Why is force feeding hunger strikers a bad thing?

@CalamityJane,

We should treat them as they treat others. Like treatment. We deal with rational people like in a regular war and they receive proper treatment until they prove they do not deserve such treatment. Terrorists and those who fight with them have no such rational in their actions. When they decide to be rational, they will receive rational treatment. How we treat them has no baring on how they react. They act like animals, so we should treat them like animals. When they act like people, they can be treated like people.

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

Quote:

We should treat them as they treat others.

Should that apply to American's treatment by others then after you have shown that Americans are willing to torture?

You don't seem to quite understand that principle. If you are willing to torture others then others should be able to treat you the same way under your scenario. That would mean Isis is entitled to do what they are doing because the US did torture people.

1 Reply

@parados,

You are putting the cart before the horse Parados. The terrorists and their supports have been this way for hundreds of years, the US didn't start this. 9-11 was the first stone and it wasn't cast by the US. Do you forget who Danial Pearl was? These people don't care how nicely we treat them, they will still act like animals. I'm happy to see who you side with though.

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

9-11 was the first stone and it wasn't cast by the US.

9-11 was a reaction, not a starting point

3 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

We should treat them as they treat others. Like treatment. We deal with rational people like in a regular war

there was no regular war

there was an uncalled-for invasion

if your principles truly applied, many countries should be attacking and attempting to invade the US

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

If the people captured had been in uniform

why the hell should they have been in uniform? people don't automatically put on uniforms when their countries are being invaded

soldiers put on uniforms

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

9-11 was a reaction, not a starting point

I don't think Baldy is capable of looking back further than September 2001. Not without calling everyone Osama's lackeys anyway.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

the US didn't start this. 9-11 was the first stone and it wasn't cast by the US.

The US did start it. Learn a bit of history.

Quote:

The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup, was the overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran Mohammad Mosaddegh on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the United Kingdom (under the name 'Operation Boot') and the United States (under the name TPAJAX Project)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

There does seem to be a lack of curiosity in some people. To question why things have happened.

That mindset in some parts of the US certainly does allow America's predominately right-wing media to manage what people are aware of.

Disturbing.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

there have been several long-running threads about American and British decades of involvement in the Middle East

after all those years, you'd have thought we'd have learned that the West just doesn't get how things work there

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

It is frightening. The lack of curiosity seems deliberate. They want to live in a fantasy land. It's like when Bush showed he was completely unaware of the difference between Sunni and Shia.

And more importantly, when he made his disastrous "Axis Of Evil" speech, which was not only wrong, (North Korea and Iran had very little to do with each other,) it made sure Iran undermined everything that was done in Iraq.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

What reaction was that Beth? The fact that there were US bases in the ME? If you want to get honest then look further back in history at the Barbary Pirates. They were the US's first interaction with Muslim extremists. Thomas Jefferson didn't put up with they **** back then and dealt with them properly. Until that point we had been paying them millions for "safe passage".

3 Replies

@ehBeth,

I think we do get it, but we're enamoured with the fantasy of easy options and quick fixes.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Oh I'm honest about it.

The west meddled in middle-eastern politics for decades and fucked things up big-time. It was only a matter of time til someone in the middle east put some money behind people who would take action against the west.

I think we are going to be paying for that meddling for some time to come.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

You like to cherry pick history instead of looking at the complete picture. Until you're prepared to do that you'll keep screwing up big time. Prior to the invasion of Iraq there was no Al Qaida presence, now thanks to monumental stupidity and no planning IS are in control of large parts of Syria and Iraq. That's George Bush's legacy.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

If you want to get honest then look further back in history at the Barbary Pirates. They were the US's first interaction with Muslim extremists.

Actually, it was the first interaction of the USA outside the USA, the first naval interaction ... So you think, it was an anti-Muslim war?

When European countries fought them, it was just a battle between various pirate and corsair bandits - in the 13th and 14th century, Christian pirates from Catalonia were dominating there, the we got the "Barbary Crusade" in 1390, Emperor Charles V fought them with his own corsairs ... ...

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Wait wait wait. Obama has been taking credit for the pull out in Iraq. He can't claim victory when things look good and then blame Bush when things go bad. The end of the Iraq war firmly sits in Obama's lap.

Who gets the blame for Vietnam? LBJ doesn't get the blame for Vietnam, that goes to Nixon. The same goes here. Obama campaigned on his "successful" withdraw and closing down if Iraq. Talk about a short memory.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

9-11 was a reaction, not a starting point

That is incorrect. 9/11 was one of the first moves in a plot to overthrow the moderate Islamic nations of the world, replace them with an extremist Islamic empire, and commit genocide against all non-Muslims.

They estimated (correctly) that we would act to prevent them from doing this, and they estimated (incorrectly) that 9/11 would intimidate us into backing off into isolationism.

It's really the same mistake that Japan made in 1941.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

It's not about taking credit. It's about dealing with the mess, and trying to stop it getting any worse. Bush lead us into the disastrous illegal war against Iraq. What's going on is down to him.

But really, do you think a young IS recruit toting a Kalashnikov is going to make a distinction between Bush and Obama, or give a **** about your petty point scoring?

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

there was no regular war

That's why there is no requirement for us to treat captured enemy fighters in this war as POWs, as we would be required to do if we'd been capturing proper soldiers.

That said, we are in fact treating some of them as POWs. But we're doing that by choice, not because there is any requirement that we do so.

ehBeth wrote:

there was an uncalled-for invasion

Maybe if you are talking about Iraq. When Afghanistan comes to US soil and without provocation massacres thousands of American civilians, the invasion of Afghanistan is entirely called-for.

ehBeth wrote:

if your principles truly applied, many countries should be attacking and attempting to invade the US

If any nation in the world would like to be our enemy, it will be a small matter to smash their little country into smouldering rubble.

0 Replies

Why is force feeding hunger strikers a bad thing?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know