Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's not suprising. The Taliban, and many other "terroristical" organisations (Little differnce between terrorists and freedom fighters. Just depends on whose side you're on) are not all religious extremists. In fact, religious extrimism has less to do with it than the socioeconomical situation, and the recent history. (which, in many cases is gruesome enough to support their antipathy for the West).

Given how they acted when they were in power, I'm going to have to completely disagree with that.

As I question yours, if you sincerly believe that the only way to solve the terroristical problem is what will amount to the eridication of entire ethnic minorities/majorities.

That is not what I said. My argument is that the vast majority of Taliban members will only end their actions through death, not retirement, because of their own fanatical will. (Also, your own implication that every Afghan is a member of the Taliban is pretty questionable in and of itself.)

[Nadaka]

But the Taliban isn't a religion, and leaving it is not considered to be leaving Islam.

Not according to the Taliban. They consider their brand of militant Islam to be the one true Islam, giving up the fight and going to a non-militant form of Islam would be just as much of a crime in their eyes.

[Bauglir]

As an American, I'm gonna say that if you think "We don't negotiate with terrorists" is a higher priority than saving lives, including American lives, you have failed at patriotism (among other things). If you think some given example will just encourage more terrorism, or negotiation will otherwise prove useless, that's fine, but dismissing the idea on principle alone? You're rating your own sense of righteousness as being more valuable than human life. Doing the right thing is hard, sometimes. But you're not going to fix anything by taking the easy choice.

[GlyphGryph]

...anything to back that up? From my understanding, it was more akin to leaving a powerful gang or political movement - yes, certainly dangerous, the higher ups will want to make an example of you if you cause any trouble, but it's more a practical thing than an ideological one. And there are plenty of ex-Taliban, or those who left and then rejoined. You probably wouldn't have wanted to publicly renounce your loyalty to the Nazi part in WWII Germany, either.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asia-pacific/afghanistan/121204/afghanistan-taliban-peace-council-nato-us-withdrawal-civil-war

Here's at least one look into the situation as it stands.

[Scelly9]

As an American, I'm gonna say that if you think "We don't negotiate with terrorists" is a higher priority than saving lives, including American lives, you have failed at patriotism (among other things). If you think some given example will just encourage more terrorism, or negotiation will otherwise prove useless, that's fine, but dismissing the idea on principle alone? You're rating your own sense of righteousness as being more valuable than human life. Doing the right thing is hard, sometimes. But you're not going to fix anything by taking the easy choice.

And why are American lives more important than others?

[10ebbor10]

It's not suprising. The Taliban, and many other "terroristical" organisations (Little differnce between terrorists and freedom fighters. Just depends on whose side you're on) are not all religious extremists. In fact, religious extrimism has less to do with it than the socioeconomical situation, and the recent history. (which, in many cases is gruesome enough to support their antipathy for the West).

Given how they acted when they were in power, I'm going to have to completely disagree with that.

It's a loosely defined alliance of tribal lords, and other militias, which suddenly found themselves in charge of a country. Similair situations have happened in the past, whitout religious motives, and with similair results.

As I question yours, if you sincerly believe that the only way to solve the terroristical problem is what will amount to the eridication of entire ethnic minorities/majorities.

That is not what I said. My argument is that the vast majority of Taliban members will only end their actions through death, not retirement, because of their own fanatical will. (Also, your own implication that every Afghan is a member of the Taliban is pretty questionable in and of itself.)
[/quote]
Not what I said, but anyway. The continues military occupation and drone raids are the main reason why the Taliban still exists. For every Taliban member you kill, they get to recruit several more members. Especially with civilian deaths. It's much easier to blame the far off Western nation for all your troubles, especially when they have obviously superior technology, and can seemingly decide wherether you live or die. These people, who have little, and feel absolutely powerless to decide over their own future are the primary recruitment ground for the Taliban.

Adding to that, there are several reasonable fractions within the Taliban, or within other "terroristical" organisations.

As an American, I'm gonna say that if you think "We don't negotiate with terrorists" is a higher priority than saving lives, including American lives, you have failed at patriotism (among other things). If you think some given example will just encourage more terrorism, or negotiation will otherwise prove useless, that's fine, but dismissing the idea on principle alone? You're rating your own sense of righteousness as being more valuable than human life. Doing the right thing is hard, sometimes. But you're not going to fix anything by taking the easy choice.

And why are American lives more important than others?

They aren't. But for patriots they oftne are, I suppose.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

As an American, I'm gonna say that if you think "We don't negotiate with terrorists" is a higher priority than saving lives, including American lives, you have failed at patriotism (among other things). If you think some given example will just encourage more terrorism, or negotiation will otherwise prove useless, that's fine, but dismissing the idea on principle alone? You're rating your own sense of righteousness as being more valuable than human life. Doing the right thing is hard, sometimes. But you're not going to fix anything by taking the easy choice.

The futility of negotiations with such radicals is just as relevant as the principle of the matter. Demands by people who believe these sorts of things tend to be either insane/impossible ("Make your people convert to Islam!") or unacceptable/unethical ("Give us guns and explosives in exchange for prisoners.").

Anyway, the devils advocate position I directed that towards was also a really stupid idea specifically, since the context of the statement would be trying to get a friendly dialogue with al-Qaeda.

[Owlbread]

And why are American lives more important than others?

Good point, sir.

You may find this odd given your expressed opinions thus far, but I care about what happens to people who are not Americans.

It's interesting that Mr. SlimeHunt would make such a comment earlier on, but pass no comment when I pulled him up for his support of US drone attacks, despite them causing the deaths of 200 children and between 400 and 800 civilians. Indeed, the bulk of them since Obama came to power. Adam Lanza kills 20 kids, he's a monster. Together, Obama and Bush kill ten times that number through drone attacks that they personally authorise and it's collateral damage.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You may find this odd given your expressed opinions thus far, but I care about what happens to people who are not Americans.

It's interesting that Mr. SlimeHunt would make such a comment earlier on, but pass no comment when I pulled him up for his support of US drone attacks, despite them causing the deaths of 200 children and between 400 and 800 civilians. Indeed, the bulk of them since Obama came to power. Adam Lanza kills 20 kids, he's a monster. Together, Obama and Bush kill ten times that number and it's collateral damage.

I support drone strikes in a far more limited context than the government is currently using them. Striking confirmed enemy operatives when it's a sure thing? Go ahead, this is war.

Now, large-payload strikes in heavily populated areas, that's not acceptable. The main reason that this ends up happening is because people who believe they're a strike target will try to stay somewhere they don't believe the US will attack, which tends to be schools, hospitals, and mosques. But sometimes that doesn't stop the military, which is why the prime focus should be upon getting precision drone weapons, preferably those that do not include explosives at all.

[Owlbread]

I support drone strikes in a far more limited context than the government is currently using them. Striking confirmed enemy operatives when it's a sure thing? Go ahead, this is war.

Alright, so you would have suggested that we blow up Gerry Adams and his family back in the 1980s like the example I gave earlier? War is war.

Now, large-payload strikes in heavily populated areas, that's not acceptable. The main reason that this ends up happening is because people who believe they're a strike target will try to stay somewhere they don't believe the US will attack, which tends to be schools, hospitals, and mosques. But sometimes that doesn't stop the military, which is why the prime focus should be upon getting precision drone weapons, preferably those that do not include explosives at all.

What if it isn't a school or a mosque? What if it's the guy's house or bunker where he lives with his family?

[Bauglir]

And why are American lives more important than others?

They aren't. But for patriots they oftne are, I suppose.

Aye, they aren't. But I typically approach arguments from a perspective I tend to think is closer to what I'm arguing against, because maximizing common ground makes it harder to talk past each other and accomplish nothing. Obviously, I misjudged this one.

At any rate, my original claim still stands. It's just stronger because now everyone who's going to die as "collateral damage", and everybody who's going to be drawn into conflict by the loss of the people they love, weigh as heavily against ideological absolutes. Fanaticism doesn't just take the form of religion, after all.

The futility of negotiations with such radicals is just as relevant as the principle of the matter. Demands by people who believe these sorts of things tend to be either insane/impossible ("Make your people convert to Islam!") or unacceptable/unethical ("Give us guns and explosives in exchange for prisoners.").

Anyway, the devils advocate position I directed that towards was also a really stupid idea specifically, since the context of the statement would be trying to get a friendly dialogue with al-Qaeda.

Then why go with the worst possible response? If you're okay with negotiating with terrorists, but just think it's impractical, why say, "We don't negotiate with terrorists" and question the morality of anybody who thinks it's acceptable?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Alright, so you would have suggested that we blow up Gerry Adams and his family back in the 1980s like the example I gave earlier? War is war.

I'm not sure who you're talking about, but the only Gerry Adams I can find is not dead, and the only attack on him mentioned by that article was some guys shooting at his car.

What if it isn't a school or a mosque? What if it's the guy's house or bunker where he lives with his family?

Maybe. You'd have to weigh the value of eliminating the target against the near-certain noncombatant deaths. If this is someone who's demise will prevent the carrying out of operations that would probably kill more people, than it would be acceptable to kill their family along with them because it causes fewer deaths overall. In a situation where all outcomes mean somebody dies, you have to take the utilitarian approach.

Then why go with the worst possible response? If you're okay with negotiating with terrorists, but just think it's impractical, why say, "We don't negotiate with terrorists" and question the morality of anybody who thinks it's acceptable?

I am both not okay with negotiating with terrorists, and I think it is impractical.

[Bauglir]

I am both not okay with negotiating with terrorists, and I think it is impractical.

Why aren't you okay with negotiating with terrorists? Impracticality is fine, and I can agree that negotiations probably won't often be effective, but if we strip away the situations we agree on, we're left with ones where negotiation can solve problems. In those cases, what makes it better to hold to this absolute dictum, "We do not negotiate with terrorists", than to save lives?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I am both not okay with negotiating with terrorists, and I think it is impractical.

Why aren't you okay with negotiating with terrorists? Impracticality is fine, and I can agree that negotiations probably won't often be effective, but if we strip away the situations we agree on, we're left with ones where negotiation can solve problems. In those cases, what makes it better to hold to this absolute dictum, "We do not negotiate with terrorists", than to save lives?

If such a case came up, which I sincerely doubt it ever would, I might be persuaded to go against my better judgment and negotiate. Simply put, dealings with immoral lunatics are always wrong because it enables them to do further horrible things.

But then there's the issue of the lives of hostages. Ultimately I'd be most tempted to go with playing ball until we get the hostages back and then killing all the hostage takers.

[DWC]

You can't negotiate with terrorists, not even once. Soon as you do that, you'll encourage others to use violence as leverage to get what they want. If terrorism and randsoming gets shit done more people will resort to using it. If the only thing it accomplishes is a violent death by the hands of the authorities, then that takes a lot off the table from the terrorist's perspective and less extreme groups will be less likely to use violence to air their grievances.

Negotiations with regular criminals is probably sound policy, then again I don't think I've ever seen a hostage taker have their demands met, unless they are asking for food or water during the stand off. It's used more as a distraction, I think. You can't do this with actual terrorist groups.