.

[GostHacked]

1. I'm not Jewish.

2. The term enemy combatant has not changed meaning in my lifetime.

3. Jew Baiters are people like Julius Streicher and Ahmed Yassin.

4. I'm not afraid to say the word 'enemy'...unlike yourself.

Well based on some of your posts (could have been wrong on that one) , you seemed to have gone just short of admitting you were Jewish. Parents were Jewish? Again, not like it really matters here.

What is the meaning of Enemy Combatant and when did it start and how was it defined?

And I have no enemies. I don't even consider you an enemy.

[DogOnPorch]

Well based on some of your posts (could have been wrong on that one) , you seemed to have gone just short of admitting you were Jewish. Parents were Jewish? Again, not like it really matters here.

Jewish women marrying non-Jewish men!!??? Unheard of!! Probably against the law. Somebody should do something before we're all Jewish!!!

What is the meaning of Enemy Combatant and when did it start and how was it defined?

There's this thing...it's called a dictionary...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/enemy

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/combatant

And I have no enemies. I don't even consider you an enemy.

Of course you don't. You can go anywhere on this planet and the folks there will treat you as a long lost family member.

[DogOnPorch]

...as mentioned...you'd be dangerous given the righ...errr....wrong situation. Cattle car time for moi...

[cybercoma]

For Gosthacked:

I assume since you're against the assassination of enemy combatants you're also against the Plot to Assassinate Hitler, the Allies seriously wounding Rommel in his car, US airmen shooting down Yamamoto and Czech commandos putting Heydrich 6 feet under as well? If not...why?

It's easy to look back on things and say the ends justify the means.

[DogOnPorch]

It's easy to look back on things and say the ends justify the means.

So...you're against assassination of enemy combatants, then?

Edited December 30, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[cybercoma]

So...you're against assassination of enemy combatants, then?

I didn't say that. I'm saying it's easy for you to look back on something that had a positive outcome and say that the end justifies the means. There are a lot of things to consider when it comes to assassination. If we justify assassination, we legitimize it and increase the threat upon our leaders and "combatants" when they are the enemy to others. I'm not necessarily against it, but you have to consider the ramifications, regardless of the ends.

[GostHacked]

So...you're against assassination of enemy combatants, then?

Assassination would imply that the enemy combatant has some kind of political or military power based on the position they held.

If Kahr was killed over in Afghanistan, would that be considered an assassination? Nope.

[DogOnPorch]

I didn't say that. I'm saying it's easy for you to look back on something that had a positive outcome and say that the end justifies the means. There are a lot of things to consider when it comes to assassination. If we justify assassination, we legitimize it and increase the threat upon our leaders and "combatants" when they are the enemy to others. I'm not necessarily against it, but you have to consider the ramifications, regardless of the ends.

It was a question.

So then: Which assassination of an enemy combatant did you find wrong?

[DogOnPorch]

Assassination would imply that the enemy combatant has some kind of political or military power based on the position they held.

If Kahr was killed over in Afghanistan, would that be considered an assassination? Nope.

Can you answer the question or is that just not going to happen? I'm busy today...

Edited December 30, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[monty16]

Well DogonPorch and Boges, your 24 hours are up and you both fail to meet my challenge. But it's o.k. because what I was doing was bluffing you two clowns in order to find out if you had any balls. Both of you obviously don't and neither do you have the slightest idea of what you are trying to talk about. At best you've watched a hollywoood movie or two on the holocaust and that's what make you experts.

Two totally worthless babblers purposely attempting to disrupt any discussion which would actually attempt to answer questions and come to logical conclusions.

[GostHacked]

Can you answer the question or is that just not going to happen? I'm busy today...

The question cannot be answered, because of how you framed it. I pointed out that assassination would imply the person had power of some kind. Hitler was an enemy combatant But he was not assassinated. There were assassination attempts on his life, sure. But in the end , he took his own life.

You can assassinate an 'enemy combatant' provided that the person held power of some kind. You can kill enemy combatants who do not have power.

I will also correct myself on 'enemy combatant' I was confused with the recent tweaking to become 'illegal enemy combatant'. Not that it makes a difference for this argument.

Edited December 30, 2011 by GostHacked

[Shady]

The point is moot anyway. Your comparison would be more apt if we were talking about Poles turning in Jews to the Germans. Just because Native Africans are all black, that doesn;'t mean they're the same nationality. When they sold people into slavery, they were almost always from other nations (tribes), which means they weren't selling their own people into slavery as you're suggesting.

Nationality is based on arbitrary man-made boundries. Race isn't. So my point is the exact opposite of moot. Because they played a role in the slave trades themselves, selling eachother into slavery.

[DogOnPorch]

Well DogonPorch and Boges, your 24 hours are up and you both fail to meet my challenge. But it's o.k. because what I was doing was bluffing you two clowns in order to find out if you had any balls. Both of you obviously don't and neither do you have the slightest idea of what you are trying to talk about. At best you've watched a hollywoood movie or two on the holocaust and that's what make you experts.

Two totally worthless babblers purposely attempting to disrupt any discussion which would actually attempt to answer questions and come to logical conclusions.

Actually, my uncle (dead) served in the 13th SS and the 369th Kroat in Yugoslavia during WW2. He was quite involved in the Holocaust. Something about barns and flamethrowers. Seemed to enjoy his work. Ended up as a translator @ the Trials which seemed to help him sentence wise. Liked fishing, too which is where I spent most of my time with him before he kicked the bucket. My very own monster.

Take it for what it's worth.

Edited December 30, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

The question cannot be answered, because of how you framed it. I pointed out that assassination would imply the person had power of some kind. Hitler was an enemy combatant But he was not assassinated. There were assassination attempts on his life, sure. But in the end , he took his own life.

No shit?

You can assassinate an 'enemy combatant' provided that the person held power of some kind. You can kill enemy combatants who do not have power.

If you have a gun, you can kill anybody.

I will also correct myself on 'enemy combatant' I was confused with the recent tweaking to become 'illegal enemy combatant'. Not that it makes a difference for this argument.

They're called Partisans in English.

[monty16]

Actually, my uncle (dead) served in the 13th SS and the 369th Kroat in Yugoslavia during WW2. He was quite involved in the Holocaust. Something about barns and flamethrowers. Seemed to enjoy his work. Ended up as a translator @ the Trials which seemed to help him sentence wise. Liked fishing, too which is where I spent most of my time with him before he kicked the bucket. My very own monster.

Take it for what it's worth.

Yeah, Joseph Goebbels was my uncle too.

Grow up!

[DogOnPorch]

Yeah, Joseph Goebbels was my uncle too.

Grow up!

That's too bad.

But, I stand by that post, monty1. My friends here are aware of my family's history.

[monty16]

That's too bad.

But, I stand by that post, monty1. My friends here are aware of my family's history.

Stop telling lies to your friends. I know that you are a first nations aboriginal with a sister who is known as 'Two Dogs F...ing'.

(that should get some moderators attention)

[DogOnPorch]

Stop telling lies to your friends. I know that you are a first nations aboriginal with a sister who is known as 'Two Dogs F...ing'.

(that should get some moderators attention)

Plus, my father and his brothers were all in the RCAF...my father a bit too young to see action. It's your standard Blue & Grey situation....possibly dropping bombs on family members and such. But, many Canadian families have similar tales to tell. Perhaps even yours.

[Guest Manny]

So...you're against assassination of enemy combatants, then?

I am against it. Let them be captured and tried in a court of law.

[DogOnPorch]

I am against it. Let them be captured and tried in a court of law.

Let's just capture EVERYBODY, give them a trial and then release them into the community at large after completing the minimum on good behaviour. Sorry, Manny, you'd best re-read your Von Clausewitz.

[Guest Manny]

Let's just capture EVERYBODY, give them a trial and then release them into the community at large after completing the minimum on good behaviour. Sorry, Manny, you'd best re-read your Von Clausewitz.

Better yet, lets just call everybody a threat, send out a hit squads to liquidate them, then put in an article that we buried them at sea, according to custom.

[Guest Manny]

Please bone up on your "Il Duce". Hahaha

[DogOnPorch]

Please bone up on your "Il Duce". Hahaha

There's the way you think it should be and then there's the way it really is.

[Guest Manny]

There's the way you think it should be and then there's the way it really is.

Yeah but it will only get worse if we go your way. Someone has to stand up and speak for what's right.

That will be my job!

[August1991]

Your statement: "For progressives and puritans, the end is more important than the means."

I would contend that business types who want to make a great economy at the cost of jobs and wages see the end as more important than the means. What are YOU speaking of ? Eugenics ? Is that really a basis for generalizing about leftists ?

Don't let me put words in your mouth, though, please... respond.

IMV, the terms Left/Right mean different things. To me, 20th century (North American) Leftists are typically progressive, and they want to improve their fellow man. For them, the end result is more important than the means. It was Leftist puritans who imposed prohibition in the US Constitution. Tommy Douglas wanted the State to help/treat gays. 20th century Leftists like Trudeau believed in the "perfectibility" of man. Trudeau and Douglas believed that we can make a better world if we have a State that makes our fellow humans better people.

Underneath all, this Leftist thought (common even today) is similar to Nazism, Stalinism and residential schools. The State can decide better than you alone. The means are hard but the end result is good.

----

Business types? Whether in the 19th, 20th or 21st centuries, business, corporations or private individuals (ie. you and me) are still the same. We largely decide according to whether we think it is to our benefit.

IMV, no society will prosper if people make choices that diminish their benefit, or make them lose. Michael, profit is not a dirty word.

I was thinking along those lines,vis a vis "free market economics"...

It's the very same Darwinian type of thinking...

There is no greater confusion, typical of Leftists, than to think that Darwin and Smith had the same idea. They didn't.

Darwin identified competition; Smith identified co-operation.

Charles Darwin supposedly talked of competition of the species. Adam Smith talked of price competition. The word "price" is critical to understanding the difference between the ideas of the two men.

In the capitalist system, the means (making profit) has become an end in itself, but that's something different entirely.

Profit is a "number", and mathematics is arguably one of our greatest discoveries. A profitable business creates measureable value.

Cybercoma, imagine any person/organisation several thousand years ago without the ability to account for its affairs.

The idea of profit is a tremendous advance in human civilization, and it should be seen as such.

How many Jews were in Poland in 1939 and how many are in Poland now.

This question is so sad. I am not Jewish, not Polish, not German. I'm not European. (For the record, my entire family roots, on both sides, have been in Canada for almost four centuries. I'm a product of Quebec and Newfoundland. Nevertheless, I have travelled to Poland, Germany, the Ukraine. I lived in Russia and England for several years.)

It is obvious to me that in the 1930s, there were millions of Jews in Poland. Now, there are almost none.

Edited December 31, 2011 by August1991