you are right there Orn, except the past is the only way we have of judging if an idea will work or not. What the problem I see is not so much looking at the past , but not taking into account all the factors involved like and including the attitude of the leaders. Gitmo came about because the US leadership failed not only to look at the past but a acute failure to listen to others in the world including mass demonstrations, threatening allies breaking treaties, all to satisfy personal egos. the macho men hacking their way through unexplored jungle. They did not listen to the natives. If they had listen to the past and historical records you would know better than follow burning bushes into the desert.. it never works out and you get trapped there for years. Allan
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:02 PM, ornamentalmind <[email protected]>wrote: > > "The view behind is for retrospect in the hope that it will help us > turn the right way next > time to see it right." - sd > > Yes, looking at the past is often used as a method for making > decisions in the present. The main problem with this is that the past > is not the present. > > On Jun 16, 6:02 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > Very well, it's all assumptive, either way there is no telling what > > the actual outcome would be. The probability seems equal given any > > choice. The trajectory of views are many, at least 360 and in > > between but we can only see one way at a time. The view behind is for > > retrospect in the hope that it will help us turn the right way next > > time to see it right. I just don't see it going anywhere except > > onward like a broken record, both sides bloodied grooves. Credibility > > and legitimization is hindsight, a crumpled ideal that once stood > > tall. Strategy has now become fear of upsetting the enemy. When > > sending a message of intolerance becomes damaging and destructive to a > > cause there is dilemma and stagnation. The agreement all around is on > > the uncertainty of outcome and the unsureness of the forward path. It > > is all out of my hands and out of my reach but in view, as spectator I > > can only watch and wait. > > > > Thanks everyone for your participation, thoughts and opinions. > > > > Dona Nobis Pachem! > > > > On Jun 16, 2:17 am, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > You asked. > > > > > Your idea about "just killing" the prisoners on Gitmo would undermine > > > our attempts to de-legitimize the Jihadist movement without any > > > significant compensatory benefit. The scale of the damage it would > > > cause at a critical time on the battlefield is enormous. You can try > > > to distract from this all you want but what you suggest is just crazy. > > > Earlier in my life I would have just let such "let's go kill um" cheer > > > leading lunacy pass without comment because I thought it too crazy for > > > serious people to consider. Unfortunately, given our recent history, I > > > think we all need to point out such errors before they take hold. I am > > > no longer convinced that we are beyond considering them seriously. > > > Ideas like yours have damaged the credibility of the United States of > > > America and we must now work to rehabilitate it. Hopefully that is > > > underway now but it is not certain. > > > > > I am not "preaching" nor even suggesting civility. I have indeed > > > deliberately tried to avoid it. I am simply noting the strategic > > > consequences of your proposal. Its effect in Pakistan and Afganistan, > > > where we are asking soldiers to risk their own lives to protect > > > innocent life in order to discredit the fundamentalism and in order to > > > turn the situation around strategically, would be very destructive. > > > You take into account the effect that the consequent impact to our own > > > legitimacy would have on the order of battle that they will face in > > > those countries. Hundreds of thousands or even millions of committed > > > Jihadists is not a good outcome. Your ideas would contribute to that > > > scenario and we might then be indeed forced to kill many more of > > > "them" than "we" would like. Perhaps you trust Putin not to supply > > > shoulder armed missiles? > > > > > Cheers. > > > > > On Jun 15, 7:06 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I don't think you should be telling me what I should study. I'm > sorry > > > > that you think I've been living in the dark. Chimpanzees? Jane > > > > Goodall? Maybe we should send the chimpanzees over to North Korea or > > > > Afghanistan and see if they can quell the festering quagmire of > > > > hostility. I'm sure Hillary or Gore can soothe their zeal for power. > > > > Most likely they would wind up in the same labor camp as Ling and > > > > Lee. So much for the passive approach. I have an idea, why don't we > > > > send you and the heretic over there to preach your civility. I'm > > > > sorry but I have spent way too much time wiping blood off my skin for > > > > a decision coming from an air conditioned office. > > > > > > On Jun 15, 3:20 pm, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > The thread is about the psychology of war > > > > > > > > concerning the line drawn between killing and caring. I was > looking, > > > > > > still waiting, for the psychological mechanism that > differentiates the > > > > > > enemy perspective. > > > > > > > If you want to see the psychology of war take a look at chimpanzee > > > > > behavioral studies. War is a primate instinct. So is nurturing and > > > > > motherhood and caring for others. Unlike most species primates > "sub- > > > > > speciate" and form very different behavior patterns toward members > of > > > > > the own group and those outside it. Its a primate instinctual > pattern. > > > > > Show a picture of an Arab being killed to a group of Arabs and > > > > > Westerners and you will get different reactions. Show a picture of > a > > > > > Westerner being killed to similar groups and the reactions will > > > > > switch. People on average feel sympathy to those within their group > > > > > more readily than to those outside of it. Humans sub-speciate along > > > > > national, religious, racial and tribal and party lines. See: > http://www.janegoodall.org/jane/ > > > > > > > > When I referred to the firing squad I'm eliminating the BS, > > > > > > > No you are not, you are just making more of it. > > > > > > > .... if we are going to engage in war then > > > > > > > > let's not play silly games, let's engage and win. If we are not > going > > > > > > to engage war then let's talk peace, utilize diplomacy and show > by > > > > > > example that we don't have a war mentality. > > > > > > > This is a classic example of the logical fallacy of the false > > > > > dilemma. > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy > > > > > > > I don't care how well you treat these prisoners, cater to > > > > > > > > their needs, throw parties for them, no one is going to look at > us and > > > > > > say "wow these people are really loving and caring" instead they > will > > > > > > continue their "Death to America" chants, burn our flag and > effigies. > > > > > > > This is a classic example of the strawman fallacy, No one is > > > > > advocating throwing parties for the prisoners in Gitmo none are the > > > > > saying that they will say "wow these people are really loving and > > > > > caring". Its a simple strawman. > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man > > > > > > > .....sold to these piss ant countries > > > > > > > > Excuse me? What kind of countries? Showing your bigotry there for > > > > > sure.... > > > > > > > We > > > > > > > > should have planted seeds for peace not war. > > > > > > > No kidding? So now what should we do? "Just kill them"? > > > > > > > ... "you killed a > > > > > > > > thousand of our people, now we are going to give you room and > board > > > > > > and free medical care"? > > > > > > > Its another simple strawman > > > > > > > Why don't you just look at the strategic situation in Pakistan and > > > > > Afganistan and show how your approach will advance the interests of > > > > > the ideals the US is supposed to represent? What will be the > reaction > > > > > of the world and the reaction in Afganistan and Pakistan in > particular > > > > > if we just executed all of the prisoners at Gitmo? That's the real > > > > > question. How do you conclude that it will advance our objectives? > > > > > What do you think will be the reaction? Everyone just gets afraid > and > > > > > falls in line? You should study the history of aerial bombardment > of > > > > > population centers. You should study what happened in Vietnam. You > > > > > should consider the potential order of battle that will occur if we > > > > > fail to de-legitimize our opponents and instead de-legitimize our > own > > > > > efforts. > > > > > > > With respect to the prisoners of Gitmo, "Just killing them" would > be a > > > > > tremendous strategic error significantly crippling our attempts to > de- > > > > > legitamize the Jihadist movement, degrading our effectiveness in > the > > > > > world, de-legitimizing our future attempts to end conflict and > > > > > crippling US foreign policy on a host of fronts. It would create > more > > > > > terrorists than it would kill. By far. I can think of nothing more > > > > > opposite to what should be done.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > -- ( ) I_D Allan --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
