk for now.

 

2.How will you identify them?

 

With difficulty but hopefully before they crash planes into our sky scrapers or nuke a city.

 

3.How will you know it's over?

 

We won't. Scary isn't it?

 

4.Who will sign the Armistice?

 

No one.

[timo]

I find those four questions pretty interesting and I think that there´s potentially a lot of insight to be gained by trying to give coherent answers to them - not primarily to justify the actions of your goverment but for finding your personal standpoint by a rather rational method, less prone to propaganda influences from whatever side.

For example "Al Qeada and their ilk" seems like a pretty weak/nonsaying answer to me. Besides making Al Qaeda sound like a club where you´re formally a member or not, the addition "and their ilk" is so vague that you could as well have said "the bad guys" instead. Answering "how will you ..." by "with difficulty" seems even more senseless to me.

Your answers to #3 and #4 seem more sensible but I´d hope that given some more thought there´s better answers to come up with (but that´sjust what I´d hope, it doesn´t necessarily have to be the case just because I want that).

 

I think I had tried answering #1 by starting with something like "people who harm innocent civilians" and then going on by analyzing what the terms "harm", "innocent" and "civilian" mean and then adjusting the sentence and the definitions I found for the three terms until I got a satisfactionary answer for myself.

[Haezed]

For example "Al Qeada and their ilk" seems like a pretty weak/nonsaying answer to me.

 

You think we are not facing an enemy? If so, I find that pretty delusional. From your "definition" below, you appear to think an enemy can be defined but your definition goes no where.

 

FWIW, just because something is hard to define, doesn't mean it can't exist.

 

Answering "how will you ..." by "with difficulty" seems even more senseless to me.

 

Apparently, you don't like me honestly answering the questions. We will identify the terrorists with difficulty but not being an expert of counter-terrorism, I can't give you a twelve point plan. Besides experts and politicians with "plans" to solve this problem are a dime a dozen.

 

Get real.

 

Your answers to #3 and #4 seem more sensible but I´d hope that given some more thought there´s better answers to come up with (but that´sjust what I´d hope, it doesn´t necessarily have to be the case just because I want that).

 

Sorry not to sugar coat it for you. We won't know when this war ends. No one will sign an armistice. These are silly questions that go no where.

 

I think I had tried answering #1 by starting with something like "people who harm innocent civilians" and then going on by analyzing what the terms "harm", "innocent" and "civilian" mean and then adjusting the sentence and the definitions I found for the three terms until I got a satisfactionary answer for myself.

 

You say my answers are weak? That... (*seems Panglos monitoring civility levels and stops mid sentence*) is ... rich.

 

The entire outlining exercise you prpose goes no where. Let's be honest here. The questions are posed to point to one conclusion no matter how many times they are repeated or no matter how you try to delve into some obtuse definitional answer.

 

The questions are posed to suggest we are not in a "war" because (i) it's hard to define the enemy, (ii) we will have a hard time finding and engaging the enemy, (iii) we may not know when the "war" is over and (iv) no one will sign an armitice to the "war."

 

I stipulate to all of this but find it irrelevant. I'm just not very interested to much how we define what we have on our hands, whether it is called the war against terror, the war against Islamofascists, the hunting of Al Qeada or anything else.

 

One thing this isn't - a criminal justice exercise. If we approach this with a pre-9/11 mentality, we're going to lose more than 3,000 or so lives, a few towers and a chunk of the pentagon. We're going to lose a city and our liberty along with it sometime in the next 20 years.

 

These points I've made repeatedly and they've been ignored with a comeback of the litany of the four questions which go no where I haven't already been. Tiresome stuff.

[John Cuthber]

I don't think we are facing "an enemy" any more than we always were. There are people who want to get power over others and there have always been those who for whatever reasons do not like what they see in the West. There is nothing new about terrorism; 9/11 just marks the time they got really lucky. It's not the dawn of some new era, if the IRA had thought of it 30 years ago they could have done something similar. The Arab/Israeli conflict could have done it any time since the invention of the plane.

It just happens that the first ones to think of it were anti-American.

Since nothing has really changed (except, perhaps the US people's mindset) it's hard to justify any change in policy.

If you call the fight against these criminals a war then you glorify them.

 

The talk of whether or not this was a war stemmed from how the people at Gitmo were treated. The question was "Are they soldiers of an enemy with whom we are at war?" If so then treat them as prisoners of war.

OK that means lock them up until the war is over. If the war will never be over then you have a problem there.

 

My point of view is that some of them are innocent and should be sent home as soon as possible (yet we are discussing this 4 years on).Some of them are criminals (as it happens,they are that particular group of criminals called terrorists) and these people should be punnished.

In order to decide what group they are in they should be tried.

You keep pointing out that there are practical problems with trials. Fair enough, but have you not noticed that there are major problems with not having trials?

You keep making essentially this assertion

"One thing this isn't - a criminal justice exercise. If we approach this with a pre-9/11 mentality, we're going to lose more than 3,000 or so lives, a few towers and a chunk of the pentagon. We're going to lose a city and our liberty along with it sometime in the next 20 years." with no clear evidence in support. The only way to take out a city is with a nuke. You seem muddled- the US govt has lots of these; the terrorists have none. If Al Queada and their ilk had a city the US could possibly nuke it. It doesn't work the other way because AQ don't have the bomb.

 

OK there's a possibillity they could get it and I have no doubt they would if they could. They are well funded and they haven't got it yet which proves that getting the bomb is difficult.

It's fairly obvious to me that you can make it much harder by reducing the supply of enriched uranium.

The US's gold is still in the federal reserve in Fort Knox. More people are interested in gold than in uranium yet nobody has taken the gold.

It seems clear to me that it is possible to lock up the uranium in the same way.

For what it's worth, the Russian and Chinese governments' gold reserves are still in their vaults too so it looks like they can prevent theft of stuff if they want.

God knows what the so called war on terror has cost in cash terms (never mind human terms). Buying up the world's "loose" enriched uranium and locking it up would be cheaper. ( practically and politically, it might be easier to fund the Russian's uranium storage security than to buy their uranium)

OK there are still a couple of nuclear powers out there who might not want to play along and who can produce their own nukes but I don't see (e.g.) Pakistan or India selling a nuke to AQ because they know who would be held to blame if it were used.

If the US were to chose to do this they would be seen, by me at least, as helping to tidy up the plannet and getting rid of some nasty stuff.

Who knows; that might even get them some positive press across the world.

 

On the other side we could look at what the USA (with the UK's support) has done in response to 9/11.

Two reports in the news today both indicate that the "war on terror" has done more harm than good. It has provided fuel for the fires of radicalism and it has reduced (at least the UK's) abillity to act as a force for good in the world.

[ParanoiA]

I don't think we are facing "an enemy" any more than we always were. There are people who want to get power over others and there have always been those who for whatever reasons do not like what they see in the West. There is nothing new about terrorism; 9/11 just marks the time they got really lucky. It's not the dawn of some new era' date=' if the IRA had thought of it 30 years ago they could have done something similar. The Arab/Israeli conflict could have done it any time since the invention of the plane.

It just happens that the first ones to think of it were anti-American.

Since nothing has really changed (except, perhaps the US people's mindset) it's hard to justify any change in policy.

If you call the fight against these criminals a war then you glorify them.[/quote']

 

Ah, finally the answer to a completely different post. No, the problem you suffer from is lack of interest. We've been not very damn interested in anything terrorists have been doing for three decades now. They declared war on us 30 years ago and have been engaged in it, actively, all over the globe where we can be found. Don't mistake your apathy for non-significance, or the sudden "awakening" of america as a propaganda exercise to get rich people richer.

 

Europe tried to appease hitler and it eventually took the armies of the greatest nations to come together and beat him. The same thing is happening with terrorism. Most of you want to coddle them along and play nice - appease them. We don't like that crap because it doesn't work. It just makes you feel all warm and fuzzy about yourself and post pones the problem for your kids to deal with. Nice resolution there. What a noble position that is...

 

Everybody's got good reasons, valid reasons, for shitting on their neighbors, or hating certain countries and so forth, but it doesn't make it ok to target, bomb and mass murder innocent people. That's the point america is standing on. That's the point we need to shove down their throats whether they like it or not. Learn to live and let live, or die. Just because you're an underdog, doesn't make it ok to kill civilians of the "big bully".

 

The talk of whether or not this was a war stemmed from how the people at Gitmo were treated. The question was "Are they soldiers of an enemy with whom we are at war?" If so then treat them as prisoners of war.

OK that means lock them up until the war is over. If the war will never be over then you have a problem there.

 

Yes, they are soldiers of an enemy we are at war with. We are at war with those who target and kill masses of innocent people. We are war with those who protect or "harbor" those who target and kill masses of innocent people. Our fate should not be determined by technical jargon and verbiage, but rather common freaking sense. Gee, I'm so sorry they don't wear uniforms and officially represent country A, B or C. Sorry it all doesn't fit in your little box of pre-determined philosophical deductions. You're going to have to get your head out of the vocabularly and see this for what it is: Groups of murder clubs that target and murder innocent people to instill fear and hide behind nation states. That's what it is. You're points of view seem to ignore this fact, gloriously.

 

What do you do when nation states can't and won't stop thier citizens from bombing other country's innocent citizens?? You do it for them...that's what you do.

 

We agree on processing these people in gitmo, rather than letting them sit there. But quit acting like this is any less ethical than POW's of previous wars. A POW isn't afforded any rights - other than Geneva stuff. I wonder how many innocent people have gotten caught up in wars past...probably a horrifying percentage. Unless you're going to take issue with the entire concept of POW's, you really don't have much of an argument here.

 

with no clear evidence in support. The only way to take out a city is with a nuke. You seem muddled- the US govt has lots of these; the terrorists have none. If Al Queada and their ilk had a city the US could possibly nuke it. It doesn't work the other way because AQ don't have the bomb.

 

Pre 9/11 mentallity. How many people have to die before you quit acting like they're mere "pests" rather than the racist murderers that they are? They aren't misquitos dude. They're people with fanatic obsession with death and god and no life to refer to in reverance of anything good and decent - they get off on killing those you love and watching you cry about it. Even some of the non-terrorist civilians of those nation states enjoy watching you cry about it. I'll bet the thousands of people who died BEFORE 9/11 might take issue with your assesment of Al Queda's abilities. No nuke today - as far as we know (and we can't even find Bin Laden mind you....) - so that means no nuke tomorrow either?

 

On the other side we could look at what the USA (with the UK's support) has done in response to 9/11.

Two reports in the news today both indicate that the "war on terror" has done more harm than good. It has provided fuel for the fires of radicalism and it has reduced (at least the UK's) abillity to act as a force for good in the world.

 

Duh... Of course fighting back pisses off the enemy more. If I walk up and punch you in the face and you hit me back, I'm going to get really pissed and hit you even harder and more. Does that mean you shouldn't fight back?? Does that mean fighting back won't work?? This is a tired, single level thought process point here. Of course they're going to use our actions to recruite more. Of course they're going to hit back even harder. That's to be expected. Same thing in WWII. We were getting our asses handed to us in the beginning when we started fighting back. The japanese fought back even harder. They stepped up their attacks and beat us in several battles before midway.

 

And there you would have been huh? "We have to stop fighting the japanese, it's just fueling the hatred and motivation of their soldiers and civilians - that's all we've done and now nobody likes us anymore".

 

This is why terrorism works on you. You would give in from the very beginning. They want you to think like you do - and you are. They want you to logically reason that it isn't worth it to fight them, and instead let them have their way.

[Haezed]

Ah, finally the answer ..."

 

Very well said. Mega dittos and all that.

 

With respect to the notion that things haven't changed raised in the post to which you respond, it is true that terrorists have always existed. Hoplites used to face off on open fields, crash into each other, resolve the conflict and go home to hang their armor on their mantles before going out to farm. That sort of all out direct "fair" war came to an end at the conclusion of the Peloponnesian war. Extensive use of terrorism has always been around, including the targetting of Civilians in Vietnam (by the VC) and, arguably, by night time bombing by the allies in WWII.

 

What has changed is that we are in an period of technological growth unprecedented in this planet's 4 billion year history that is giving increasing destructive power to terrorists. The 9/11 terrorists trained, in part with Microsoft flight simulator. A $50 off the shelf program helped these terrorists train how to fly a plane into an actual target. That single fact is scarier to me than about anything else.

 

What will $50 programs enable terrorists to accomplish in 2025 or 2050? Already with Google Earth, they can zoom into my back yard.

 

We can't slow down the pace of technological growth. I think we are in for a wild and rough ride in this coming century.

[ParanoiA]

We can't slow down the pace of technological growth. I think we are in for a wild and rough ride in this coming century.

 

I think that's, in part, why we'll eventually win this thing. We have the unique ability to see mistakes and correct them. This goes from policy to tactical errors. We have no shame to keep us from admitting failures and responding as a cooperative group to correct them. Our military has done this for decades.

 

But much of the extremist movement is aligned with god. God wills this and god wills that. They have no capacity to admit error and correct themselves - because that would be admitting failure in Allah, or in mission - mistakes and failure are frowned upon.

 

That little thing is enough to give us the edge. And that's just one little thing.

 

I'm worried about technological availability on the part of terrorists, but I have to realize that's always been the case. When the modern world moves to a new arsenol, the third world gets the old stuff. The old stuff now, of course, is pretty damn bad ass in my opinion so we'd better have some good counter stuff.

[gcol]

When I see or hear the word Guantanamo, I re-hear it as guano. Guano is the fertiliser drived from seabird droppings. Well, Guantanamo certainly is birdsh*t, and it does a damn good job of fertilising hatred. Q.E.D.

[ParanoiA]

When I see or hear the word Guantanamo, I re-hear it as guano. Guano is the fertiliser drived from seabird droppings. Well, Guantanamo certainly is birdsh*t, and it does a damn good job of fertilising hatred. Q.E.D.

 

So what was doing it before we started fighting back? They seem to have developed quite a following seeing as how they practically owned an entire nation to themselves, before we even started shooting back.

 

From what I can tell, there's plenty of fertilizer for them to pilfer through no matter what we do...

[John Cuthber]

"Duh... Of course fighting back pisses off the enemy more. If I walk up and punch you in the face and you hit me back, I'm going to get really pissed and hit you even harder and more. Does that mean you shouldn't fight back?? Does that mean fighting back won't work?? This is a tired, single level thought process point here."

 

I don't care if they get upset; I care that more people on our side die as a result of these actions.

 

I think there's about 300 million people in the states; to a good aproximation they will all be dead in a hundred years so the death rate is something like 3 million a year or about 8000 a day.

The worst terrorist atrocity in history, unprecedented in scale, raised the death rate by less than 50% for a day. I think a bad spell of cold weather can do that. I'm not trying to belittle the suffering of those involved but on the grand scale of things, it didn't achieve much beyond making a lot of Americans hate Moslems.

If they could get the bomb, they would have used it. They haven't so it's fair to say they can't get it. Let's try to keep it that way.

Without the bomb they are just an irritation.

 

As for

"No, the problem you suffer from is lack of interest. We've been not very damn interested in anything terrorists have been doing for three decades now. They declared war on us 30 years ago "

It's a good deal less than 30 years ago that I was woken up by a terrorist bomb in London. As it happens I was away on business when another terrorist bomb ripped apart a building across the traffic island from where I worked.

Another terrorist was arrested at the bus stop just 50 yards or so up the road from where I worked.

Fortunately my family were out of town when yet another bomb, planted in a litter bin, tore through the main street in the town centre where they usually go shopping. The terrorists killed a couple of children with that bomb. They were burried in the church where, as a kid, I made brass rubbings.

Would you like to explain the sense in which I have had a lack of interest in terrorists please?

[ParanoiA]

I think there's about 300 million people in the states; to a good aproximation they will all be dead in a hundred years so the death rate is something like 3 million a year or about 8000 a day.

The worst terrorist atrocity in history, unprecedented in scale, raised the death rate by less than 50% for a day. I think a bad spell of cold weather can do that. I'm not trying to belittle the suffering of those involved but on the grand scale of things, it didn't achieve much beyond making a lot of Americans hate Moslems.

 

Oh cool. So you're actually advocating pacifism. Kill us all you want. As long as it doesn't go over 8000 a day, we're totally cool with it. Over 8000 a day, and then we have to consider the risk in fighting back - totally mathmatical. Humanitarian costs, completely irrelevant - just math. Who cares if this means they'll continue to kill us daily till the end of time - as long as the daily allotment hasn't been reached.

 

Why are any of us bothering with any of this? Let's do the global math and use your logic there too. Maybe we all can just stop feeding each other, curing each other's medical woes, helping in times of catastrophe - because the daily limit of dead hasn't been reached so there's just no mathmatical sense in it huh?? We might lose more people trying to save people. How stupid is that?

 

If they could get the bomb, they would have used it. They haven't so it's fair to say they can't get it. Let's try to keep it that way.

Without the bomb they are just an irritation.

 

What in god's name has possibly led you to believe "it's fair to say they can't get it"? They can get it, and will get it with a nuclear Iran - probably will still get it without a nuclear Iran. With or without the bomb they are more than an irritation. Do I really need to go and paste the number of terrorist incidents solely against our own country? Including the irritable deaths? Yes, I do. I will be posting that as soon as I can get home to get the link. A rash is irritating, premature death is an abomination and should never be accepted by a society - ever. Or else, your next postion should be advocating how ethics and morality is worthless in your view.

 

I'm not trying to belittle the suffering of those involved

 

Yes you are. You did exactly that. They suffered to an "irritation".

 

At least you were honest about your lack of regard for america and total respect for terrorism.

 

Would you like to explain the sense in which I have had a lack of interest in terrorists please?

 

Just read your posts. You have a lack of interest in dealing with terrorism. They haven't killed the daily quota you require to give a shit yet...

[Pangloss]

I'll give everyone a chance to post one final thought. Please take this opportunity to recover gracefully and say something pleasant to your opponents.

[GutZ]

Oh cool. So you're actually advocating pacifism. Kill us all you want. As long as it doesn't go over 8000 a day, we're totally cool with it. Over 8000 a day, and then we have to consider the risk in fighting back - totally mathmatical. Humanitarian costs, completely irrelevant - just math. Who cares if this means they'll continue to kill us daily till the end of time - as long as the daily allotment hasn't been reached.

 

Are you suggesting that we should attack, detain, or act however we want just simply because we have innocent causalities of war or terrorism. Do you know how many civilians have died within the Iraq "war" or other places in the world?

 

Are they now justified to attack NA because of the that? To me it seem like a weak arguement for Camp Guantanamo and everything that come with it.

 

You can use all the O'Rielly Approaches, how I am a terrorist sympathizer, how I hate America, or whatever mundane attack...It doesn't change the fact that is, given the specific events of the past, we are justifying an act that does not agree with our overall moral views. We feel there is set standard to which all humans are give basic rights.

 

Place them out there, does Camp Guantanamo follow them? Simple. IF we cant effectively combat something, and we lower our standards then that what we do, but we can't try and justify it.

[ParanoiA]

Are you suggesting that we should attack, detain, or act however we want just simply because we have innocent causalities of war or terrorism. Do you know how many civilians have died within the Iraq "war" or other places in the world?

 

Are they now justified to attack NA because of the that? To me it seem like a weak arguement for Camp Guantanamo and everything that come with it.

 

You can use all the O'Rielly Approaches, how I am a terrorist sympathizer, how I hate America, or whatever mundane attack...It doesn't change the fact that is, given the specific events of the past, we are justifying an act that does not agree with our overall moral views. We feel there is set standard to which all humans are give basic rights.

 

Place them out there, does Camp Guantanamo follow them? Simple. IF we cant effectively combat something, and we lower our standards then that what we do, but we can't try and justify it.

 

I don't get where you got that I'm supporting the present situation in Guantanamo. I've stated in several posts now that I don't agree with letting these people rot. I've also stated the process should be obligated to prove itself and that we have a duty to get those people processed fairly.

 

The west response is basically "give us more time" - to let our wheels go round and round. I have to agree, I wouldn't care much for that answer out of any other country, so I don't think it's right for them to be held all of this time without a chance for the innocent to be found and released.

 

I also said, and this may have seemed like I don't care, that at the end of the day they are still POW's. How is that any different than gathering german prisoners of war and keeping them until after the war is over? Well, the only difference I've found is they're not wearing uniforms, so the innocent CAN be caught in the net. That's why I don't support the present situation in Guantanamo.

[Pangloss]

Slander and misrepresentation wasn't what I had in mind, and a post has been removed. Thread closed, discussion over.