fansince62 Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 gbear...even in my worst fulminating moments I try to treat you with some respect....cuz....well........I think you do care and that these things matter to you. BUT......you have a tendancy to equivocate (as many do when dancing around sensitive subjects with "I'm not saying it isn't justified...." escape routes). I've done it myself when touching on politically correct touchstones, so don't view this as a body slam. it's one more variety of the thought controol that ASF should be blathering about. I would only add that I think the problems are a bit more complex, and by extension the solutions, than you are suggesting. the violence begets violence argument might not adequately describe the dynamics in play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 Fan since 62, It's just that I really do understand the lash out feeling. Ever had a little brother punch you in the nads? I understand what it's like to want to punch back. It even seems justified. My point is that hitting back isn't always the answer. Sometimes it makes things worse. That's my point on the whole gung ho"go get them where they live" hoopla that is on this thread. Governments have tried this with terrorists over and over. Everytime we do, the end result doesn't seem to be the stated goal of "ending terrorism." Don't get me wrong Fan since 62, I'm not saying the solution is easy or uncomplicated. I'm also not saying we should be a pacifist nation. I'm just against the hung ho kill them all in the most horrific way possible approach so blithly put forth in this thread. If we are seen to be just executing anyone we think is Alqueda despite having them in prison where they aren't a threat to us and get red cross visits...it's kind of like hitting your brother just as your parents turn around. Who is the world going to get mad at. Why make recruitment for the terrorists easy? There is an element of showmanship/public relations that our terrorist policy as it stands now is completely lacking. That I'm against killing prisnors of war is a side issue. That has more to do with me hoping that our troops will be treated humanely. We can argue semantics about how it's not a declared war against a sovereign nation. But isn't the point of the Geneva convention among others how a sovereign nation is supposed to conduct a war? Being within the letter of the law isn't moral authority. If it's not moral, AND it doesn't work to eliminate terrorism, what's the point? We should kill them because we'll feel better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 as crazy as it is.....ever wonder why Israel sometimes goes after a Homocide Bombers' families? I thought it was scare these people into not doing it. They consider themselves holy fighter or whatever but when they think "well, then my Mother and Father and all my siblings are in trouble for this....." It doesn't stop them all but I bet it stops some. I always wish there was a way to scare Terrorists into not doing it.......some are just so crazy that it can't be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 Originally posted by gbear My point is that hitting back isn't always the answer. Sometimes it makes things worse. That's my point on the whole gung ho"go get them where they live" hoopla that is on this thread. Governments have tried this with terrorists over and over. Everytime we do, the end result doesn't seem to be the stated goal of "ending terrorism." Not that i would advocate this, but the old Soviet union did have a method for successfully stopping terrorists. When a couple of their people were kidnapped in Lebanon, they paid the ransom to get them back, and then spent the next year hunting everybody down AND their families and associates. Then they literally cut these people up into pieces, and mailed individual body parts back to people who knew them. The message was plain and simple: F**k with us, and we will REALLY F**K with you. Nobody bothered Soviets in the Middle East after that.:asta: :asta: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 Didn't the USSR also start funding many of the regimes in the area as well? Also, I'm not sure about the time frame for this, but after the Olympics, Israel started hunting down terrorists with a vengance (litterally). I wonder if any of the reduction in activities against the USSR was that the terrorists suddenly had bigger fish to fry. I know the USSR had trouble in Afganistan long after those tactics were put in place. On the question of Israel taking it out on the families...it doesn't seem to be working for them. That policy has been in the news for the past year. I haven't seen any sgn of it discouraging terrorists. Maybe you're right and it does, but how many more terrorists sign up when they see people who haven't done anything having their homes bulldozed? Did you happen to catch 60 min II htis week? They were interviewing a few Palestinian women about suicide bombing done by women. That was frightening. If it's rerun, I'd recomend watching it for anyone who thinks terrorism can be defeated by intimidation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 On the question of Israel taking it out on the families...it doesn't seem to be working for them. That policy has been in the news for the past year. I haven't seen any sgn of it discouraging terrorists. Maybe you're right and it does, but how many more terrorists sign up when they see people who haven't done anything having their homes bulldozed? The point being that DEAD terrorist no longer terrorize. Dead terrorist families that are no more don't make more terrorists. Eventually, they'll run out of a$$holes to send out on these missions. Remember, neither we nor Isreal have ever REALLY taken the gloves off on these losers. If we did and felt like hearing the pascifist world cry and whine about it for six months to a year, there'd be no more terrorist problems because there'd be no more terrorists. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 The Guantanamo Thirteen Packing on the pounds at America's toughest prison. By Manny Howard Posted Thursday, May 29, 2003, at 11:52 AM PT Is America the only country in the world that could run a prison camp where prisoners gain weight? Between April 2002 and March 2003, the Joint Task Force returned to Afghanistan 19 of the approximately 664 men (from 42 countries) who have been held in the detention camps at the U.S. Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay. Upon leaving, it has been reported, each man received two parting gifts: a brand new copy of the Koran as well as a new pair of jeans. Not the act of generosity that it might first appear, the jeans, at least, turned out to be a necessity. During their 14-month stay, the detainees (nearly all of them) had each gained an average of 13 pounds. In America, where 13 pounds is what many of our citizens' chins weigh, the prisoners' slightly enlarged girth might seem negligible. But given the low-bit-resolution video footage we have seen of stooped and shackled men in orange jumpsuits, and the collective protests from international human rights groups, the revelation that the men detained from last year's war would leave the Guantanamo prison camps sporting a larger pair of trousers than the ones they showed up with comes as something of a surprise. So I called one of the prison camps at Guantanamo (also known at GTMO, pronounced GIT-mo) to inquire, and was put in touch with Chief Warrant Officer (CW4) James Kluck. (The official voice of GTMO was clearly quite happy to tell the story of weight gain among the detainees—it's evidence, perhaps, that the prisoners' treatment can't have been so bad if they managed to put on a few pounds.) CW4 Kluck, 55, a reservist, is in charge of feeding the detainees as well as the 1,780 soldiers at GTMO, and he arrived there perversely well-prepared for his work. In civilian life he ran the food and beverage program at the University of Michigan. Though Kluck calls his crew of 46 "cooks," none of the meals are actually cooked on the base, just reheated. The food is delivered on a barge by a subcontractor, Atlantic Coast Contracting, Inc., which doesn't cook it either. Atlantic ferries the food from Jacksonville, Fla., where it is bought from SYSCO, a heavy-hitting supplier to institutions like prisons and universities (including the University of Michigan). SYSCO does cook the food, and the meals are certified halal—adhering to Islamic law—at SYSCO's plant; that paperwork is later double-checked by GTMO's Muslim chaplain. Kluck's cooks only have what he calls "visual contact" with the medium-security detainees, who live communally in four barracks and are served in groups of as many as 10. They merely plate the food and the Military Police serve it. The cooks don't have any contact at all with the high-security-risk detainees. These men are fed alone in their cells and the food—two hot meals a day, at breakfast and dinner, rather than the three given to the other prisoners—is delivered by a pair of MPs. Lunch on the high-security wing is a soldier's combat ration, otherwise known as MRE (Meals-Ready-to-Eat). Kluck's crew unwraps the rations, removing the plastic wrap from the multigrain fruit bars, as well as from the plastic sporks. "Apparently the prisoners can cause all kinds of damage, stuffing the wrappers into locks and that sort of mischief," says Kluck. So what exactly does the reheated food consist of? The detainees eat a relatively spartan menu that revolves around Asian-accented stews of beef, chicken, and fish. And, Kluck insists, "The detainees eat the same food as the troops, except that the troops' menu is on a 5-week rotation, and the detainees' menu rotates every two weeks. The JTF [Joint Task Force] gets more variety." When Kluck says everybody eats the same food he means—not to put too fine a point on it—that everything the detainees eat is available at the buffet at the soldiers' canteen. The reverse is not true. Though the diets devised for both the JTF and the detainees were approved by GTMO's resident nutritionist, the JTF 5-week menu also includes institutional dining terrors like Chicken Cordon Bleu and Turkey a la King, never mind fried chicken. (It hardly seems surprising that the troops are also struggling with their weight.) In addition to the stews and multigrain fruit bars, Kluck also serves both groups of detainees a host of legumes: black beans, lentils, kidney beans, and chickpeas. None of this food sounds overly fattening. The cooks do serve carbohydrates—mainly rice—at lunch and dinner, and the New York Times reported that detainees had developed "a fondness for bagels." (I ran the veracity of this reporting by Kluck, who replied: "Not that I can see. They don't seem to like bagels more than the pita bread, baguettes or sliced wheat bread we also serve.") Kluck says that medium-security detainees are provided "additional servings," if they request them, and he adds that an incentive program that encourages good behavior revolves around the dispensing of cakes and dates and other treats. But it's unlikely that carbohydrates by themselves (even the occasional heapin' helpin') can account for all the weight. Human rights critics insist there's another explanation. "Life as a Talib conscript was probably hell," explains John Sifton, an attorney who works in Afghanistan for Human Rights Watch, an international human rights organization. "Those guys showed up [at GTMO] half-starved, some of them probably hadn't had a proper hot meal since the war began. It wouldn't be hard to put on weight." Lisa Dorfman, a nutritionist who has counseled inmates in federal prisons in and around Dade County, Fla., says that in prison, food isn't just about calories; it takes on a special significance. "When you are incarcerated, food becomes one of the few sources of social pleasure available to you. Meals are an opportunity to communicate with other people. Not insignificantly, it also becomes an outlet, like sex," she says. Dorfman explains that overeating, hoarding, and what she calls Night Eating Syndrome are a real problem and a significant cause of dramatic weight gain among prisoners she has counseled. "We found that most inmates gain an enormous amount of weight when they first arrive in an institution. They tend to be depressed, lonely, and stressed out and alienated from loved ones," says Dorfman. "It's kind of like being in college your first semester." I ask CW4 Kluck if, based on his professional experience in civilian life at the University of Michigan, he had expected the detainees to gain weight immediately after their arrival at GTMO. He laughs at first, "Oh, yes: the Freshman Fifteen," but then resumes his strictly business manner. "I'm not sure whether there were any expectations with these guys." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 Air Sarge, Maybe you missed it. Most of the suicide bombers whom you want to punish...well...they're kind of dead already. Killing the families...given the way the suicide bomers are selected...the families never know or have a say in most cases. It was one of the more interesting parts to the 60 min story. They had parents who would have been against it lamenting hte loss of their children reduced only to the point where they can say "she must have believed very strongly." It was truely sad. Evidently, they pick the bombers and give them very little time from the point where they agree to do it to the point where it is done. They don't want to give them time to be found out or change their minds. As for your other plan, well that would be genocide. I guess that might stop the terrorists. I would just hope we never start thinking that's the way to go though. The world has seen enough of that too. I think your post was tongue and cheek...atleast I hope so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlanta Skins Fan Posted May 30, 2003 Author Share Posted May 30, 2003 Originally posted by Air Sarge The point being that DEAD terrorist no longer terrorize. Dead terrorist families that are no more don't make more terrorists. Eventually, they'll run out of a$$holes to send out on these missions. Remember, neither we nor Isreal have ever REALLY taken the gloves off on these losers. If we did and felt like hearing the pascifist world cry and whine about it for six months to a year, there'd be no more terrorist problems because there'd be no more terrorists. Period. Good thinking, Air Sarge. Lemme get out the calculator. OK: total terrorist and latent terrorist population: 1.2 billion. Terrorists and latent terrorists killed in 21 months since 9/11: approx. 250,000. Birth rate of terrorists and latent terrorists: approx. 35 per 1,000 per year; 61 per 21 months. Total terrorists and latent terrorists born since 9/11: approx. 73.5 million Net addition/loss of terrorists and latent terrorists since 9/11 (births minus killings): 73.25 million gained Less normal death rate of 10 per 1,000 per year: 52.25 million Sorry, Air Sarge: you're just not killing the terrorists and latent terrorists fast enough. Despite all your killings, there are now about 52 million more terrorists and latent terrorists in the world. But all is not lost. Those 52 million net terrorists and latent terrorists gained since 9/11 really only represent an annual rate of increase of 30 million terrorists and latent terrorists per year. A simple U.S. program to kill an additional 30 million terrorists and latent terrorists each year may achieve equilibrium. But obviously we can't be satisfied with mere containment. These people need to be eliminated. Let's make it a 10-year program, like the moon shot. All it would take is a killing of an additional 120 million terrorists and latent terrorists per year, in addition to the 30 million killed to maintain equilibrium. Bottom line: kill 150 million terrorists and latent terrorists each year for the next 10 years. Problem solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 Sorry, Air Sarge: you're just not killing the terrorists and latent terrorists fast enough. Despite all your killings, there are now about 52 million more terrorists and latent terrorists in the world. But all is not lost. Those 52 million net terrorists and latent terrorists gained since 9/11 really only represent an annual rate of increase of 30 million terrorists and latent terrorists per year. A simple U.S. program to kill an additional 30 million terrorists and latent terrorists each year may achieve equilibrium. But obviously we can't be satisfied with mere containment. These people need to be eliminated. Let's make it a 10-year program, like the moon shot. All it would take is a killing of an additional 120 million terrorists and latent terrorists per year, in addition to the 30 million killed to maintain equilibrium Bottom line: kill 150 million terrorists and latent terrorists each year for the next 10 years. Problem solved. I don't count the 73.55 born since 9/11. They are not yet old enough to wrap/ be wrapped in dynamite and set themselves off. They are just as likely to walk back towards the a$$holes that would sacrifice them. Minus 52.25 in natural deaths. That's less 125, almost 126 million, leaves only 24.2 million to get rid of a year. A couple of more police actions, plus trouble getting humanitarian aid to the remainer and VIOLA. Done. Of course (Puts pinky to corner of mouth ala Dr. Evil) we could always break out.......the DNA bomb. Go research that. It may just finish pushing you over the edge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlanta Skins Fan Posted May 30, 2003 Author Share Posted May 30, 2003 Originally posted by Air Sarge Of course (Puts pinky to corner of mouth ala Dr. Evil) we could always break out.......the DNA bomb. Go research that. It may just finish pushing you over the edge Oh I'm all over that DNA bomb, Air Sarge. The PNAC has been particularly interested in developing biological weapons with DNA profiling, which could be used to target individuals, families or whole ethnic groups. I'm waiting for the DNA bomb that can target think tanks like PNAC. (Puts pinky to corner of mouth ala Dr. Evil) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.