Boo Hoo

of Jihad starts at mostly bug freakin' crazy and goes down hill quickly from there. This was no big road trip for a Gitmo client. Just a stroll across the lawn.
And if he is insane now, So what?

That was my thought. To say a fellow who wants to behead anyone who doens't believe in his faith, who is wiling to engage in suicide attacks, is now GOING INSANE is a bit peculiar.

I figured most jihadis were already well around the bend, maybe two or three times over. So how on earth could we drive them insane?

Drive them MORE insane?

they ought to feed them nothing but bacon, ham and pork rinds, and make them clean out the kennels every night.

they ought to feed them nothing but bacon, ham and pork rinds, and make them clean out the kennels every night.

Throw him over the wall into Cuba, remember all the criminals they sent us in the floatilla back in '80? or close to that. And if the judges say we have to let set any of them free, just throw them over the wall. Give them to Castro.

I don't have a problem with treating them as we treat our own criminals, I just wish we didn't treat our own criminals so well.

Prison should be unpleasant enough that it discourages people form returning. I know I argued before that practically, the purpose of prison is to simply keep the convicted form doing more harm:

http://andrews.blogtownhall.com/2008/06/11/fair_or_function al.thtml

But if we can simultaneously make it unpleasant enough to make people want to stay out, then why not do it?

But that's a bit off topic, I suppose...

Yes, I have no problem with any punishment which is designed to encourage them to either give up information or keep them from returning to terrorism, provided it falls short of physical harm or actual torture. Though some may complain about a lack of sensitivity or religious persecution, there is simply no requirement we take those things into account when dealing with unlawful combatants, who are not POWs:

http://andrews.blogtownhall.com/2008/03/20/goodbye_geneva.t html

http://andrews.blogtownhall.com/2008/03/22/why_nuremberg.th tml

(Not precisely on point, but of interest on this topic.)

Welcome to the blog, and thankd for the comments.

I would agree, except that Fidel, or Raoul if Fidel is no longer among the living and just not admitting it, will likely simply give them a new gun, a few bombs, some anthrax and ship them back home.

While I would love to bedevil Fidel, I am afraid shipping him trained terrorists may do more harm than good. What we need to ship him are our true criminals.

Here is an alternative take on your idea:

Once we have cleared all the terrorists out, maybe we could put criminals in Guantanamo, then allow them to "escape" into Cuba. It will free up prison space here, and it will give Fidel some headaches he richly deserves.

were interesting, and on the whole, I agree. I remember back when they were making the case for Iraq, and all you would hear was "Let the U.N. do its thing." I would find myself screaming at the TV "The U.N. has been "doing its thing for over ten years, and look how well that's worked."

The U.N. is an incompetent and corrupt organization AT BEST. We should have pulled out and turned the headquarters into a homeless shelter years ago. And, of course, Obama wants to pour more money into that pit...

The Geneva Conventions are good guideline... IF both sides are following them, which hasn't been the case, I don't think, since maybe WWII, maybe Korea. I know they were a handicap in Vietnam.

And yes, I think we should placate those who scream that we should follow the Geneva Conventions by executing "spies" on the batlefield.

This is a different kind of war against a different kind of enemy. We are not at war against a nation, (nor do I believe we are at war with Islam, at least not as a whole) we are at war with a philosophy of life (really, death) that is being fought by, essentially, civilians on the other side. To hamstring ourselves by committing to a set of rules that are meant for a different type of war is insane. We might as well play a game of baseball using a football rulebook.

It sounds as if we agree.

I even agree with you on the point of not being at war with Islam. However, I do think that, thanks to the inordinate power granted to Wahabbi Islam by their control of Mecca, the public face of much of Islam is hostile. There are many practitioners, and even some who regional or national varieties, which are not hostile, nor are secular Moslems necessarily hostile, but I do fear that the openness to extremism that the Wahabbis inculcate make it easy for the extremists to recruit from among mainstream Moslems.

It is not necessarily so. Historically Islam has been much more moderate at times int he past (and much more militant at others). There is no reason Islam cannot be a much more cosmopolitan religion. Sadly, the power Wahabbis wield in Saudi Arabia makes a reform unlikely at the moment. Physical control of Mecca, combined with the propaganda power unlimited Saudi funds provide make it hard for any more moderate philosophies to unseat the extremists.

Which is unfortunate, as there is no necessity for Islam to be at odds with the West. It benefits neither side, helping only the extremists, and others who use the conflict for their own ends. (Putin, for example, attacking neighbors while we are distracted elsewhere.)

The Islamic and Arabic nations conributed such a wealth of knowledge to humanity, from Mathematics to Astronomy and beyond, that it is a shame to see what the fundamentalists that seem to hold sway have done to the region. It went from the Cradle of Civilization to a cesspool of suffering.

That is pretty close to my perspective as well.

I have argued in the past against those who mine quotes form the Koran to indict Islam. After seeing people do the same thing with biblical passages to Christians and Jews, I find it unfair to turn around and do it to Moslems.

Actually, wrote a bit on these topics a while ago:

http://andrews.blogtownhall.com/2008/01/07/what_about_the_c rusades.thtml

http://andrews.blogtownhall.com/2008/02/26/perceptions_of_i raq.thtml

http://andrews.blogtownhall.com/2008/06/11/winning_over_mod erates.thtml

Not entirely on point, but they are pretty close to the topic.

whenever she says that the kids are driving her crazy...

"It's a short trip, and you already know the way."

I wouldn't advise using it...

Pretty close to my thoughts when I read Guantanamo detainees were "going insane".

I actually thought it might be an essay on successful mental health treatment. They were being helped and were now just "insane", instead of "stark raving jihadi mad".