Is this justified?

[cenimo]

datan

Yes, Viet Nam - Airborne Infantry...

most interrogations are by MI types, not grunts... the footsoldiers and airman capture and process the POW's on up the line...it's MI and snoop types that do this kind of stuff (usually).... while downed pilots have a good chance at surviving, grunts usually have a lifespan of about 30 minutes after capture.....often shot trying to escape, Escape and Evasion training instills that the sooner the better the chances of escape.....or, some of them unfortunately provoke getting shot as oppossed to going to a POW camp...
the Japanese treated POW's so badly because getting captured instead of shooting oneself or "going down swinging" takes one out of warrior or soldier status....

most any combat veteran will tell you the fear of getting captured is far greater than the fear of dying...

About America being God's gift to humanity, I don't see us portraying ourselves like that. But I have seen this, over and over and over...foreigners come to America and "freak out" on the freedom. In their own countries because of regulations or caste systems or whatever they could never go into business...they come here and consider us crazy for having the freedoms we do and a boss...over and over I've heard people say that if they grew up in america they would never work for someone else.....
but we see grow up seeing one or both parents (if both) grinding it away and bringing home a pyacheck and that's the way it is....
this is largely due to the education system which, in essence, prepares you to be someone else's employee....but that's another thread...

 

[Wolseley]

cenimo - are you a veteran?

Nah, you were in Vietnam just to sunbathe and play ping-pong, right cenimo?

Look at the quote from the movie that I posted on page 3. In 1998, that was the wrong thing to do. In 2003, that's tolerable. Have moral standards really changed that much in 5 years?

While I think that Hollywood movies are among the poorest of standards to use if you want to make judgements about foreign policy, I would have to say that yes, standards have changed; not in the last five years, but in the 18 months since 9/11.

It's not the same world as it was before, and it never will be again. The whole aspect of things has changed, in ways that will affect the very fabric of American life, and which will touch every part of our society.

We've seen this before, however. In every new war, the so-called "civilized" nations are forced to adopt, to a certain extent, the tactics of the enemies they fight if they want to succeed against that enemy. Being Mr. Nice Guy just might cause you to lose the conflict.

In 1870, most armies were made up of officer corps comprised of gentleman aristocrats, and war was considered a sort of "honorable endeavor" bound by rules of "fair play".

But in World War I, it became acceptable for the Germans to bombard towns for days with artillery, to indescriminately throw tons of lethal gas, to destroy food supplies and farmland to cripple the enemy; and the Allies, to keep from getting overwhelmed, had to adopt similar tactics. The wanton destruction of farmland was never an issue, but the Allies certainly used massive amounts of arty and lethal chemicals.

In World War II, bombing of large civilian centers like London became common practice, since the industrial base in the cities produced large amounts of defense material; the fact that thousands of civilians also lived in these cities was acceptable collateral damage. The Allies followed suit by bombing places like Berlin and Munich and Tokyo and Yokohama.

In Vietnam, the counter-insurgency forces employed by the United States adopted the same tactics as the National Liberation Front: infiltration, assassination, psychological operations, and what today we would probably call terrorism.

I suspect, sadly, that we will see more of this as time goes on; it's simply the nature of armed conflict. It's a new era, and many of the ethical standards we presently operate under are quite obsolete; the Geneva Convention, for example, is nearly sixty years old, and it was promulgated in a period when wars were fought by nation-states with professional armies bound by international rules of warfare. But today's enemies are terrorist organizations not affiliated with any national state nor bound by any international regulations or laws; they do whatever they want to hurt their enemy.

For the United States to stick to the high road while these people do whatever they want is just as senseless as the British in the 18th cnetury wearing bright red coats and marching in rigid lines while the American patriots wore buckskin and shot at them from behind fencerows and trees.

Mind you, I am not advocating that we adopt the despicable tactics used by these people wholesale; I don't think we should start hijacking Saudi airliners and flying them into buildings in downtown Baghdad. But if we are going to survive, we have to play, to a certain degree, by the rules these people have established; to do otherwise is say it's okay for them to hit us with as many sucker punches as they want, to kick us and trip us up, to hit us with horseshoes in their gloves, and we'll be perfect sports and box by the Queensbury Rules. That's not only foolish, it's a recipe for national defeat.

The 21st century is going to be a very, very different century than the 20th was. Old ways of warfare are obsolete, and the new accepted principles are still in the process of being formed. I don't say that this is moral, ethical, or good. I merely point out that it has happened before, and it's going to continue to happen, because that's just the way things are. And it won't do us the slightest bit of good to whine about "Well, it ought to be that way". Maybe it should, but it isn't, and there you are. We're not going to change 6,000 years of human warlike behavior just because we recognize that it's ugly.

 

[Freodin]

You are forced to use these methods? It´s "play dirty or loose" only?

No, I refuse to believe that. This kind of thinking only leads to more atrocities. Someone has to take a stand and say "No, not with us!"

If this is not done, the vicious circle will continue. Why do you think the terrorists use the methods they use? Where they not "forced" by the other side? Where the Germans in WW1 not "forced" to use new, brutal methods againts their overwhelming opposition? Where not the Britains in the Boor War forced to invent Concentration Camps? Where not the Americans "forced" in the Civil War to devastate the land on both sides?
Heck, where not the Romans "forced" to salt Carthago?

Where does it start - and where will it lead?

 

[Wolseley]

You are forced to use these methods? It´s "play dirty or loose" only?

More or less.

No, I refuse to believe that. This kind of thinking only leads to more atrocities. Someone has to take a stand and say "No, not with us!"

It all depends on whether you want to win, or whether you want to eventually lose.

If this is not done, the vicious circle will continue.

The vicious circle will continue anyway. In 6,000 years of recorded human history, the common, continual theme has been incessant warfare.

Why do you think the terrorists use the methods they use? Where they not "forced" by the other side?

In what way has the United States forced Al Qaida to adopt the tactics they use? Occupation? Oppression? Attrition?

Where the Germans in WW1 not "forced" to use new, brutal methods againts their overwhelming opposition? Where not the Britains in the Boor War forced to invent Concentration Camps? Where not the Americans "forced" in the Civil War to devastate the land on both sides?
Heck, where not the Romans "forced" to salt Carthago?

Yes, yes, and yes; which is exactly my point.

Where does it start - and where will it lead?

It leads to continued warfare. *shrug* I don't say that it's a good thing. I simply say that the way it is. You shall hear of wars and rumors of wars.

 

[Freodin]

Wow, and people have accused me of being pessimistic!

Say, Wolseley, you are catholic, arn´t you? So how do you think the martyr tradition of the Catholic Church fits in your view of "I can´t change it, so I just play along." Where is the spirit of being willing to die for your principles?

 

[Wolseley]

Render unto Caesar.

 

[datan]

Wolseley, you bring up some very good points.

But in a sense we like to think that we are evolving as a civilisation rather than to regress.

Your forefathers came from a country where the king's rule was law; where criminals were treated harshly and not always fairly. Consequently, they hoped to establish a society where due process and the outlaw of cruel and unusual punishment was enshrined in the constitution.

Western civilisation has evolved from anarchy -> monarchy/depotism -> democracy.

But remember: once you cross the Rubicon, there's no turning back.
Once you start torturing your prisoners, in future American soldiers are captured and tortured, how can you expect any sympathy? How can you expect them not to be tortured, when you have already demonstrated to the world that you are willing to torture your own prisoners?

Even in her desparation during the Battle of Britain when she stood alone, did Britain ever torture her German prisoners?

When you lose the moral high ground, when you become like your enemies, who would be able to support you on the basis that you are the aggrieved?

I agree that your enemies have no rules, no code of conduct, and are despicable. But--if the intention of your enemies is to destroy your way of life, that American notion of freedom and rights that you cherish so much, that is definitive of your country and is one of the hallmarks of your society, and is built upon the very principles on which your country was founded, and is one of the things that makes your country great--when you allow yourselves to stoop to the level of your enemies, you will have destroyed the liberties and rights that your forefathers blessed your great country with. You may very well win the war against terrorism, but at what cost? You will have destroyed your way of life. In that sense, the terrorists have won. They have destroyed who you are, and what makes you great.

 

[Wolseley]

I suspect that that's going to happen anyway, datan. Whether we end up being overrrun by the terrorists, or we fall from our internal moral rot, or we end up being so paranoid that we are transformed into a police state, it will happen.

Forgive me for being pessimistic, but I personally don't think the United States will survive as a viable political or societal entity for the next 200 years. There are far too many factors working in concert towards its demise. We resemble nothing so much as the western Roman Empire in about 400 AD.

Sad, but I fear all too true.

 

[cenimo]

Freodin

Where not the Americans "forced" in the Civil War to devastate the land on both sides?

Wherever you got your American Civil War history, that's not quite the case.
The northernmost incident of the Confederacy making any attack was a small raid on St Albans, Vermont, other than that, Maryland Kentucky, and Missouri were "border states".


The battle of Gettysburg (Pennsylvania) is considerd one of the last truly chivalrous campaigns to have been conducted. While the CSA was on northern soil, they were just there to fight, there were no house burnigs, rapes, pillage and plunder going on.

So how does this constitute "devasting the land on both sides"?

Trivia surprise for you -
The Commanding Officer of the US Army troops at Harper's Ferry (pre-Civil War) that captured John Brown -
Lt. Colonel Robert E. Lee

 

Wols...

are ya sure you're not that history teacher from that Twilight Zone episode?

 

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Today at 02:24 AM cenimo said this in Post #37 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=702301#post702301)

datan
it's called counter-terroroism....the only thing terrorists understand is terrorism...

Counter-terrorism is not committing terrorism in response. It is intercepting terrorists before they can act.

You've just destroyed any moral credibility you've ever had. You have supported terrorism as long as it is commited by your side, which makes you no better than al-Queda or Sadam Hussein.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

The biggest danger when fighting Satan is becoming Satan yourself.

 

[Ryder]

Today at 10:17 AM fragmentsofdreams said this in Post #50

-To Cenimo Counter-terrorism is not committing terrorism in response. It is intercepting terrorists before they can act.

You've just destroyed any moral credibility you've ever had. You have supported terrorism as long as it is commited by your side, which makes you no better than al-Queda or Sadam Hussein.

A method is not a motive. A murderer can shoot an old lady and a cop can shoot a murderer, a mob can hang a guy and the police can hang the ringleader, same tools, different goal.

EDIT -Fixed it

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

First, I was responding to cenimo, not Wolseley. My post clearly shows that I am quoting him.

Second, yes, a cop shooting a murderer while trying to arrest him is different than the original murder, but a cop beating a prisoner to death is murder. The prisoner no longer poses an immediate threat to anyone. Besides, some things are inherently evil and no end can justify them. Torture is one of these things.

 

[Annabel Lee]

"The greatest tragedy is not the brutality of the evil people, but rather the silence of the good people."
—Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

[cenimo]

fragmentsofdreams

Counter-terrorism is not committing terrorism in response. It is intercepting terrorists before they can act.

Well, let's look at your statment...
counter meaning in response to, without terrorists there can be no counter-terrorism....that being the case, they will have had to do something to trigger counter terrorism measures...

"before they act" .... so we could just decide to round up 150 citizens from any given country or group because they "might" act....hardly...

same applies to geurilla warfare and a myriad of other topics...


terrorism is the only thing terrorists undertand means that they are a force that are willing to be martyrs and do not have a price...and thusly have to be dealt with in the only terms they know how to deal in...

when an Army is on a very strategic objective in a war and the rule is "take no prisoners" it is not because it is a savage Army but simply because prisoners would hinder the mission. Some here would probably construe that as terrorism, which is not really the case, but that's why I used the phrase "terrorists only understand terrorism"...

 

[Wolseley]

"The greatest tragedy is not the brutality of the evil people, but rather the silence of the good people."
—Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Martin Luther King, Jr. obviously never debated anybody in one of these threads.

If he had, he would have discovered one of the smartest things the good people can do is to remain silent!

 

[ACougar]

Today at 01:42 AM cenimo said this in Post #33

datan

OK...tell us all about Hezbollahs treatment of Colonel Higgins....oh, I see that was an American being tortured by Middle Easterners, so no sympathy there.....

The Americans shot down in Colombia? No thread about that...

Pearl, the jounralist, killd by his captors...no thread protesting his treatment...

hmm, and just a few weeks ago o a few of us were criticized for saying this category (nes and Current Events) takes on an Anti-American flavor... someone will most assuredely reply here that this thread doesn't reflect that either...

yeah, right

Cenimo, I don't think you understand where we are comming from.  Hezbollahs treatment of Colonel Higgins and all the torture done by Third world countries and terrorist organizations to prisoners is nothing short of evil.  What we don't understand is how we find ourselves (the United States) and our allies (Pakistan and Israel) doing the same things.  I would like to see more open discussion on the subject in the public arena and laws enacted and enforced that prevent us and our Allies from stooping to this level.

 

[ACougar]

Today at 12:15 PM cenimo said this in Post #55

fragmentsofdreams

Well, let's look at your statment...
counter meaning in response to, without terrorists there can be no counter-terrorism....that being the case, they will have had to do something to trigger counter terrorism measures...

Not necessarily.  When inteligance reports that radical organizations are working on cyanide gas, or that a fundamentalist religious group is in the market for a Nuclear weapon there is plenty for counter-terrorism forces to do.  If one of those groups actually manages to deploy thier weapon, then what you have is an Inteligence failure.

"before they act" .... so we could just decide to round up 150 citizens from any given country or group because they "might" act....hardly...

same applies to geurilla warfare and a myriad of other topics...

We live in a high tech world where privacy is pretty much a thing of the past.  If the government wants to they can read your mail, listen in on your telephone conversations, count the hairs on your head, ect... If a group is advokating violence and has the membership and resources to actually pull something off then we should be keeping an eye on them.

[/B]

[/QUOTE]

terrorism is the only thing terrorists undertand means that they are a force that are willing to be martyrs and do not have a price...and thusly have to be dealt with in the only terms they know how to deal in...

Commiting terrorist acts against a community because it has terrorists does nothing more than elevate the situation and make it worse.


 

[/QUOTE]  when an Army is on a very strategic objective in a war and the rule is "take no prisoners" it is not because it is a savage Army but simply because prisoners would hinder the mission. Some here would probably construe that as terrorism, which is not really the case, but that's why I used the phrase "terrorists only understand terrorism"...

[/QUOTE]

You believe that by sowing seeds of destruction you can harvest peace.  That just isn't the way things work.

 

[cenimo]

ACougar

May I refer you to Chesty Puller, Commandant of the Marine Corps WW II

"Grab them by the short hairs and their hearts and minds shall follow"

My question about this thread is that considering all the atroicties committed in the past by whomever, here we have a case where it happens to two people and it might have been by Americans* and the thread gets a lot of activity...

.... I had never heard of this particular source....but had it been WND no one would have taken it to be legit without other confirmatioin..... see what I mean....

now, let's take this example....
someone posting on these boards who naturally doesn't believe in violence, etc...as oppossed to an Israeli Army member who saw part of his family wiped out by a suicide bomber or a bomg planted on a bus...

funny thing, the guys who came over to 'Nam questioning the war were the ones who turned the most savage and bloodthirsty

let's look at it this way.... a few years back two Aussies were caught trying to smuggle dope through Malaysia... they were hung....sionce then, there haven't been too many stories of anyone trting to smuggle dope through Malaysia....

 

[datan]

My question about this thread is that considering all the atroicties committed in the past by whomever, here we have a case where it happens to two people and it might have been by Americans* and the thread gets a lot of activity...

well, I started the thread about Amercians being murdered by Colombian rebels, and you didn't bother to reply to it, either. And I think there are still Americans being held hostage by the rebels.