kidnapping children and using them to catch their terrorist parents... okay?

[thelivingphoenix]

We Have Your sons: CIA

Since when is basically kidnapping children and using them as bargaining chips okay???  The article says they're being treated with "kid gloves", but who cares?  Who knows what they're telling this guy about what's happening to his kids, whether it's true or not?  Does it make us any better than them, scaring them into believing that their children might be hurt by us, whether they are or not?  Doesn't that just reinforce their idea that we're the evil bad guys and they're the righteous ones, if we start using their children as leverage?

Where do you draw the line at the tactics used to catch terrorists?  When is enough enough?  If using children as bargaining chips (like criminals in a hostage situation would do) is okay, what are they going to start doing next?  Is this really okay?

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

You don't draw the line.  A war is a war whether or not someone wants to consider it such.  In all honesty all the rules go out the window.  If it came down to stopping a giant explosion from killing 30 people vs. possibly causing some distress to a 12 year old or two... hmm...

Though yeah I don't like it, I'm just looking at it in the long run.  Naturally the long run could easily be the 14 year old growing up and fucking everyone over, but somewhere there's the chance of doing "good".  And by "good" I naturally mean my standard of "good".

 

[thelivingphoenix]

if there's no line to be drawn, what about the idea of torturing children in front of their parents?  Is that okay, too?  In most cases like this, I don't believe the end justifies the means.  You just don't use children as leverage unless you really are the "bad guy".  Babies aren't bargaining chips and I think it only encourages real terrorists in their belief that we're the evil ones.

Next thing you know, they'll be saying it's okay to take children from other countries and say to those countries, "we'll give you your babies back if you cooperate".

 

[Cruelty]

Nobody said anything about torturing children.

If they're old enough to be questioned about their parents, I somehow doubt they're 'babies'.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

If a kid can be questioned, I sincerely doubt they're young enough that they can't fend for themselves to some degree.

And yes.  People do USE their CHILDREN as SHIELDS, so there's no excuse to not use those kids to get to their parents.  Fuck, if you don't bring your kids into it, I probably won't.  But if I truly feel you are the have all end all of evil, and that I'm saving an unknown amount of lives - then fuck there is no line, hate to break it to ya.

What's next?  Kidnapping kids and training them in secret bunkers to grow up to be terrorists - oh wait, let's let that happen - just don't question them.  It's a war.  Shit happens.  If they were doing it to us, they'd be just as right as we are.  I may not agree with it, but that don't mean I'm gonna go bleeding over it.

 

[Dissonance]

if there's no line to be drawn, what about the idea of torturing children in front of their parents?  Is that okay, too?  In most cases like this, I don't believe the end justifies the means.  You just don't use children as leverage unless you really are the "bad guy".  Babies aren't bargaining chips and I think it only encourages real terrorists in their belief that we're the evil ones.

Uh, we are the bad guys.

And by 'we' I mean 'Americans', of which I am not one.  Ohohohohohohoho!

This is not surprising because it's just another example of american overseas assery.  The civilized world shits on the third world every day in order to maintain their power and lifestyle, you know.  This is business as usual and it has been for the past 100 years.

 

[iceplosion]

Yes, it's kidnapping children, yes it's morally wrong but I don't get how you're surprised by this, of all the corrupt things that have happened this really isn't the worst.
You are the bad guys, Take an objective look (if you can) at Americas actions over the last few years and try and say you've done the right things.
It's kind of hard to be surprised by things like this anymore.

 

[Despain]

This is not surprising because it's just another example of american overseas assery.

This is not surprising because it's just another example of american overseas badassery.

Fixed.

Really, boys and girls, the ends justify the means. Sixty said it well. Really it doesn't matter if a kid or two is taken away from his parents. Hell, these people aren't even hurting these kids or anything, and realistically if these kids were being killed or something it still wouldn't bother me. Because it's worth it to sacrifice the few to save the many.

Just because they're kids doesn't mean shit. If this was adults I guarantee that you wouldn't even blink at it.

 

[Incognitus]

Is the parent's guilt known? How sure is the conclusion that the parent's have

I mean, a team of lawyers has systematically proved that over 70% of the Gitmo occupants have no reason to be there. Amnesty International has recieved brown envelopes from people in the Pentagon about US Prison ships of undeclared prisoners.*

If you had your kid taken away from you and used as a tool to force a confession of your guilt and then are thrown into a bureaucratic mess in which you had no access to a lawyer and had no chance of recieving any of the Justice which has been promised, you can bet that "hearts and minds" aren't going to follow. Most Iraqi insurgents (even those who were glad he was gone) apparently armed themselves when Saddam appeared on the front page press in his underpants.



And I completely disagree that "the rules go out the window". War, (especially one which has had it's battlefield declared as "Planet Earth", it's duration declared as "indefinate" - or until World Peace breaks out) is when our rules, and our sense of justice matter the most.

Nobody said anything about torturing children.

"" Some of the worst things that happened you don't know about, okay? Videos, um, there are women there. Some of you may have read that they were passing letters out, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib ... The women were passing messages out saying 'Please come and kill me, because of what's happened' and basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. And the worst above all of that is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror. It's going to come out.""

Seymour Hersh on Abu Graib.

Don't worry though: I'm sure it's just those few "bad apples". And I'm sure we can all be safe in the knowledge that we have been promised it stopped.


*Edit: I've just noticed that this is one of the lead newstorys: I was going from memory of something I read back in March, here's the Beeb link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4632087.stm

Edit2: I've just been challenged on the "just rumours" comment in the article, and no doubt some keen-eyed reader will bring it up here: all I can say is, for anyone who considers the Beeb to be a bastion of liberal anti-Americanism or whatever strawman/ad hominem need look no further than these sorts of articles. I for one, have most of Amnesty International documentation on this going back a few years now and it is all readily available by making a request from their website.

 

[Tohsaka]

This is not surprising because it's just another example of american overseas assery.

This is not surprising because it's just another example of american overseas badassery.

Fixed.

Really, boys and girls, the ends justify the means. Sixty said it well. Really it doesn't matter if a kid or two is taken away from his parents. Hell, these people aren't even hurting these kids or anything, and realistically if these kids were being killed or something it still wouldn't bother me. Because it's worth it to sacrifice the few to save the many.

Just because they're kids doesn't mean shit. If this was adults I guarantee that you wouldn't even blink at it.

I agree with Despain. So, you feel that it's wrong to kidnap children to save others?
I'm guessing you're okay with the thought of being able to save many people from death, but choosing not too since children are more important than a building or gathering full of people. Hey, kudos to you if you like to see innocent people suffer just because someone thought hurting children was wrong.

Sure, taking the children and doing crap to them would cause sadness and rage in their parents and relatives- Think of that effect when it happens to 30 or more people.

@Incognitus: All rules do go out. World Peace = Human Extinction- Humans are naturally competitive and warmongers, even if this conflict is resolved another one will be created. Think about what would happen if we weren't attacked at 9/11- We probably would've gone down on Cuba or North Korea.

 

[Incognitus]

@Incognitus: All rules do go out. World Peace = Human Extinction- Humans are naturally competitive and warmongers, even if this conflict is resolved another one will be created. Think about what would happen if we weren't attacked at 9/11- We probably would've gone down on Cuba or North Korea.

There is a huge gap in healthy competition between nations and war. O_o

Humans won't become extinct if we stop killing each other. Don't be so melodramatic. The worst that would happen would be a slight slow-down in technological development.

Yes. You might have... I assume "gone down" is a euphemism for "invade"... anyway... "gone down" on Cuba or North Korea. Although I sincerly doubt it for a multitude of reasons. You 'might' even have... "gone down" on Afghanistan:

http://www.janes.com/security/internati ... _1_n.shtml
http://www.indiareacts.com/archivefeatu ... ctg=policy
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4587368/



It's actually quite terrifying that you are resigned to the idea that we must, that we are compelled, and that there is no choice but to fight each other.

 

[Tohsaka]

It seems you that take my term "Human" to equate to "Nation". Sadly, that is not true. Instinctively, we are compelled to control territory- Be it once in the form of mates or caves, now in the term of "nations". There seems to be an assumption that humans are superior to non-human animals- That is false. We may have reason, but we are still controlled by our instinct to control and dominate. Having reason and intelligence just makes it worse.

Invade, was the exact term I meant- Thank you. I see nothing wrong with invasion- Animals do it too.

 

[Incognitus]

I have read many articles by historical cultural anthropologists who would take issue with your idea of "human nature". The concensus seems to be that the notion of "human nature" has been... modified post-Bernays into a far more selfish thing that it was pre-Bernays. There is a very convincing argument that, before the 20th century, "the common man" was contrary to expectations, rather happy with his lot, and it was the top 10% of rabble rousers responsible for things like imperialism.

Our supposed "instinct" to control and dominate appears as a sideshow, an malfunction of our instinct to order things.



NB: When I get home, I shall add some references!

 

[gavdaddy]

if its alright for the Americans to kidnap the sons of an Al-Qeada leader, would it then be alright for the Al-Qeada to capture the sons of, say an American general?

Wouldn't think so.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

As I said earlier:

If they were doing it to us, they'd be just as right as we are.

It is a war.  There are casualties.  And if you are in it for the "right", if your doing it in support of what you feel is 100% truth, and are defeating some kind of evil in the world, or protecting yourself or your loved ones... well I wouldn't trust the person who wouldn't stop to achieve that end.

If some one feels they are doing the world a great service, creating a good from some evil - why not?  It doesn't matter what side of the "right" or "wrong" your on.  If I told you tens of thousands of lives were at stake, and all you had to do was grab a kid and question them... you wouldn't?

Both sides have those who feel that yes, there are tens of thousands of lives depending on a great evil threat being stopped.

 

[Despain]

if its alright for the Americans to kidnap the sons of an Al-Qeada leader, would it then be alright for the Al-Qeada to capture the sons of, say an American general?

It isn't OKAY or ACCEPTABLE or THE RIGHT THING for Americans to kidnap their children, but it's just WHAT HAPPENS. It isn't either good or bad. It's a military thing, and looking at it from any moral perspective skews it.

So while it would be the same (ie. hey it happened don't cry about it it's war) if they did the same to us, it wouldn't happen what way because the situation isn't reversed and it wouldn't be. Last I checked, the American leaders weren't living in caves in the desert and abandoning children in places where it would be easy to snatch them up.

 

[iceplosion]

You talk like the people in those situations had a choice. I'm sure you know that your own view is skewed, but I don't think you know how badly it is skewed.
It's not just what happens, kidnapping civilians is usually a huge taboo in the military, so don't say it's a military thing, it's not, it's an American military thing.

 

[Dissonance]

if its alright for the Americans to kidnap the sons of an Al-Qeada leader, would it then be alright for the Al-Qeada to capture the sons of, say an American general?

Wouldn't think so.

Yes.

Welcome to war, baby!

Hell, they want to survive and perpetuate their ideals, and so do we.  When backed into a tight enough corner we'd resort to anything, just as they're doing now.

Don't act like we're any different - We're all still people in the end.

 

[iceplosion]

Don't act like we're any different - We're all still people in the end.

And we all make our own choices, don't act like we're beasts, not all people will make the same choices in the same situation, some people have respect for their fellow human beings, some people understand that a conflict doesn't mean everything and that we'll have to deal with the consequences of our actions afterwards.

You talk about war like it's fun, you clearly don't understand what war is.

 

[Dissonance]

Don't act like we're any different - We're all still people in the end.

And we all make our own choices, don't act like we're beasts, not all people will make the same choices in the same situation, some people have respect for their fellow human beings, some people understand that a conflict doesn't mean everything and that we'll have to deal with the consequences of our actions afterwards.

You talk about war like it's fun, you clearly don't understand what war is.

I talk about war realistically, not fun.

If you were really, truly threatened by an outside force you would throw away every single shred of morality you have to keep living.  We all would without exception.  We may have different breaking points but we all have the same ultimate drive to survive.

We like to delude ourselves by saying exactly what you say - we desperately want to believe that humanity has conquered its ancient instincts, that our bestial nature is long behind us, that we are 'civilized' and somehow separated from the natural world.  All of humanity's accomplishments are ultimately geared towards that single goal of self delusion.  We've obtained mastery over the sciences to try and prove that we can control the natural world.  We've conceived philosophy to try and find a way to explain ourselves that is beyond reducing us to animals.  We've created Gods because we want to believe that we are a special and chosen people.

But all of these things fall apart when threatened with death and extinction.