Gloves on or gloves off?- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 20 of 20
  1. #1

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    13

    New question here. Gloves on or gloves off?

    Ok i'll admit it. I'm not American, and like a lot of the rest of the world I didn't buy the crap about the Iraq war being anything to do with terrorism. Now don't get me wrong I'm not anti American, i spend every summer in the USA and I really like it there. I think the people are great, i love the nature, i just don't like the politics or the media. Anyway, I see a few people on these boards are pro-Iraq war, well you're entitled to your opinion. But I'm wondering about the gloves-off /gloves-on issue. I know it's election year and all that but put that aside for a moment and tell me honestly, is there anyone who thinks the "gloves off" attitude since September 11 is the right way to go?

    More specifically i'm talking about:

    1. Guantanamo Bay- locking people up with no trial and no right to legal process
    2. The torture pictures from Iraq, and the torture allegations from Afghanistan
    3. The private military contractors in Iraq who can't be brought before either military tribuneral or criminal courts (neither have jurisdiction over them)
    4. Respecting / dropping the Geneva Convention

    I mean is there anyone who really believes that abandoning established codes of conduct such as the Geneva convention is justified by the perceived terrorist threat to the USA?

  2. #2
    T 3
    T 3 is offline

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,477
    Quote Originally Posted by eppe
    Ok i'll admit it. I'm not American, and like a lot of the rest of the world I didn't buy the crap about the Iraq war being anything to do with terrorism. Now don't get me wrong I'm not anti American, i spend every summer in the USA and I really like it there. I think the people are great, i love the nature, i just don't like the politics or the media. Anyway, I see a few people on these boards are pro-Iraq war, well you're entitled to your opinion. But I'm wondering about the gloves-off /gloves-on issue. I know it's election year and all that but put that aside for a moment and tell me honestly, is there anyone who thinks the "gloves off" attitude since September 11 is the right way to go?

    More specifically i'm talking about:

    1. Guantanamo Bay- locking people up with no trial and no right to legal process
    2. The torture pictures from Iraq, and the torture allegations from Afghanistan
    3. The private military contractors in Iraq who can't be brought before either military tribuneral or criminal courts (neither have jurisdiction over them)
    4. Respecting / dropping the Geneva Convention

    I mean is there anyone who really believes that abandoning established codes of conduct such as the Geneva convention is justified by the perceived terrorist threat to the USA?

    The short answer:In a perfect world no,but this isn't a perfect world.Human life doesn't have much value in that little corner of the world ( another dozen people killed by a car bomb,is almost am everyday event ) The United States uniforms seem to be made of velcro,everything and anything that occurs seems to stick.... Far be it from the USA to stoop to the level of the enemy with which it's confronted ???

  3. #3
    MFin' Princess
    Reputation: TVC15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,488

    Um ... hello...

    Terrorists ARE NOT granted rights under the Geneva convention. Uniformed combatants are. Being denied rights under the Geneva convention seems pretty fitting to me for any murderous coward who chooses to hide in plain sight and target and slaughter innocent civilians with zeal.

    America is fighting an asymmetrical war unlike any before. All free nations are in danger, just ask your friends in Spain. Although you do raise serious concerns in your thread, it is IMO better to put pressure, even too much pressure, on terrorists and save lives, than meet some misplaced philanthropic ideal that every person, regardless of the threat he poses or manner in which he terrorizes the world at large, should be treated with deference. After 9/11, every free person should realize that.
    Last edited by W'04; 06-16-2004 at 05:43 AM.

  4. #4
    gentle like
    Reputation: kept man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,837
    Woh4, I think it is also uniformed combatants who must belong to a specific national identity ... or is that part covered in the operational definition of uniformed combatants?

    Either way, there is some 'room' to maneuver ... and either way, I still don't like the idea that torture and abuse can be 'justified' depending on who a person is. As to what exactly is happening in Guantanimo ... who knows, I think.

  5. #5
    MFin' Princess
    Reputation: TVC15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,488
    Quote Originally Posted by kept man
    Woh4, I think it is also uniformed combatants who must belong to a specific national identity ... or is that part covered in the operational definition of uniformed combatants?
    I believe you are correct. Clearly the creators of the GC understood the dangers of protecting the indefensible, even if many others do not.

    I agree with you on your concerns about torture and abuse, but even that comes down to a painstakingly precise definition. Some call sleep deprivation torture. I'd bet my personal tolerance for such methods would be higher than many in here, given the clear and present danger we currently face. With lots of luck and God willing, we'll all be able to debate the topic in the years to come.

    BTW, any progress in your position on the voluteer opportunity? I wasn't sure which organization you were considering joining, so cannot provide any cogent input. In general I have found that such organizations, like any organization, in the end want talent. My guess is that as long as you can "tow the company line" (i.e., be consistent with their goals as you implement your work), they won't care how your personal beliefs may conflict with their dogma.

  6. #6
    Trying to find Flow
    Reputation: Patchito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,512

    Name, rank, and serial number

    Quote Originally Posted by kept man
    Woh4, I think it is also uniformed combatants who must belong to a specific national identity ... or is that part covered in the operational definition of uniformed combatants?

    Either way, there is some 'room' to maneuver ... and either way, I still don't like the idea that torture and abuse can be 'justified' depending on who a person is. As to what exactly is happening in Guantanimo ... who knows, I think.
    as a prisoner under the GC, that's all you're required to give upon capture. The legal difficulty arises when we capture a terrorist who operates under an alias or number of aliases and false passports, has no rank because he is not part of any hierarchical military organization, and certainly has no serial number and has probably had his citizenship revoked from his country of origin. The Geneva Convention protocol on torture was one conceived during the WWII era (don't know the exact year) and had those type of state to state conflicts in mind. It assumes a world order built around the autonomy and authority of the individual nation state, and depends upon the reciprocal accountability among the leaders who set policy. The assymetrical nature of terrorism makes it a thornier proposition - we may be accountable for the treatment of prisoners under the GC, but what government or political entity do we hold accountable in turn? In this sense, it's less an issue of the Administration somehow trying to weasel out of their GC obligations, and more of simply following the letter of the law. In this case, the GC simply doesn't apply to an amorphous terror network, and to impose it where it's not jurisdictionally applicable would be legally reckless. Historically, the abuse of laws comes not from under implementation, but over-implementation, and to be a society that respects the rule of law, we have to adhere to the strict interpretations of those laws.

    Yes, KM, there is room for maneuver, but a disagree with your notion that this somehow "justifies torture". I'm uncomfortable with torture as well. But I think legally, even if the U.S. is not bound by the letter of the law, it nevertheless can follow the spirit of the law. In this case, the GC calls for the "humane treatment" of prisoners. The gap between giving name, rank, and serial number on one hand, and proscriptions against torture, threats of punishment or cruelty is a large one. Does that preclude administrators at Gitmo from say, denying hot food, changing sleep schedules, or keeping them disoriented? I don't consider that "torture". Those are the methods that Rumsfeld has personally approved as being acceptable, and he has mandated that all procedures be personally approved by him. I think that's the important thing, that there is a strict accountability to a higher authority and clearly defined codes of conduct. Abu Ghraib is a case where the chain of authority broke down and you had the inmates running the asylum so to speak.
    Last edited by Patchito; 06-16-2004 at 06:48 AM.

  7. #7
    gentle like
    Reputation: kept man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,837
    A good point on definitions, Woh4 and Patchito, and one I tried to tiptoe around because I just don't know what is going on. I myself would not count sleep deprivation, or things like the shaving of beards, as torture. Personally I wouldn't even count administered drugs that make people more chatty as torture. I am uncomfortable with the idea of using the definitions GC - which as Patchito pointed out, are not geared towards this kind of conflict - to 'allow' torture to happen ... but I'm not saying that is what is happening. It just makes me nervous when that card - "it doesn't apply here" - gets played. And certainly Abu Graib is a different kettle of fish entirely.

    Thanks for your interest regarding the volunteer opportunity W0h4 - and I hope you don't mind that version of your 'name.' Saying "W'04" out louds just lacks flow - I prefer the linguistic rythm of Woh4.

    Anyhoo, had anyone else actually asked the name, I would have said it to them as well, for the sake of specificity (Teen Challenge). There has been no further reply yet from them, but the ball was "in my court" as it were; I reiterated that I was definitely interested to meet, and learn the details of what they are about in addition to their specific methodologies in helping kids overcome addiction. I have a little experience in this area, and would want to read up on their ideas as well. And, of course, I also had to tell them that I'm about to head back to Canada for 3 weeks ... unfortunate timing, but this vacation's been booked for months, and with the unpredictablility of volunteer groups contacting you back - it took the Humane Society 9 months (!) - well, I don't exactly sit and wait by the phone. But it seems like a really cool chance to help people, and I'm excited.

    As for that vacation ... anyone else hate packing as much as I? Not all that hard, or anything, but I frickin' get so bored and distracted ... must - go - finish - nowww ...

  8. #8
    my church is the woods
    Reputation: moonraker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by W'04
    I believe you are correct. Clearly the creators of the GC understood the dangers of protecting the indefensible, even if many others do not.

    I agree with you on your concerns about torture and abuse, but even that comes down to a painstakingly precise definition. Some call sleep deprivation torture. I'd bet my personal tolerance for such methods would be higher than many in here, given the clear and present danger we currently face. With lots of luck and God willing, we'll all be able to debate the topic in the years to come.

    BTW, any progress in your position on the voluteer opportunity? I wasn't sure which organization you were considering joining, so cannot provide any cogent input. In general I have found that such organizations, like any organization, in the end want talent. My guess is that as long as you can "tow the company line" (i.e., be consistent with their goals as you implement your work), they won't care how your personal beliefs may conflict with their dogma.
    Um, what clear and present danger? I thought that if the 9/11 terrorists wanted to kill US- the citizenry - they could have flew that plane 30 miles up the Hudson river into a nuclear power facility....not in to the worlds financial and military headquarters.

    Clear and present dangers that I see.....oblivious auto drivers (especially while riding my bike to work), fast food, heart disease, shootings in urban areas because of illegality of drugs, my asthma, lung disease, obesity, ozone depletion, failing ecosystems, depleting energy sources, increasing use of anti-depressants, cancer, garbage dumps are overflowing. Pollution, heavy metals and manufactured chemicals are tainting the atmosphere, the water, and the ground, entering into food chains everywhere. It is doubtful that there is a person alive today who is not storing manufactured poisons in her or his body.

    I feel bad for anyone who falls for all this propaganda and actually thinks that terrorism is threatening their lives. It just shows their 9/11 problem-reaction-solution tactics are working as planned. Manufacturing conscent for an illegal invasion and occupation

    This manufactured war on terror and war on drugs which are really two fronts of the War on Personal Freedom, is something that must be kept in the forefront of the news in order to keep the lemmings full of fear so that we will give up our liberties for (false) security.

    Here are some quotes to ponder:

    "Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goering, April 18, 1946, while awaiting the Nuremberg trials.

    "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" - Thomas Jefferson

    "What distinguishes the New Right from other American reactionary movements and what it shares with the early phase of German fascism, is its incorporation of conservative impulses into a system of representation consisting largely of media techniques and media images."

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mergs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,582
    Quote Originally Posted by eppe
    Ok i'll admit it. I'm not American, and like a lot of the rest of the world I didn't buy the crap about the Iraq war being anything to do with terrorism. Now don't get me wrong I'm not anti American, i spend every summer in the USA and I really like it there. I think the people are great, i love the nature, i just don't like the politics or the media. Anyway, I see a few people on these boards are pro-Iraq war, well you're entitled to your opinion. But I'm wondering about the gloves-off /gloves-on issue. I know it's election year and all that but put that aside for a moment and tell me honestly, is there anyone who thinks the "gloves off" attitude since September 11 is the right way to go?

    More specifically i'm talking about:

    1. Guantanamo Bay- locking people up with no trial and no right to legal process
    2. The torture pictures from Iraq, and the torture allegations from Afghanistan
    3. The private military contractors in Iraq who can't be brought before either military tribuneral or criminal courts (neither have jurisdiction over them)
    4. Respecting / dropping the Geneva Convention

    I mean is there anyone who really believes that abandoning established codes of conduct such as the Geneva convention is justified by the perceived terrorist threat to the USA?
    First of all, thanks for the kind words about the USA. I am truly glad you enjoy your visits here and the experience in general. I've never been to Spain, but I feel similarly about France. I downright frustrating really... I love Chamonix and have had semi-religious snowboarding epxeriences there, love the country, its beautiful, liked the people in general, but really despise their poltics and Chirac in particular... so I think I know from where you speak. I hope you keep returning and always feel welcome. With that said...

    As far as the meat of your post... I agree with T 3, Patchito and W'04 wholeheartedly. These are not POWs in most cases, they are illegal combatants and this is a huge distinction to keep in mind. They do not fall under the rules of the Geneva convention. The animals at Gitmo did not fight under GC rules and we have no legal obligation to follow them.

    However, this does not mean that we're down in Cuba, chopping off limbs, connecting wires to their privates, but we're not making their life pleasant, I can assure you. These are the same kind of animals that blow up trains in Madrid or fly planes into buildings. My personal opinion is that we should and MUST use some means of persuasion to extract information to prevent 9-11 part 2. If that means sleep deprivation, uncomfortable sleeping arrangements, and other techniques that are effective, short of outright torture, I am all for it. What is torture? Where do you draw the line? I will let the "experts" decide that. I am sure a definition exists somewhere, maybe in the GC docs themselves.

    Let always remember the long term goal here: a global Islamic state under the rule of Sharia based law. The believers in this goal will stop at nothing to achieve this and the Geneva Conventions are a western creation not an Islamic one and therefore they're irrelevant. The goal is nothing less than the destruction of the west, which primarily includes the Americas and Europe. Europe is a target too, not just the primary one at this point in history. Some of our civil liberties, and a lot of blood, will be sacrificed in order to preserve liberty. Its ironic, I know, but I don't think its possible to have it both ways.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mergs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,582
    Quote Originally Posted by moonraker
    Um, what clear and present danger? I thought that if the 9/11 terrorists wanted to kill US- the citizenry - they could have flew that plane 30 miles up the Hudson river into a nuclear power facility....not in to the worlds financial and military headquarters.

    Clear and present dangers that I see.....oblivious auto drivers (especially while riding my bike to work), fast food, heart disease, shootings in urban areas because of illegality of drugs, my asthma, lung disease, obesity, ozone depletion, failing ecosystems, depleting energy sources, increasing use of anti-depressants, cancer, garbage dumps are overflowing. Pollution, heavy metals and manufactured chemicals are tainting the atmosphere, the water, and the ground, entering into food chains everywhere. It is doubtful that there is a person alive today who is not storing manufactured poisons in her or his body.

    I feel bad for anyone who falls for all this propaganda and actually thinks that terrorism is threatening their lives. It just shows their 9/11 problem-reaction-solution tactics are working as planned. Manufacturing conscent for an illegal invasion and occupation

    This manufactured war on terror and war on drugs which are really two fronts of the War on Personal Freedom, is something that must be kept in the forefront of the news in order to keep the lemmings full of fear so that we will give up our liberties for (false) security.

    Here are some quotes to ponder:

    "Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goering, April 18, 1946, while awaiting the Nuremberg trials.

    "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" - Thomas Jefferson

    "What distinguishes the New Right from other American reactionary movements and what it shares with the early phase of German fascism, is its incorporation of conservative impulses into a system of representation consisting largely of media techniques and media images."
    Moon,

    There are so many targets... take your pick. WTC or a nuke plant. 3000 dead is a pretty good death toll, and it makes for great video too, if your an America hating Islamo- Fascist.

    But, you make it sound like the (legitimate) list of dangers you speak of above are mutually exclusive of trying to prevent future terrorist strikes. Well they're not... you need to simply add a comma to your list then cite future terror attacks. Why can't we try to fix those problems and prevent terrorism. I feel a personal kinship with you re: bike commuting. Geez, nothing seems more dangerous to me... I think DH'ing w/o a helmet is safer.

    But anyway... don't get me wrong, the problems you cite are legit, but we have to find solutions for many of them and attempt to prevent the next 9-11 too. Its not a matter of IF, but WHEN and WHERE. (Btw, I disagree on "fast food" point, I say "caveat emptor" on that, you eat it, you die... too bad chubby... oops, out comes my evil conservatism and Malthusian tendencies. If you want to eat egg and cheese biscuits for breakfast, I say that's Charles Darwin's theories in action.)

    I do agree with you that we need to keep an eye on the government, and to not allow them to go too far. I am not willing to follow lock step into a fascist state. Many people now think the Patriot Act is a serious breach to CL. Well that's debateable. Currently I am not fearful of it at this point. Besides, as silly this statement sounds: we have a second amendment if it goes too far... and this is exactly why its is there, to overthrow a fasict state if it arose. Would we be able to? I would hope so.

    p.s. I love Jefferson.

  11. #11
    my church is the woods
    Reputation: moonraker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by mergs
    First of all, thanks for the kind words about the USA. I am truly glad you enjoy your visits here and the experience in general. I've never been to Spain, but I feel similarly about France. I downright frustrating really... I love Chamonix and have had semi-religious snowboarding epxeriences there, love the country, its beautiful, liked the people in general, but really despise their poltics and Chirac in particular... so I think I know from where you speak. I hope you keep returning and always feel welcome. With that said...

    As far as the meat of your post... I agree with T 3, Patchito and W'04 wholeheartedly. These are not POWs in most cases, they are illegal combatants and this is a huge distinction to keep in mind. They do not fall under the rules of the Geneva convention. The animals at Gitmo did not fight under GC rules and we have no legal obligation to follow them.

    However, this does not mean that we're down in Cuba, chopping off limbs, connecting wires to their privates, but we're not making their life pleasant, I can assure you. These are the same kind of animals that blow up trains in Madrid or fly planes into buildings. My personal opinion is that we should and MUST use some means of persuasion to extract information to prevent 9-11 part 2. If that means sleep deprivation, uncomfortable sleeping arrangements, and other techniques that are effective, short of outright torture, I am all for it. What is torture? Where do you draw the line? I will let the "experts" decide that. I am sure a definition exists somewhere, maybe in the GC docs themselves.

    .
    Mergs - have you watched this one?
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/khadr/

    From inside Gitmo, only 10% of the "terrorists" there are Al-Qiada. The CIA was offering big rewards in Afghanistan to people who turned in Al-Qiada members. People were turning anyone and everyone they didn't like - just to get the reward money. And the conditions there, well you will have to watch the Frontline or read the transcript from someone who spent time in confinement there....his opinions of what happens there carry a bit more weight than yours.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,958
    Quote Originally Posted by mergs
    Some of our civil liberties...will be sacrificed in order to preserve liberty.[/FONT]
    The logic above is worthy of W.

    The war against Islamic fundamentalism will not turn on military achievement.

    The U.S. says there was a sharp increase in terrorism last year.

    Our efforts have been counterproductive.

    Coercive interrogation at Abu Ghraib has hurt us badly.

    What to do...what to do...something different?

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mergs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,582
    Quote Originally Posted by moonraker
    Mergs - have you watched this one?
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/khadr/

    From inside Gitmo, only 10% of the "terrorists" there are Al-Qiada. The CIA was offering big rewards in Afghanistan to people who turned in Al-Qiada members. People were turning anyone and everyone they didn't like - just to get the reward money. And the conditions there, well you will have to watch the Frontline or read the transcript from someone who spent time in confinement there....his opinions of what happens there carry a bit more weight than yours.
    I saw that program. It was excellent.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mergs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,582
    Quote Originally Posted by BadHabit
    The logic above is worthy of W.

    The war against Islamic fundamentalism will not turn on military achievement.

    The U.S. says there was a sharp increase in terrorism last year.

    Our efforts have been counterproductive.

    Coercive interrogation at Abu Ghraib has hurt us badly.

    What to do...what to do...something different?
    Knock firmly on wood, but I also see that we've suffered no more terror attacks since 9-11. I think at the end of the day, this is the goal, and its been achived thus far. Do I feel that its inevitable? Yes, I fear we are due, sooner or later. We have to be perfect in our security, they only have to be on target once. The odds are not in our favor.

    Do I want CL bent and twisted? No. But do I want to prevent another 9-11 and I'm willing to give the gov't a certain latitude here. I *know* we'll never agree but I just don't lose any sleep with Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld in charge. In fact I get comfort from it.

  15. #15
    ride your bike
    Reputation: jubilee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    9,447
    Quote Originally Posted by W'04
    Terrorists ARE NOT granted rights under the Geneva convention. Uniformed combatants are. Being denied rights under the Geneva convention seems pretty fitting to me for any murderous coward who chooses to hide in plain sight and target and slaughter innocent civilians with zeal.

    America is fighting an asymmetrical war unlike any before. All free nations are in danger, just ask your friends in Spain. Although you do raise serious concerns in your thread, it is IMO better to put pressure, even too much pressure, on terrorists and save lives, than meet some misplaced philanthropic ideal that every person, regardless of the threat he poses or manner in which he terrorizes the world at large, should be treated with deference. After 9/11, every free person should realize that.
    Dead Horse beaten mercilessly---------> Again, really, what does 9/11 have to do with Iraq?
    Taking it easy for all you sinners.

  16. #16
    T 3
    T 3 is offline

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,477
    Quote Originally Posted by moonraker
    Um, what clear and present danger? Here are some quotes to ponder:

    "Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goering, April 18, 1946, while awaiting the Nuremberg trials.

    "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" - Thomas Jefferson

    "What distinguishes the New Right from other American reactionary movements and what it shares with the early phase of German fascism, is its incorporation of conservative impulses into a system of representation consisting largely of media techniques and media images."

    Let me be the first to ask:Moon,what style dress was Goering wearing when he wrote that statement ? ( He was known to frequently enjoy dressing in women's clothing )

    As for the end of your post:Welcome to the electronic age,the first time it was capitilized on in a big way in the United States was by John F Kennedy.Media images and techniques are here to stay,even terrorist are acutely aware of that....
    Last edited by T 3; 06-16-2004 at 08:13 PM. Reason: typo

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    174
    We did not torture anyone!!!!!!!!! Our college fraternities and marines (as well as others) HAZE their newbies far worse than these terrorists experienced. But of course their bretheren can cut the head off a prisoner and you have no outrage at that. I think we should use reasonable coersion to attain intel. War is hell and if we let them they will bring that hell to our shores.

  18. #18
    Jm.
    Jm. is offline

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,131
    Quote Originally Posted by moonraker
    Um, what clear and present danger? I thought that if the 9/11 terrorists wanted to kill US- the citizenry - they could have flew that plane 30 miles up the Hudson river into a nuclear power facility....not in to the worlds financial and military headquarters.
    It's doubtfull that running an aircraft into a nuclear power plant would do anything. They are reinforced to prevent just that, not to mention that the way they work is that they "shutdown" if anything goes wrong. Think of a connection that is spring-loaded in the off position, to keep it "on" you have to continually apply a force. Our modern nuclear reactors work in a similer fasion, if a plane crashes into a reactor the control rods go into the reactor and nothing happens.

    Unless you've really studied these things (not just hearsay, I'm using my brother as a source of info, he's a nuclear engineer), please don't speculate. Ramming the airplanes into the towers turned out to be an extremely effective way to kill a lot of people.

  19. #19
    ride your bike
    Reputation: jubilee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    9,447
    Quote Originally Posted by Nuboy
    "A house divided against itself cannot stand."-Abraham Lincoln
    Man who fart in church, sit in own pew.-Confucious
    Taking it easy for all you sinners.

  20. #20
    T 3
    T 3 is offline

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,477
    Quote Originally Posted by jubilee
    Man who fart in church, sit in own pew.-Confucious

    You're 0 for 2 on this thread,maybe a lame joke forum will open soon....

Similar Threads

  1. What gloves are you using?
    By Goddy in forum Apparel and Protection
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-26-2004, 08:32 PM
  2. Hot Hands need cooler full finger gloves soon
    By Mudman in forum Apparel and Protection
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 04-18-2004, 03:53 PM
  3. Carbon gloves...are they worth it??
    By biker3 in forum Apparel and Protection
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 02-18-2004, 11:58 AM
  4. Baseball/Softball gloves (waaay OT)
    By bob in forum Apparel and Protection
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-17-2004, 12:24 PM
  5. Looking for good place to buy gloves online
    By bigDave in forum Apparel and Protection
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-27-2004, 01:35 PM

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.