Is it OK then to let convicted murderers sweat it out on death row and then just kill them? Is privy treatment of prisoners only allotted to that of murdering terrorists?
On Jun 15, 8:43 am, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > Maybe, but I think the key is to maintain political control over the > military and police forces with a strong representational democracy > and an informed citizenry who understand the consequences that occur > when the war cheerleaders start calling for "just kill them" and the > "they're just animals" mentality starts to rear its ugly head. > > "We" have to be careful. "They" are everywhere. We must defend > innocent life even if it costs us. It is one think to be in a battle > in a just war and kill someone. It is quite another to capture a bunch > of people in sweeps where the possibility of identifying who is a > combatant is challenging at best and then after letting them sweat for > a few years take them out of their cells and shoot them. To me it just > makes no sense. Not a lick of it > > Cheers. > > On Jun 15, 5:52 am, Lonlaz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > You know, there is a difference between murder and war, even though > > they are both killing. Those in the field are soldiers, not serial > > killers. Perhaps the result is similar, but the intent is not. Which > > is why soldiers, and their commanders might make and follow rules, > > because they are attempting to do good. > > > On Jun 15, 6:38 am, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Do you think you would then be safe from your own soldiers? Why > > > wouldn't they then turn on you? > > > > On Jun 15, 4:17 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Sure! It has always been a political objective, years and years and > > > > years of On the Hill politics that have led us to the same pit. > > > > Politics and diplomacy has not accomplished anything, if it did we > > > > would be recognized as the great country we are, not anathematized by > > > > half the world. What negatively affects efforts on the battlefield > > > > is choke collar political agendas that keep soldiers from winning > > > > wars. Why send soldiers in the first place if they can't kill anyone, > > > > if they have to walk on egg shells, if they are told not to be > > > > aggressive. Objective? How about taking all military personnel baby > > > > sitting enemy combatants, another half million troops and sending them > > > > in to scour the territory and eliminate the enemy, instead of limiting > > > > combat to isolated skirmishes (bandaid on a hemorrhage) that > > > > accomplish nothing. Who really cares about image and saving face > > > > except the politicians? Blitzkrieg!! > > > > > On Jun 15, 5:21 am, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > The answer is simple. We do not kill them because it will negatively > > > > > affect our efforts on the battlefield to achieve superiority. It > > > > > motivates the enemy, hardens and destroys our own morale, and all for > > > > > no strategic purpose. Ultimately, it is a political objective that we > > > > > are trying to reach. Moving it farther out of our hands make no sense. > > > > > > On Jun 14, 11:14 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I think you are losing the context of the thread. Perhaps lining > > > > > > them > > > > > > up for a firing squad veers the thread intent off track. I thought > > > > > > there would be a psychological discussion but instead it is turning > > > > > > out to be everything else but. > > > > > > > The "civilians" and the "combatants"... the "guilty" and the > > > > > > "innocent > > > > > > bystander" are co-located. <JT > > > > > > > Sure they are, no kidding? I'm not suggesting now nor did I > > > > > > suggest > > > > > > at any time that we bomb the whole place, killing innocent people in > > > > > > the process. My only suggestion was that we just eliminate the > > > > > > enemy > > > > > > combatants during ground wars of any kind. > > > > > > The context of the thread is pertaining to all wars, any wars, > > > > > > fighting over anything. Like the civil war! > > > > > > Again!! > > > > > > There is a change that takes place. Soldier A is shooting at > > > > > > soldier > > > > > > B with all the intention of killing him. Soldier B for whatever > > > > > > reason gets caught by soldier A. Soldier B, who killed several of > > > > > > soldier A's friends and claims he will kill more if given the > > > > > > opportunity, is taken by soldier A and treated very well. Why? > > > > > > > SO!! I am simply saying that If I were soldier A, I would just kill > > > > > > soldier B (the enemy) instead of wasting my time catering to his > > > > > > needs. > > > > > > > If we are going to kill then lets kill otherwise let's put out a > > > > > > huge > > > > > > picnic table and have Soldiers A and Soldiers B sit down and treat > > > > > > each other nicely while they eat!! > > > > > > > On Jun 14, 12:25 pm, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > You seem to have no awareness of the context of what is > > > > > > > happening. You > > > > > > > seem not to see the context at all. > > > > > > > > First, the term "war". If we are in a war then we are in a > > > > > > > severely > > > > > > > asymetrical one. There is no government that has "declared" war > > > > > > > on us > > > > > > > in this thing. Nor is there a society, working together in an > > > > > > > organized manner behind a defended perimeter. > > > > > > > > The "civilians" and the "combatants"... the "guilty" and the > > > > > > > "innocent > > > > > > > bystander" are co-located. > > > > > > > > What is the technical objective of a terrorist strike? What was > > > > > > > Osama > > > > > > > bin Laden's objective for 9/11? Do you think he was "trying to > > > > > > > destroy > > > > > > > us"? No he was not. If he was trying to destroy us he needed a > > > > > > > significant increment in the tonnage of his explosives. Don't you > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > realize that he KNEW that 9/11 would not destroy us and that the > > > > > > > function of the mission was to draw us into the kind of conflict > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > the Russians got into so that he could use the same techniques on > > > > > > > us > > > > > > > as he did on them and then DISCREDIT us. Not DESTROY us. > > > > > > > DISCREDIT us. > > > > > > > If he can de-ligitamize our actions and our society then he can > > > > > > > legitemize his own struggle and through that process gain the > > > > > > > political strength that he would need to actually destroy us. When > > > > > > > that happens his ideas win. Preventing his ideas from taking hold > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > the whole enchilada. > > > > > > > > Your idea of "just killing" those in Guatanamo is wrong on several > > > > > > > levels not the least of which is strategic. You would play right > > > > > > > into > > > > > > > their hands. At the beginning of the war that eliminated the > > > > > > > Taliban > > > > > > > we had the opportunity to reconfigure the entire political > > > > > > > dialogue on > > > > > > > which international relations is based. We should have seen our > > > > > > > primary objective as the need to de-legitimize that kind of > > > > > > > action and > > > > > > > those kind of people and kept our hands "extra" clean taking > > > > > > > extraordinary measures to prevent casualties among the innocent > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > drawing a clear distinction between "us" those that would not use > > > > > > > those techniques and "them" those that do. The political fallout > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > have been the collapse of Jihadist movement. (I am not saying > > > > > > > that we > > > > > > > should not have disarmed the Taliban- so don't strawman me.) > > > > > > > > I suspect that the number of children, not just innocents, but > > > > > > > innocent children, that we have "slaughtered" or "maimed" -words > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > take thinking about to realize their meaning - is now greater > > > > > > > than we > > > > > > > lost in NYC. And still we have the - well I am sorry to use the > > > > > > > word > > > > > > > but I must - imbecilic - ideas like you are proposing floating > > > > > > > around. > > > > > > > > The real tragedy of the Obama victory was that it was so close > > > > > > > and so > > > > > > > many of you just have no clue strategically. You have witnessed > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > are witnessing the collapse of American power which would not be a > > > > > > > problem except that we "were" the "best hope" of taking the world > > > > > > > into > > > > > > > a happy future. Ah well, perhaps we should just wait for the > > > > > > > Chinese > > > > > > > to rise to the occasion and lead us there. > > > > > > > > Where is your common sense man? > > > > > > > > On Jun 14, 11:36 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > OK so we've covered some definitions and perspectives and maybe > > > > > > > > even > > > > > > > > had a few drinks. Now! > > > > > > > > Can we figure out why we straddle the fence between wanton > > > > > > > > killing and > > > > > > > > humanitarian treatment in times of war? Do we feel guilty? > > > > > > > > Are we > > > > > > > > trying to say that we're not all that bad? Why do we care? > > > > > > > > > In the movie Saving Private Ryan, Capt. Millers interpreter, > > > > > > > > Cpl. > > > > > > > > Upham intervenes in a desire to shoot a captured German. > > > > > > > > Eventually > > > > > > > > after much arguing they let the soldier go. Later, in another > > > > > > > > scene > > > > > > > > that same soldier, rejoined with his regiment, gains access to > > > > > > > > building and kills one of the men that wanted to kill him > > > > > > > > earlier. > > > > > > > > > I guess initially the German enemy was set free because he was > > > > > > > > captured and was now unarmed and they just couldn't kill him in > > > > > > > > cold > > > > > > > > blood. How many enemies did that soldier kill since they let > > > > > > > > him go? > > > > > > > > I don't get it. Is there that much confusion in war > > > > > > > > objective? I > > > > > > > > guess it is somewhat like the death penalty issue where > > > > > > > > opponents > > > > > > > > would rather we preserve the lives of those that want to kill > > > > > > > > us. > > > > > > > > > Was the German soldier no longer an enemy just because he was > > > > > > > > unarmed? Isn't being an enemy a state of mind? Won't all > > > > > > > > those > > > > > > > > released return to attack when their numbers have reorganized > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > reached the point of becoming a formidable enemy?- Hide quoted > > > > > > > > text - > > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
