Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5]   Go Down

Author Topic: Execution on Suspicion.  (Read 19905 times)

Barbara

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • I'm now a porcupine cat-lover
Re:Execution on Suspicion.
« Reply #60 on: November 08, 2002, 01:13:14 pm »

I haven't read Mein Kampf, What is it about (I know Hitler wrote it, but what is the content)?
This'll be my last post here - I know when to quit and you two obviously just want to kiss up to each other and ridicule anyone who disagrees with you, so I'll leave you to it.  

Mein Kampf was Hitler's manifesto - his tactics and his prejudices sound alot like yours - so you really should read it.
Logged

5pectre

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 322
  • terrorism is the symptom not the disease -1.5/-7.7
    • home
Re:Execution on Suspicion.
« Reply #61 on: November 08, 2002, 01:35:04 pm »

Sorry I don't know what you're referencing here.

I think he is referring to the 11/09 attacks. If they hated liberty then why did they attack the US instead of Switzerland?

To 5pectre (what does that mean by the way?)

spectre (i believe that in american english it is 'specter')

n 1: an unusual appearing ghostly figure; "we were unprepared for the apparition that confronted us" [syn: apparition, phantom, specter] 2: a mental representation of some haunting experience; "he looked like he had seen a ghost"; "it aroused specters from his past" [syn: ghost, shade, spook, wraith, specter]

I picked the nick about six years ago. I just went through the dictionary looking for words that look cool.

Sorry capital D drudge, yes I know the Onion is satire - all but the Objectivists (and Drudge is not one of them) were in jest...

ok, what are some objectivist news sources? was fox news in jest?

I know when to quit and you two obviously just want to kiss up to each other and ridicule anyone who disagrees with you

Kiss up? And I thought that we were just having a civilised conversation. I'm not trying to ridicule you, i'm trying to have a discussion with you.

Mein Kampf was Hitler's manifesto - his tactics and his prejudices sound alot like yours - so you really should read it.

Prejudices? Who am I prejudiced against (apart from government employees)? I'd like to read it, As some guy said: "Know your enemy".
Logged

5pectre

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 322
  • terrorism is the symptom not the disease -1.5/-7.7
    • home
Re:Execution on Suspicion.
« Reply #62 on: November 08, 2002, 02:17:04 pm »

Mouse, check this one out... :)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2419115.stm

I think i'm probably safe in Ceredigion (very low population centre), but still it might be worth investing in a gas mask.

This'll be my last post here

A shame, it was an enjoyable conversation. If you have any objectivist news sources and don't want to give them here, could you IM them to me. It would be interesting to see what they have to say.
Logged

RidleyReport

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3557
Re:Execution on Suspicion.
« Reply #63 on: November 10, 2002, 01:23:18 pm »

<< So we've graduated from indefinite incarceration, to death penalty on suspicion ... fascinating. To stamp "Okay" to this sort of thing is to be as guilty as our gov, .>>

Consider me guilty.   Provided there was a legit target on that vehicle the Yemen raid is not near as bad as Churchill mining the neutral Norweigan leeds in 1940.  But he was right to do that then, and I bet we were right to do this now.
Logged
http://RidleyReport.com
http://NHexit.com - If Britain can do it, New Hampshire can do it

5pectre

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 322
  • terrorism is the symptom not the disease -1.5/-7.7
    • home
Re:Execution on Suspicion.
« Reply #64 on: November 10, 2002, 10:48:28 pm »

But he was right to do that then, and I bet we were right to do this now.

This is one of the problems.

Was it right for the Palestinian activists to assasinate Rehavam Ze'evi?
Was it right for the Greek activists to assasinate Stephen Saunders?
Was it right for the Irish activists to assasinate Lord Mountbatten?
Was it right for the Basque activists to assasinate Admiral Luis Carrero Blanco?

Why is it any different who does the assasination? You can't say "When we kill someone it is legitimate but when you kill someone it isn't", that is the height of hypocrisy and part of the reason there is so much trouble with terrorism.

Remember next time you lambast a terrorist group that your government is no better than them.

Good quote mouse :)
Logged

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:Execution on Suspicion.
« Reply #65 on: November 11, 2002, 12:06:09 am »

Am I alone in thinking that assassination is a highly effective and direct way to wage war?  And that it is not morally wrong, given that the person or group to which they belong has been either declared war against, or found to be guilty in court already(for bounty hunters etc).  Why has state-sponsored assassination been deemed in violation of the rules of war?
Logged

5pectre

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 322
  • terrorism is the symptom not the disease -1.5/-7.7
    • home
Re:Execution on Suspicion.
« Reply #66 on: November 11, 2002, 12:41:54 am »

Am I alone in thinking that assassination is a highly effective and direct way to wage war?

Nope, if the killing of one leader will save thousands of soldiers then you might think why not? However what if the killing of one leader fuels a leadership contest in which tens of thousands die? You can never be sure.

And that it is not morally wrong, given that the person or group to which they belong has been either declared war against, or found to be guilty in court already(for bounty hunters etc).

The problem is that those two things aren't always there. Was the US at WAR with Cuba? Had Fidel Castro been convicted in a court of law? Assasination attempts are often outside the rule of law and so are illegal.

With respect to the War on Some Terror, you aren't at WAR *and* the 'guilty' parties have not been convicted in a court of law.

Assasination attempts when one state is at WAR with another are sometimes ok. Assasination attempts when there is no WAR are always bad.

Who decides if you are at WAR Afaik with the current defintion it has to be two sovereign states, but this doesn't translate well to guerilla warfare, separatism and terrorism.

Sorry if the post appears a bit disjointed, but it is early where i am :)
Logged

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:Execution on Suspicion.
« Reply #67 on: November 11, 2002, 05:12:50 am »

We are currently at war with all terrorist groups that identify as groups and that threaten the US.  The President asked for this declaration and it was granted in the only form it could be.  However the authority to declare war on iraq should probably not have been delegated.  It would be legally better to call an emergency session to vote for a declaration just before starting the war.  On the other hand it is tactically better to obtain the authority and then use the authority as an axe to hang over Saddam's head in an attempt to _avoid_ war, and then use surprise to do a quick assault if he refuses to deal)

Personally, I think we should officially declare war upon all terrorist groups, whether or not they threaten the US.  The only way to eliminate terror as a tactic is to make the cost-benefit analysis come out poorly for the potential terrorists.  The only nation that can do this without fear of drastic repercussion is the US.
Logged

5pectre

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 322
  • terrorism is the symptom not the disease -1.5/-7.7
    • home
Re:Execution on Suspicion.
« Reply #68 on: November 11, 2002, 05:37:25 am »

We are currently at war with all terrorist groups that identify as groups and that threaten the US.

How can you be at war with a non-country? Why aren't the prisoners being treated as prisoners of WAR?

Personally, I think we should officially declare war upon all terrorist groups, whether or not they threaten the US.

It would be difficult for your government to declare war on itself.

The only nation that can do this without fear of drastic repercussion is the US.

How many 11/09s will it take before you realise that 'kill the naughty people' isn't an effective foreign policy?
Logged

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:Execution on Suspicion.
« Reply #69 on: November 11, 2002, 06:54:33 am »

First of all, let me define "terror" in the form I use it when making this statement:  Terror is the use of assault upon civilians in an attempt to alter the policies of the nation to which they belong.  As such, the attack upon the WTC was terrorism, the attack upon the Pentagon was not.  However the attack upon the Pentagon was an act of war.

We are at war with a group.  They do not follow the Geneva conventions as a group, and thus the Geneva conventions do not apply to them.  We _still_ treat them (at least most of them) under the same principles as the geneva convention because we are generous (and because it looks good).

Show me how the US by policy attacks civilians (targetted, not collateral) without using hearsay or speculation, and I'll consider the US a terrorist organization.

You know if there are no naughty people left, it's pretty darn effective.  But getting serious, Israel rarely has to deal with hostage situations.  This is because early on, they made sure that it was obvious that such a tactic wouldn't work.  If you took hostages, they'd attack you, even if it meant losing the hostages.  Since they could get no valid use of the hostages, they ceased to take them.  Similarly, if we destroy every terrorist organization we can find, make war upon those nations which supported them, freeze the US assets of any country who won't freeze the terrorist assets, and generally make it a costly tactic, then the use of terrorism as a tactic will cease.
Logged

5pectre

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 322
  • terrorism is the symptom not the disease -1.5/-7.7
    • home
Re:Execution on Suspicion.
« Reply #70 on: November 11, 2002, 07:28:03 am »

First of all, let me define "terror" in the form I use it when making this statement

Ok, it might work if you change the definition. But I could change the definition to 'Kissing babies'.

Israel rarely has to deal with hostage situations...

Now instead of taking live hostages they just kill people outright. Nice improvement.

Show me how the US by policy attacks civilians (targetted, not collateral) without using hearsay or speculation, and I'll consider the US a terrorist organization.

The US supports the use of terror against the palestinians. In greece during the US sponsered dictatorship the junta used terror on the greek population. By your alternative definition of terror this probably doesn't count as the US isn't the ones actually *doing* the terror, they are paying for others to do it for them. But by my definition of terror anyone who supports the terrorists is also guilty.

Similarly, if we destroy every terrorist organization we can find, make war upon those nations which supported them, freeze the US assets of any country who won't freeze the terrorist assets, and generally make it a costly tactic, then the use of terrorism as a tactic will cease.

People have been advocating taking a hardline since time immemorial. Mostly it doesn't work. Largely because you are tackling the symptoms of the problem and not the actual problem itself. If you have a broken leg you don't just keep taking more painkillers until it stops hurting because the problems will just recur when you stop. You get the leg fixed. That is the current problem. The US is dosing up on painkillers to fight this War on Some Terror but eventually they are going to have to solve the underlying problem which is the broken leg. No matter how much resources you pour into it it won't solve it unless you cure the underlying cause.

You know if there are no naughty people left, it's pretty darn effective.

You'll never get them all, sorry to break it to you.

Regarding the Geneva convention, if they break the rules that makes it ok for you to break the rules?
Logged

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:Execution on Suspicion.
« Reply #71 on: November 11, 2002, 06:41:12 pm »

First of all, let me define "terror" in the form I use it when making this statement

Ok, it might work if you change the definition. But I could change the definition to 'Kissing babies'.

I "change" the definition, because I am trying to describe the _tactic_ part of terrorism, and not the more general phenomenon which can apply to a police
Quote
Israel rarely has to deal with hostage situations...

Now instead of taking live hostages they just kill people outright. Nice improvement.

The strategy involved in killing groups is entirely different than the hostage strategy.  They've removed any form of hostage strategy.  They are not capable of removing terrorism as a strategy.

Quote
Show me how the US by policy attacks civilians (targetted, not collateral) without using hearsay or speculation, and I'll consider the US a terrorist organization.

The US supports the use of terror against the palestinians. In greece during the US sponsered dictatorship the junta used terror on the greek population. By your alternative definition of terror this probably doesn't count as the US isn't the ones actually *doing* the terror, they are paying for others to do it for them. But by my definition of terror anyone who supports the terrorists is also guilty.

First you'd have to prove that the palestinians are terror victims.  The palestinians have no inherent right to that land, and in fact lost any possible right to the land when they lost an offensive war against Israel.  The palestinian territory is by all rights spoils of war.  The Israeli tolerance of palestinians is pure charity, since they could simply evict them back to the various middle-eastern states from which they were first evicted.

As to the Greek situation, I don't know much about it, but support of a particular force _before_ it has started to use terroristic means, is not equal to providing moral and financial support intended to advance the use of terorrism.

Quote
Similarly, if we destroy every terrorist organization we can find, make war upon those nations which supported them, freeze the US assets of any country who won't freeze the terrorist assets, and generally make it a costly tactic, then the use of terrorism as a tactic will cease.

People have been advocating taking a hardline since time immemorial. Mostly it doesn't work. Largely because you are tackling the symptoms of the problem and not the actual problem itself. If you have a broken leg you don't just keep taking more painkillers until it stops hurting because the problems will just recur when you stop. You get the leg fixed. That is the current problem. The US is dosing up on painkillers to fight this War on Some Terror but eventually they are going to have to solve the underlying problem which is the broken leg. No matter how much resources you pour into it it won't solve it unless you cure the underlying cause.

while the painkillers won't heal the leg, even while the leg is healing, you continue to use painkillers to stop the pain.  I don't entirely agree with the interventionist policies (although I haven't rejected it entirely yet either), but that doesn't mean that terrorism is a tolerable action.  As such, it should be fought against at all costs.  In the meantime, we should be trying to lessen our intervention.  However, bin-Laden's complaints are about military bases that have at one time been welcomed in the area.  We are not subject to his opinion on anything.

Quote
You know if there are no naughty people left, it's pretty darn effective.

You'll never get them all, sorry to break it to you.

We don't need to.  we just have to make it so expensive that it doesn't happen _often_.  Right now it is considered an effective tactic by most, and is considered morally permissable by a decent number of countries.  _That_ is what we need to get rid of.  Individual terrorism will always exist, but institutional terrorism is a vulnerable enemy, if we're willing to go after it.

Quote
Regarding the Geneva convention, if they break the rules that makes it ok for you to break the rules?

If I'm not mistaken, that's the whole point of the Geneval convention.  The signatories bind themselves to the convention in order to protect them from other signatories.  If you aren't signed, then all's fair.  Most countries find the Geneval convention rather useful in protecting themselves, so they'll bind themselves to it to take part in its protection, which also limits their action upon those signatories.  It _is_ after all a mere treaty and not the word of god from upon high.
Logged

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:Execution on Suspicion.
« Reply #72 on: November 11, 2002, 07:14:42 pm »

One quick note, Mouseborg.  You may want to be careful about whose quotes you use.  The Julius Caesar quote below was made up.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/caesar.htm

I was also fooled by this quote, until it was brought to my attention.  It _is_ a rather nice quote, and describes a particularly effective machiavellian scheme.

However, you will note that I have _never_ advocated the giving up of a citizen's freedom in order to gain any degree of security.  The governments actions locally should be tightly bound.  the government's actions globally, are not tightly bound.  The only binding is that war and treaties must go through congress.
Logged

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:Execution on Suspicion.
« Reply #73 on: November 11, 2002, 08:42:09 pm »

Quote
author=maestro
Show me how the US by policy attacks civilians (targetted, not collateral) without using hearsay or speculation, and I'll consider the US a terrorist organization.

Hmm... I think we left off a while back around in this area. ;)

Targeting civilians? Waco immediately comes to mind. Kent State also rings a bell. As does Ruby Ridge. And those are just the domestic fairly well documented cases. The foreign incidents are a bit harder to document convincingly because, as you already know, press coverage in many places wasn't allowed, or was severely restricted - for good reason. The best example I can suggest here is Nicaragua. But its best if you do the research yourself, as what you come up with will be much less suspect than anything I can offer.

However, as for terrorists, if Osama didn't exist, I suggest to you that we would have created him. Oopers, ignore that, since we in fact did create him...

Okay, lets try this from a slightly different angle. Financially, and for proper growth of government (at least in the government's eyes) we have to have a Goldstein. For why this is so, check through the War For Iraqi Oil thread as it was well covered there in ref to massive war industry profits (very little if any of which we ourselves will actually see.)

This concept was not simply an invention by Orwell for his 1984 book... its an ancient thing. Nothing at all new about it 'cept the numbers involved, along with the technology now available to pull it off. We simply see history repeating itself once more, though of course on a rather larger scale.

After our past discussions, I know you are already more than passingly suspicious of current events, and I do respect you holding the line in spite of that... but I'm somewhat puzzled as to why.

it seems to me that the Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc incidents are despicable acts of an internal police investiagations gone astray.  They are not terroristic acts, but rather criminal acts by the administrators, investigators, and possibly even the individual police officers.  They should be punished severely and any policy causing that action should be expunged along with the policy-makers who put it together.  However, none of these are policies of the united states per se, and they have little to do with terroristic activities of non-governmental groups upon civilians.  If a governmental group is using terrorism, then they're an easy target.  The assaulted should be able to call for immediate and drastic measures, which should include the destruction of the regime.  The US is an exception to this primarily because it is too powerful for any nation or group of nations to attack.  Only a unified world would stand a chance.  However, we've _yet_ to establish that the US is an honest-to-goodness terrorist state.  Rather you've shown that it is a pushy one, and a sometimes hypocritical one.  Neither of which is worthy of total condemnation.
Logged

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:Execution on Suspicion.
« Reply #74 on: November 11, 2002, 09:47:17 pm »

terrorism is a unconventional military tactic undertaken by a non-governmental group.  Waco was military-style direct assaults undertaken against civilians counter to constitution.  Both are evil.  One is policy of the entire group, the other is policy of a few machiavellian individuals within the government, who can and should be removed.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5]   Go Up