[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
For those who think our methods are “torture,” ISIS just beheaded 4 Christian children for not renouncing Jesus and join Islam.
I like to judge the standards of our leaders by the standards of civilized people, not the standards of barbarians. That’s my personal preference, anyway. [/quote]
The barbarians are the ones making the rules of engagement, that’s the problem. That whole don’t bring a knife to a gun fight argument.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
For those who think our methods are “torture,” ISIS just beheaded 4 Christian children for not renouncing Jesus and join Islam.
I like to judge the standards of our leaders by the standards of civilized people, not the standards of barbarians. That’s my personal preference, anyway. [/quote]
The barbarians are the ones making the rules of engagement, that’s the problem. That whole don’t bring a knife to a gun fight argument.
[/quote]
You mean guys like Reagan?
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
For those who think our methods are “torture,” ISIS just beheaded 4 Christian children for not renouncing Jesus and join Islam.
I like to judge the standards of our leaders by the standards of civilized people, not the standards of barbarians. That’s my personal preference, anyway. [/quote]
Absolutely. Even advocates of so called “enhanced interrogation techniques” (myself included) should be honest enough to admit what it amounts to - torture.[/quote]
Yes. I’d prefer an honest debate. Torture is justified in some circumstances or it isn’t. Lying about what is actually occurring, however, shows consciousness of wrongdoing, and undercuts any real or legitimate claim of justification.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
For those who think our methods are “torture,” ISIS just beheaded 4 Christian children for not renouncing Jesus and join Islam.
I like to judge the standards of our leaders by the standards of civilized people, not the standards of barbarians. That’s my personal preference, anyway. [/quote]
Absolutely. Even advocates of so called “enhanced interrogation techniques” (myself included) should be honest enough to admit what it amounts to - torture.[/quote]
Just throwing out an idea.
President Obama holds an Emergency Address the Nation speech. He lets the Country know that he is going to contact every leader in the World to ask them to hold an emergency vote in their country. Yes, ISIS is wiped off the face of Earth. No, we think of another way to stop them.
If 90% vote yes, we evacuate every non-ISIS person from the region, commit to helping out in rebuilding, and turn that place into a parking lot.
Let the people of the World tell ISIS that this will not be tolerated. The Countries that vote “no” we will know who to keep an eye on moving forward.
Not realistic, I know.
I’m all for wiping ISIS off the map. Inaction has resulted in a lot of unnecessary deaths
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
For those who think our methods are “torture,” ISIS just beheaded 4 Christian children for not renouncing Jesus and join Islam.
I like to judge the standards of our leaders by the standards of civilized people, not the standards of barbarians. That’s my personal preference, anyway. [/quote]
The barbarians are the ones making the rules of engagement, that’s the problem. That whole don’t bring a knife to a gun fight argument.
[/quote]
You mean guys like Reagan?
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=35858[/quote]
I am going by principle here, not party affiliation. No president would publicly support torture, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
My concerns go to those who lost their lives on 9/11, and their loved ones. My concerns about the health and well being of terrorists ranks well below the wellness of my shoelaces.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
For those who think our methods are “torture,” ISIS just beheaded 4 Christian children for not renouncing Jesus and join Islam.
I like to judge the standards of our leaders by the standards of civilized people, not the standards of barbarians. That’s my personal preference, anyway. [/quote]
The barbarians are the ones making the rules of engagement, that’s the problem. That whole don’t bring a knife to a gun fight argument.
[/quote]
You mean guys like Reagan?
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=35858[/quote]
I am going by principle here, not party affiliation. No president would publicly support torture, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
My concerns go to those who lost their lives on 9/11, and their loved ones. My concerns about the health and well being of terrorists ranks well below the wellness of my shoelaces. [/quote]
I get that. I really do. But we are a nation of laws. And, say you were in Congress, and voting on a law that authorizes the use of torture. You are giving Obama express authority to use torture. When does he get to do it? What is the standard? And who gets to make the decision that the standard has been met?
Also, in fairness, assume whatever standard we set is the standard every other nation or quasi-state organization will set as to when it is appropriate to use torture on U.S. citizens that they deem to be enemies.
Finally, in this specific case, is it your understanding that only 9/11 terrorists were tortured? And, in this specific case, how was it determined that it was only 9/11 terrorists that actually got tortured? My understanding is that they misidentified at least 26 of the detainees based on bad intelligence, which is one of the big problems with inflicting punishment on those in custody who haven’t been charged, tried, or convicted of anything.
There’s kind of a slippery slope thing with torture… You don’t normally recognize these sorts of things if you go into learning things if you are soldier like in defending beliefs, but you will recognize these things if you are more scout like with information, gathering what you learn and putting the pieces together for yourself.
Looking at it from international law, really the only thing combatants that are captures are supposed to give away is his Name, Rank, and the equivalent of a Social Security number, and that’s ALL. That’s all we are really required to give to captors, and information we hold onto we are trained is what can possibly keep us alive. Our goal when captured is to survive, and to hold onto information for as long as possible to make it difficult for the enemy to gather. But, when we are put in a situation where we are truly likely to be maimed or killed, we will give up as little as possible to stay alive. But, the enemy already knows this about us… So, when we are captured what methods do you think the enemy has evolved? It used to be in WW2 that Americans were notoriously difficult and stubborn in giving up information, which is why Hans Sharff’s techniques were a breakthrough. Today, they likely start with very real physical threats because of how we are trained. You see on T.V. what they have for troops and journalists.
So, while we are basically raped and butchered… We are being asked to essentially put them up in a situation where we wont put them under any stress or asked to provide anything other than their rank, name and equivalent of a social. Don’t send us to fucking war with our arms tied behind our backs.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
I’m all for wiping ISIS off the map. Inaction has resulted in a lot of unnecessary deaths[/quote]
Sounds good in theory. But how do you identify ever rank & file ISIS member, they got an ISIS tattoo on their foreheads? They have a FB page (would not surprise me…)? They’re sort of widespread and I’d suspect that they’re intermarried with other groups too. Stomp out ISIS here today, they pop up elsewhere tomorrow, re-branded.
[quote]beachguy498 wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
I’m all for wiping ISIS off the map. Inaction has resulted in a lot of unnecessary deaths[/quote]
Sounds good in theory. But how do you identify ever rank & file ISIS member, they got an ISIS tattoo on their foreheads? They have a FB page (would not surprise me…)? They’re sort of widespread and I’d suspect that they’re intermarried with other groups too. Stomp out ISIS here today, they pop up elsewhere tomorrow, re-branded.
[/quote]
The reality is “ISIS” is an Iraqi Sunni mob with a number of foreigners amongst them. Amongst the foreigners the only ones who are decent fighters are the Chechens. But essentially, ISIS is the local Sunni men. And it’s not so much an indigenous insurgency as they’re not fighting for some realistic goal. Even just existing in their current form as a loosely defined area of de facto control is an unattainable goal for them as they deliberately ensured that no nation state on earth would ever give them any kind of legitimacy. So the local population is a mystical roving band of cultists.
This type of cult is not new. It’s a Mahdist uprising. Al Bahdadi claimed Sunni traditionalist legitimacy by naming himself Caliph and directly linking his genealogy with that of Mohammad and the royal line of “successors” to leadership of the entire Muslim world(Ummah) - inherent in this claim is a claim to eschatological fulfilment of certain prophecies in the Sunni tradition. As interpreted by the Salafist school this includes the recapture of the Temple Mount and an expansion of the Caliphate to eventually include the whole world; essentially the Caliphate is a state of total mobilisation; the Caliphate is a war machine with all industry and manpower directed towards the waging of continual war. This is the cult of al Bahdadi. The only difference between al Baghdadi and other Mahdist claimants historically is his internationalist agenda and his use of foreign fighters and support personnel.
Obviously the only way to deal with ISIS Is to wipe them all out. And this means wiping out most of the Anbar tribes and the indigenous backbone of the organisation. I don’t think anyone has the will power to do it. ISIS will keep pushing until they’re cracked down on. But they’re no threat to Baghdad or the South of the country. All they’re capable of doing is short term thrusts into power vacuums and then they’re forced to withdraw when any serious military force confronts them. But as no one is prepared to secure the whole Sunni areas of Iraq they remain. The only thing left to do is try to contain them and cut off their revenues; particularly their oil. The containment will fall to the Kurds for the most part and it’s in our interests to strengthen them and push for the autonomy. But again, I don’t think there’s a will to support the Kurds or Kurdish autonomy. No one is prepared to make the decisions that need to be made. That being said, a number of clandestine special operations are going on, particularly in the UNDOF Zone.
[quote]beachguy498 wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
I’m all for wiping ISIS off the map. Inaction has resulted in a lot of unnecessary deaths[/quote]
Sounds good in theory. But how do you identify ever rank & file ISIS member, they got an ISIS tattoo on their foreheads? They have a FB page (would not surprise me…)? They’re sort of widespread and I’d suspect that they’re intermarried with other groups too. Stomp out ISIS here today, they pop up elsewhere tomorrow, re-branded.
[/quote]
With the harm they’re causing, I think it would be worth considering that the collateral damage from glassing their whereabout, eg Raqqa and where ever else, would result in less harm than what is currently being perpetrated and will continue.
It’s not a nice decision to make, more like lesser of two evils, if you can call it that, but the longer they’re allowed to behave like they’re a legitimate state (already too long IMO), the more likely they’re to be recognized as being legitimate.
They’re behaving like a (pseudo?)government in that they have different branches responsible for different areas of life.
There is arguments against that ISIS would be recognized as a legitimate government, but the longer they’re allowed to exist and spread…well if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. Then what do we do?
http://www.greenwichchambers.com/islamic-state-of-iraq-and-the-levant-isil-is-no-state.html
I can’t stand this behavior
These people don’t mind terrorizing their neighbours, people from their own country.
If nothing is done, what do you think will happen after the dust settles, and they immigrate elsewhere? Inaction is resulting in more unnecessary suffering than needed.
[quote] MattyG35 wrote:
I can’t stand this behavior…
[/quote]
It’s ritualised human sacrifice. They are mimicking the rituals of halal slaughter which are based upon kosher slaughter which in turn is based upon sacrificial animal slaughter rites that used to be carried out at the Temple before 70AD. Human sacrifice in the region was common in ancient times. The cult of Baal was an integral part of Phoenician culture for example. They sacrificed their own children. I actually think people are right to an extent when they say ISIS is not representative of “traditional” Islam in that there is a primal and animistic primitive aspect to it that predates Islam. That said, it has syncretised with the stern warrior cult of vanguard Islam and assumed its eschatology as its own; claiming legitimacy from orthodox Sunni authorities.
I agree that identifying every member of ISIS would not be possible. But if the World had a vote, and voted to wipe them out, the total destruction of their stronghold would send a clear message for any stragglers that it might be a good idea to look to a different religious philosophy.
Like I said I know it’s not realistic, but what they are doing doesn’t seem realistic in a way. It’s hard to believe that these actions are really taking place in this stage of human civilization. These people are cutting off heads because the victim believes in Jesus. I don’t know the correct answer as to what should be done, but I think every idea that could be thought up should be put out there.
Imagine a World Vote. The first time it is accomplished, it could be done again. Over time, you never know, it could bring World Peace.
[quote]mbdix wrote:
Imagine a World Vote.
[/quote]
A world vote for what exactly? A one world government? A transnational body that resolves regional disputes by diplomatic or military means? Essentially that would be giving authority to the UN General Assembly. That’s the “international community” - the brotherhood of man. The collective representatives of the nation states of the world are dominated overwhelmingly by a block of the worst regimes on earth; tinpot third world dictatorships and Communist/socialist anti-Western regimes, Islamic anti-Western regimes - the worst human rights abusers of the world; mostly Africa, the Islamic world and South and Central America. What exactly is it you are advocating that the world “vote” on. I don’t understand.
[quote]
The first time it is accomplished, it could be done again. Over time, you never know, it could bring World Peace.[/quote]
What would be accomplished? What are they voting on?
[quote]mbdix wrote:
Imagine a World Vote. The first time it is accomplished, it could be done again. Over time, you never know, it could bring World Peace.[/quote]
I must say that whatever we’re voting on sounds lofty and noble; and by “we” I mean majoritarianism therefore whatever the “Organisation of Islamic Cooperation” of 56 member states and maybe a few African warlords and Communist despots who side with them say. And I wonder what they’ll say? Hmm…
Edited
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]mbdix wrote:
Imagine a World Vote.
[/quote]
A world vote for what exactly? A one world government? A transnational body that resolves regional disputes by diplomatic or military means? Essentially that would be giving authority to the UN General Assembly. That’s the “international community” - the brotherhood of man. The collective representatives of the nation states of the world are dominated overwhelmingly by a block of the worst regimes on earth; tinpot third world dictatorships and Communist/socialist anti-Western regimes, Islamic anti-Western regimes - the worst human rights abusers of the world; mostly Africa, the Islamic world and South and Central America. What exactly is it you are advocating that the world “vote” on. I don’t understand.
I was going on about my previous post in this thread about the President calling for all the Leaders of the World to hold a World Vote on wiping out ISIS. I’m just using my imagination. Like I repeatedly stated I know it’s not realistic.
[quote]mbdix wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]mbdix wrote:
Imagine a World Vote.
[/quote]
A world vote for what exactly? A one world government? A transnational body that resolves regional disputes by diplomatic or military means? Essentially that would be giving authority to the UN General Assembly. That’s the “international community” - the brotherhood of man. The collective representatives of the nation states of the world are dominated overwhelmingly by a block of the worst regimes on earth; tinpot third world dictatorships and Communist/socialist anti-Western regimes, Islamic anti-Western regimes - the worst human rights abusers of the world; mostly Africa, the Islamic world and South and Central America. What exactly is it you are advocating that the world “vote” on. I don’t understand.
I was going on about my previous post in this thread about the President calling for all the Leaders of the World to hold a World Vote on wiping out ISIS. I’m just using my imagination. Like I repeatedly stated I know it’s not realistic.
[/quote]
Well, the UN Security Council comprises the votes of the governments of the US, Russia, Great Britain, France and China. There are ten other elected nation state representatives to the Security Council, but given the veto power of the permanent five member states mentioned above, ultimate power and authority is contingent upon unanimous agreement of the five permanent members. This structure that has existed since 1946 is in perpetual gridlock due to the factional opposition of the great powers; the foreign policy interests of Russia and the United States; Russia and China being in opposition and each power forms alliances with lesser nations in an overall state of opposition; competition and war. That is the essential nature of politics and international relations; dispute; opposition. There can never be a state of international peace; only degrees of conflict. The goal of statesmanship on a grand strategic level is to minimise conflict and the maintenance of stability to ensure security and economic prosperity for one’s own nation state.
Yeah, and then there would be the issue of countries that don’t have a proper military getting to decide to send guns in. And some 3rd world shitholes getting some sort of equal opportunity vote that they don’t deserve.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]mbdix wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]mbdix wrote:
Imagine a World Vote.
[/quote]
A world vote for what exactly? A one world government? A transnational body that resolves regional disputes by diplomatic or military means? Essentially that would be giving authority to the UN General Assembly. That’s the “international community” - the brotherhood of man. The collective representatives of the nation states of the world are dominated overwhelmingly by a block of the worst regimes on earth; tinpot third world dictatorships and Communist/socialist anti-Western regimes, Islamic anti-Western regimes - the worst human rights abusers of the world; mostly Africa, the Islamic world and South and Central America. What exactly is it you are advocating that the world “vote” on. I don’t understand.
I was going on about my previous post in this thread about the President calling for all the Leaders of the World to hold a World Vote on wiping out ISIS. I’m just using my imagination. Like I repeatedly stated I know it’s not realistic.
[/quote]
Well, the UN Security Council comprises the votes of the governments of the US, Russia, Great Britain, France and China. There are ten other elected nation state representatives to the Security Council, but given the veto power of the permanent five member states mentioned above, ultimate power and authority is contingent upon unanimous agreement of the five permanent members. This structure that has existed since 1946 is in perpetual gridlock due to the factional opposition of the great powers; the foreign policy interests of Russia and the United States; Russia and China being in opposition and each power forms alliances with lesser nations in an overall state of opposition; competition and war. That is the essential nature of politics and international relations; dispute; opposition. There can never be a state of international peace; only degrees of conflict. The goal of statesmanship on a grand strategic level is to minimise conflict and the maintenance of stability to ensure security and economic prosperity for one’s own nation state.[/quote]
I understand this, my fairy tale scenario would not be votes from the officials representing their nations. It would be votes from the citizens of voting age of every nation. An emergency World Vote to determine if the strong hold of ISIS would be evacuated of non-ISIS members and nuked into a parking lot.
I appreciate your feedback and looking at it in a realistic point of view, I’m sure there is something I can take away from your response.
[quote]mbdix wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]mbdix wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]mbdix wrote:
Imagine a World Vote.
[/quote]
A world vote for what exactly? A one world government? A transnational body that resolves regional disputes by diplomatic or military means? Essentially that would be giving authority to the UN General Assembly. That’s the “international community” - the brotherhood of man. The collective representatives of the nation states of the world are dominated overwhelmingly by a block of the worst regimes on earth; tinpot third world dictatorships and Communist/socialist anti-Western regimes, Islamic anti-Western regimes - the worst human rights abusers of the world; mostly Africa, the Islamic world and South and Central America. What exactly is it you are advocating that the world “vote” on. I don’t understand.
I was going on about my previous post in this thread about the President calling for all the Leaders of the World to hold a World Vote on wiping out ISIS. I’m just using my imagination. Like I repeatedly stated I know it’s not realistic.
[/quote]
Well, the UN Security Council comprises the votes of the governments of the US, Russia, Great Britain, France and China. There are ten other elected nation state representatives to the Security Council, but given the veto power of the permanent five member states mentioned above, ultimate power and authority is contingent upon unanimous agreement of the five permanent members. This structure that has existed since 1946 is in perpetual gridlock due to the factional opposition of the great powers; the foreign policy interests of Russia and the United States; Russia and China being in opposition and each power forms alliances with lesser nations in an overall state of opposition; competition and war. That is the essential nature of politics and international relations; dispute; opposition. There can never be a state of international peace; only degrees of conflict. The goal of statesmanship on a grand strategic level is to minimise conflict and the maintenance of stability to ensure security and economic prosperity for one’s own nation state.[/quote]
I understand this, my fairy tale scenario would not be votes from the officials representing their nations. It would be votes from the citizens of voting age of every nation. An emergency World Vote to determine if the strong hold of ISIS would be evacuated of non-ISIS members and nuked into a parking lot.
I appreciate your feedback and looking at it in a realistic point of view, I’m sure there is something I can take away from your response.
[/quote]
Oh, the citizens, that would a little more interesting. I think people see more in common with each other when governments aren’t involved, eg shooting high during WW1 or WW2