4 ms·

> free known terrorists who now harbour even deeper hatred against the US after having been tortured Even more perversely, I've read people say that about peop

> free known terrorists who now harbour even deeper hatred against the US after having been tortured Even more perversely, I've read people say that about people may very well not be terrorists at all, but by now they probably resent the US so much, it still would be a threat to release them. I just have to think of someone attacking a random person in the street, then choking them, then realizing the mistake but not letting go because they already attacked them and they might retaliate, so it's best to just "see it through". It boggles my mind.

Mirioron 7y ago
And the citizens know of this and nothing is done. Doesn't that make them complicit?
- kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
  Most of America believes than Bin Laden worked in collusion with Saddam Hussein. They are oblivious to the body count in Iraq (assisted by an indifferent media). The citizens don't know much of anything at all.
baybal2 7y ago
> I just have to think of someone attacking a random person in the street, then choking them, then realizing the mistake but not letting go because they already attacked them and they might retaliate, so it's best to just "see it through". It boggles my mind. Well, when you left so many half choked people around, no wonder when so many want to kill you. See, US always carries through its promise to "finish off" old adversaries. Saddam was once a US ally, but much more of a frenemy. US waited for decades to dispose of him. Ghaddafi, almost the same, once got a grudge against US no longer giving him carrot, and 30 years later, bang! Castro - they tried for whacking 20 long years, to no avail. Noriega - again, it took them near a decade to smoke him after their flirting with him went bad. A ton of other harebrained dictatorship in Latin America ended very similarly, the moment they antagonise US, the clock is set ticking. US may even keep supporting them enthusiastically, while supporting a coup against them: Arellano was a US darling until US threw a bananagate at him, then deposed his deposer. It went even more wild in Salvator, where US sponsored a free trip to Hague for both Daubuisson and Duarte, after supporting them both against each other. But ultimately that logic is both self defeating and amoral. Any war, no matter how tiny and "manageable" it looks like carries a lethal risk, eventually you will get killed no matter how tough you are. I can bring a parallel with life in a lawless city. People who survive the longest are not the strongest ones. The "tough guys" on other hand, almost always tend to get killed in meaningless fights over stupid things because they can not concede a thing. Like a crime king of mid-naughties Moscow who was killed in a fight over... a parking spot, by a single hit to the head with a stone... I can not imagine that somebody who comes with such policy lines is an actual military man. Nobody who went through a real war, and not ended up a psycho, would ever meaninglessly provoke an enemy. But that reeks of doctrinalism of political theoreticians dressing up as generals. Very much along the lines of thought in places like RAND institute, or the more MBA-brained parts of Westpoint.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  > Like a crime king of mid-naughties Moscow who was killed in a fight over... a parking spot, by a single hit to the head with a stone... Interesting story. That sounds like someone who truly believed they were invulnerable and could get away with anything. Justice was served in some manner I guess.

Mirioron 7y ago

And the citizens know of this and nothing is done. Doesn't that make them complicit?

kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
Most of America believes than Bin Laden worked in collusion with Saddam Hussein. They are oblivious to the body count in Iraq (assisted by an indifferent media). The citizens don't know much of anything at all.

baybal2 7y ago

> I just have to think of someone attacking a random person in the street, then choking them, then realizing the mistake but not letting go because they already attacked them and they might retaliate, so it's best to just "see it through". It boggles my mind. Well, when you left so many half choked people around, no wonder when so many want to kill you. See, US always carries through its promise to "finish off" old adversaries. Saddam was once a US ally, but much more of a frenemy. US waited for decades to dispose of him. Ghaddafi, almost the same, once got a grudge against US no longer giving him carrot, and 30 years later, bang! Castro - they tried for whacking 20 long years, to no avail. Noriega - again, it took them near a decade to smoke him after their flirting with him went bad. A ton of other harebrained dictatorship in Latin America ended very similarly, the moment they antagonise US, the clock is set ticking. US may even keep supporting them enthusiastically, while supporting a coup against them: Arellano was a US darling until US threw a bananagate at him, then deposed his deposer. It went even more wild in Salvator, where US sponsored a free trip to Hague for both Daubuisson and Duarte, after supporting them both against each other. But ultimately that logic is both self defeating and amoral. Any war, no matter how tiny and "manageable" it looks like carries a lethal risk, eventually you will get killed no matter how tough you are. I can bring a parallel with life in a lawless city. People who survive the longest are not the strongest ones. The "tough guys" on other hand, almost always tend to get killed in meaningless fights over stupid things because they can not concede a thing. Like a crime king of mid-naughties Moscow who was killed in a fight over... a parking spot, by a single hit to the head with a stone... I can not imagine that somebody who comes with such policy lines is an actual military man. Nobody who went through a real war, and not ended up a psycho, would ever meaninglessly provoke an enemy. But that reeks of doctrinalism of political theoreticians dressing up as generals. Very much along the lines of thought in places like RAND institute, or the more MBA-brained parts of Westpoint.

jacquesm 7y ago
> Like a crime king of mid-naughties Moscow who was killed in a fight over... a parking spot, by a single hit to the head with a stone... Interesting story. That sounds like someone who truly believed they were invulnerable and could get away with anything. Justice was served in some manner I guess.