Ex-Guantanamo prisoner led attack

[punisher73]

Forgive me if I'm mis-recalling, Punisher (leaky memory day today ) but aren't you an LEO? I have a similar inkling of police/military with Archangel too.

I only mention it because, to me, it is quite chilling when ordinary people start talking so 'hardline', without considering just what it would be like to be in the discussed persons place. It gets a whole lot worse when professional/career law enforcers and soldiers talk the same way. That brings back images of little silver lightning flashes on peoples collars - :shudders:.

I find it interesting that you use the nazi reference as a "hardline" approach. I used the nazi reference in my post to show how people won't take responsibility for what they do and use the excuse that "they had no choice".

I'm not sure how my wanting people to take responsibility for what they do is "hardline". I see people who come from VERY bad backgrounds make the choice that they don't want that for themselves and then work to make a better life. I also see other people in almost the same situation, blame that situation for everything in their life and never take action to change it. It's like the domestic abusers I see, they talk about HOW BAD their childhood was when they were little, and how bad it was to be beaten. You know what? It was and I would never wish that on anyone, and I can empathize with them for that pain. But....they are the ones resposible for their actions TODAY!!! If it was so bad being abused and how horrible it was to endure that, then why do they chose to do it to others?

The slippery slope comes into play when we start making excuses for behavior due to past injustices. I can understand factors that could lead to criminal behavior, but that still doesn't mean I excuse that behavior. And in a court of law, if they literally DID have a gun to your head then you could use "duress" as an alibi.

 

[Tez3]

I don't think anyone is actually excusing terrorists. The situation in the Middle East isn't one of having had a bad childhood, it's more a case of understanding that in many cases someone can be told "do this or your wife and daughters will be raped then murdered in front of you, your parents will be tortured, your sons given to the dogs." It would take someone with ice in their veins to refuse to do as the terrorists tell them to.
Could you in all honesty refuse to commit a terrorist act when your family right down to your cousins, aunts, uncles etc are being held hostage? Does 'doing the right thing' come before family? The sad thing is of course is that the family are likely to be killed anyway.
The Israelis found that at least one of the female suicide bombers was coerced into carrying the bomb, she was the mother of an illegitimate child and was marked for being killed as an honour killing, they are said to have promised her child would live if she carried the suicide bomb. What was she to say other than agrre to save her child? surely a selfish attitude when you consider how many she killed or was it a selfless act by a mother defending her child?
We aren't talking about criminals who can get on the right track despite their backgrounds we are talking about hardline extremist terrorists who very much take responsiblility for what they do, they revel and glory in it, what they do, to them is supremely right. If people, even their own are killed in the process they really, really don't care. It's this lack of respect for all life that makes them hard to fight. They will destroy their own without qualms if it furthers their cause, how do you say no to them if they approach you to commit something you know is wrong? if you are a single person, no ties perhaps it's easy but they are just as likely to line up an orphanage, torture and kill the children one by one to make you say yes.
Punisher I know what your saying and I agree with you but when the terrorists get hold of you you can't say no in the way you'd like them to.
Brainwashing young people is another way they recruit, they again take responsiblity for what they do as to them, again, it's a noble and good cause. They are fighting for what they believe is right. To them they are fighting the injustices they and others have suffered so they aren't blaming their backgrounds they are glorifying them.

 

[Sukerkin]

A good couple of posts there that encompass quite well the dichotomy between the criminal environment and the terrorist environment.

The level of coertion involved is much greater in the latter case, to the extent that I don't think many of us would be able to say "no", especially if doing the 'right thing' would be so costly to those close to us.

 

[punisher73]

I don't think anyone is actually excusing terrorists. The situation in the Middle East isn't one of having had a bad childhood, it's more a case of understanding that in many cases someone can be told "do this or your wife and daughters will be raped then murdered in front of you, your parents will be tortured, your sons given to the dogs." It would take someone with ice in their veins to refuse to do as the terrorists tell them to.
Could you in all honesty refuse to commit a terrorist act when your family right down to your cousins, aunts, uncles etc are being held hostage? Does 'doing the right thing' come before family? The sad thing is of course is that the family are likely to be killed anyway.
The Israelis found that at least one of the female suicide bombers was coerced into carrying the bomb, she was the mother of an illegitimate child and was marked for being killed as an honour killing, they are said to have promised her child would live if she carried the suicide bomb. What was she to say other than agrre to save her child? surely a selfish attitude when you consider how many she killed or was it a selfless act by a mother defending her child?
We aren't talking about criminals who can get on the right track despite their backgrounds we are talking about hardline extremist terrorists who very much take responsiblility for what they do, they revel and glory in it, what they do, to them is supremely right. If people, even their own are killed in the process they really, really don't care. It's this lack of respect for all life that makes them hard to fight. They will destroy their own without qualms if it furthers their cause, how do you say no to them if they approach you to commit something you know is wrong? if you are a single person, no ties perhaps it's easy but they are just as likely to line up an orphanage, torture and kill the children one by one to make you say yes.
Punisher I know what your saying and I agree with you but when the terrorists get hold of you you can't say no in the way you'd like them to.
Brainwashing young people is another way they recruit, they again take responsiblity for what they do as to them, again, it's a noble and good cause. They are fighting for what they believe is right. To them they are fighting the injustices they and others have suffered so they aren't blaming their backgrounds they are glorifying them.

I agree with what you are saying and I'm glad this post clarified for me, more of your position. I am refering to the people who "chose" to join them (I know this is a VERY fine edge in reference to this post) NOT the people in this example, I would not call them terrorists (per my definition) I would call them victims. They are the weapon that the terrorists have chosen to kill people.

Back to the original post topic. How do you sort through all of the people tied to Taliban, etc that are kept in Guantanamo to know if they are active participants or "conscripted victims"? No one wants to release someone and find out they were a terrorist and have them come back to bite us in the rear.

 

[Sukerkin]

That's a tricky moral question you pose in your last paragraph, Punisher.

If a prisioner is a 'conscripted victim' (good phrase) then to release them may give them their 'freedom' but it would be only the freedom to kill and die. That's not a decision I'd like to be responsible for, given the number of conflicting elements to the equation.

I think it would be entirely plausible, in such a circumstance, to build an argument that even tho' they had as yet committed no imprisonable offence, other than association, it would be a kinder fate to stay in gaol.

 

[FearlessFreep]

Something that occurred to me in reading this and some other threads...

I think "terrorist" should be an adjective, or maybe a verb, but not a noun.

Those who engage in what we consider to be "terrorist activities" do so in a lot of ways and for a lot of reasons; they are not all the same.

Even though we would not approve of the means, I think some ends, or some motivations, we could understand, or at least sympathize with, while others we would certainly not. But we will never get to a point where we can treat the differences intelligently if we don't acknowledge them, which we cannot do if "terrorist" as a label of a person is the beginning and the end of the consideration.

I don't mean to excuse terroristic acts by any means. Just wondering if by using such a label for a person we lump them into a category for which there is no general solution because in reality there is no general description

 

[Tez3]

A lot of people we think of as terrorists or who belomng to organisations we regard as terrotrist don't think of it that way themselves. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. ,It's also a truism that yars down the line most terrorists are seen as respectable people. Look at Gerry Adams in Northern Ireland, not so long ago we were peursuing him as a wanted man, now he's a 'respected' politician. The same with the Cypriot terrorists from the sixties, who? you ask, exactly!
The reasons they chose to belong to these organisations are varied but most I think believe they are doing the 'right thing'. As with the IRA they believe they are at war and they are soldiers fighting for what they believe in.
With the Guantanamo Bay situation, firstly it would be better to use proper human intelligence and pick up the people who are really likely to be involved in terrorism rather than listen to neighbours and informers who have ulterior motives a la Salem witch trials.This alone would cut down innocent people being picked up just because they fell out with their neighbour who wants his own back. Next thing is to try the alleged terrorists for their crimes, if guilty they will go to prison. We, if we are to be seen to be the ones in the right and take the moral high ground cannot hold people without trial. It makes us no better than that which we seek to destroy.

 

[SageGhost83]

One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

So true! If the "terrorists" were helping us, then we would call them freedom fighters and talk about how brave and honorable they are. Wait a minute.....they were helping us at one point - the Jihad against the Russians in Afghanistan. We even armed them with our very own shoulder mounted stinger missiles and financed their "war". Now that they are no longer fighting for us they are "terrorists" despite the fact that what they are doing today is really no different from what they were doing back then. Funny how that works, isn't it? I guess that is just the nature of war. I wonder if terrorists label rival terrorist groups as "terrorists". That would be interesting - Osama launching a Jihad against terrorism :lfao:. The world is such a weird, yet wonderful place.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Now that they are no longer fighting for us they are "terrorists" despite the fact that what they are doing today is really no different from what they were doing back then.

I don't agree. At the time of 9/11, we were not conducting a military invasion Afganistan (or any other country at the time) with the intent to take it over, as were the Russians. And I may be wrong, but I don't thing the Afgani fighters attempting to repel the Russian invasion were blowing up business buildings in the center of Moscow. I would even go so far as to say that if they were, at least they would be attacking a country that was attacking them.

The only way to stop terrorism, or whatever you choose to call a group of individuals collecting together to destroy civilian targets or make ordinary citizens live in fear of their lives, is by education. Of course, the next argument people will make is that all you are doing is indoctrination or propaganda.

 

[Big Don]

Something that occurred to me in reading this and some other threads...

I think "terrorist" should be an adjective, or maybe a verb, but not a noun.

Those who engage in what we consider to be "terrorist activities" do so in a lot of ways and for a lot of reasons; they are not all the same.

The same can be said of murderers, thieves and pretty much any other class of criminal.[/quote]

I don't mean to excuse terroristic acts by any means. Just wondering if by using such a label for a person we lump them into a category for which there is no general solution because in reality there is no general description[/quote]
Again, what about murderers and thieves? Should they not be "lumped into a category" as well?

 

[Tez3]

The terrorists never seem to give up, all those who thought Northern Ireland was peaceful now are wrong. It's not as bad as it was but there's still bombings and shootings. There just seems no hope of terrorism being halted anywhere, it's a very depressing thought.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7397420.stm

 

[Sukerkin]

I saw the same news item myself, Irene and had much the same reaction as yourself. What do they hope to gain at this stage of the game?

 

[Grenadier]

As long as people have free will, and as long as people are different in some way, shape, or another, there will always be terrorism. Somebody, somewhere, somehow, will interpret something as an excuse to go out and blow people up in order to strike fear into their hearts.

It can be as simple as an innocuous remark said by someone, that was misinterpreted by another, and found to be the greatest of insults. Maybe something didn't quite translate correctly, or perhaps someone had bad hearing.

This is the price that everyone pays for the free will that God has given us. While free will is the greatest of all gifts, it also bears the greatest of responsibilities, and in the end, it's the choice of the individual to do what he wants, with the greatest gift of all. Unfortunately, that means that some people will abuse this gift.

In the end, Uncle Ben Parker, from the Spiderman comics, was right.

With great power, comes great responsibility.

Anyone with free will has great power... How responsible will they be?

 

[SageGhost83]

I don't agree. At the time of 9/11, we were not conducting a military invasion Afganistan (or any other country at the time) with the intent to take it over, as were the Russians. And I may be wrong, but I don't thing the Afgani fighters attempting to repel the Russian invasion were blowing up business buildings in the center of Moscow. I would even go so far as to say that if they were, at least they would be attacking a country that was attacking them.

The only way to stop terrorism, or whatever you choose to call a group of individuals collecting together to destroy civilian targets or make ordinary citizens live in fear of their lives, is by education. Of course, the next argument people will make is that all you are doing is indoctrination or propaganda.

The terrorists were operating long before 911, and we were engaging them long before 911. The unfortunate truth is that our government does have a history of supporting rogue groups in other countries if it serves our purpose. We even supported Saddam Hussein at one point! Don't forget about the CIA and Hekmatyar Gulbuddin - we hired this terrorist supporter when it was already known that he was a terrorist, but we kept mum about it. The people who fought the Russians are the same people that we now label as terrorists, and they were active before the soviet invasion. As a matter of fact, they were just as ruthless before, during, and now after the Russian invasion. I agree with you 100% that to stop terrorism, education is the key. We will always be accused of indoctrination and propaganda, even in times of peace, so there is really no away around that one for us.

 

[SageGhost83]

Terrorism itself is the use of violence to achieve a political end. It can be used against both civilian and military alike. The truth is, *every* government, yes even our own, engages and has engaged in this at one point or another. How do we eliminate a tactic/approach that is not only used by small, rogue factions, but also by every government on earth, whether covertly or overtly, as a means of political coercion? I believe that finding the answer to this would go a long way towards solving this conundrum.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

The terrorists were operating long before 911, and we were engaging them long before 911. The unfortunate truth is that our government does have a history of supporting rogue groups in other countries if it serves our purpose. We even supported Saddam Hussein at one point! Don't forget about the CIA and Hekmatyar Gulbuddin - we hired this terrorist supporter when it was already known that he was a terrorist, but we kept mum about it. The people who fought the Russians are the same people that we now label as terrorists, and they were active before the soviet invasion. As a matter of fact, they were just as ruthless before, during, and now after the Russian invasion. I agree with you 100% that to stop terrorism, education is the key. We will always be accused of indoctrination and propaganda, even in times of peace, so there is really no away around that one for us.

I do not disagree with the general though of your post. I was speaking to the specific example of Afganistan.

And there is no way of being accused of indoctrination. To some, we must accept their way of thinking, without judgement, no matter how harmful such a thought process it may be. To do otherwise would be racist, sexist, religiously intolerant, etc.