American arrested for fighting in Syria

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

foxnews.com/world/2013/03/28 … -virginia/

I got a feeling you could put a loaded gun on the table of a room he’s in, and send my or another American in, and he won’t take the opportunity to use it on us.

Questions need to be asked:

  1. If released, do you intend to do harm to Americans, or our allies?
  2. If your unit you were with was decimated, which is indeed conceivable as you claim, and you knew of another unit not affiliated with a known terrorist network, would you of made every effort in your power to transfer over to the more mainstream and less terror oriented unit, or would of of chosen to stay with the terrorist group?
  3. If you returned to this terrorist group, and heard of a plot by them to attack the US or it’s allies, would you either try to put a stop to it, or contact us to warn us?

The group he’s with is a real peace of work- it killed alot of regular people in my area in Iraq… just people trying to carry on with everyday events in life, such as picking up food, heading to the Mosque, or heading off to work… and they would get shot up or blown up. It was sickening.

I understand how quickly these units ‘die off’… they last as long as fruit flies. When I was in Iraq, they came in FROM SYRIA, and got little local support, and they died like flies in absurd situations, but now the role in reversed… but I don’t see how they would last longer… a group of 30 guys will become 2 guys within hours, because they were trained to a level of worthless bullshit, and have no real realistic support, or reserves of any sort to fall back upon and resupply. They are a bunch of bullet catchers, only good for killing women and children.

Now… I know this kid comprehends the need to take cover, and has a basic understanding of elementary infantry troop movements and MOUT… but how much of this can he honestly pass on to someone with a group of guys full of ideals and little substance? I don’t think the concepts fundamentally behind the training required sits well ideologically with the aims of such terror troops- out tactics reflect our tactical synthesis… it requires a high degree of unit cohesion, and extensive material support and intellectual cunning, as it demands maneuver with pinpoint accurate weapons. Our units can bring a world of hurt down, but it’s not designed to be a weapon of mass destruction either… it’s designed to control egress and ingress on the battlefield- not to kill everyone off. Can it be done, yes… but that takes a hell of a lot of skill to do, and most western military units are up to that challenge.

This group he’s with uses foreign weapons, and uses them poorly. I don’t see how a American could honestly want to team up with such a group… they use suicide bombers as their point man for their troop movements… they don’t have a solid grasp on what they are doing… hence why they never have been that successful.

I honestly don’t care if someone volunteers to take down Assad, I’m not going to weep tears over the guy… but can’t say I’m for these other groups who are taking him down either- it’s a lose-lose situation… just this kid could of picked the guys he was teaming up with better… and he could of provided better training to they guys he walked into Syria with. Honestly, your whole unit gets wiped out but you just happen to survive? Means they were doing stupid shit, means that either you didn’t train them right, or that they were ideological incapable of grasping that this wasn’t like Halo or other First Person Shooters.

2

Do you have any idea what’s going on?

3

Yeah actually- the US has several layers of laws covering this, and they have changed over the last two generations- what he is doing back during the Greek Civil War would of caused a immediate lost of citizenship, even if he was American Born- and Greece was our ally… it’s been relaxed over time, and in just about every major war the US has been hostile to since, we’ve had guys fighting. I try to be a pacifist, but if I was living in Syria when the war broke out, and saw a bunch of kids killed, I likely would of killed a bunch of soldiers before training a few partisans up before exiting the region so they can defend themselves. However, I don’t think I would commando raid a country that didn’t start a fight directly with me as a civilian… which this guy is. However, he’s not a pacifist like I am (I hold to a pragmatic pacifism)

The question perennial for you is, do you ever have the grasp on what’s happening in any situation? I’ve never seen evidence of this on your part. I think if someone was to read out loud from the dictionary, you would impulsively claim what they are saying is false.

4

You aren’t a pacifist. Sorry to be inconvenient.

5

He’s being charged with conspiring to use a weapon of mass destruction (RPG). It all seems to stink of hypocrisy to me.
I’m sure that the powers-that-be are going to make an example of him.
He’s probably going to be subject to some serious ‘debriefing’.

6

Alternatively, he’s CIA.

7

I am a pacifist, I put emphasis not on the idealism, but in effectuating a reality of it with learned insight to the philosophy that motivates war- both on the level of statecraft as well as the individual, in effectuating new possibilities commanders can take in NOT pursuing a war- realistic alternatives that can be counted on in the heat of the moment when the decision do or don’t has to be made. My statements don’t have to concord with pacifism linguistically in it’s common conception, only the results. Hence the Pragmatic Pacifism… I’m opposed to the lethality of war, and if war happens, it switches a emphasis to the unnecessary violence juxtapositioned with a analysis of the traditional writers/ philosophical theorists on war, etc… hitting the underlining argument.

So I am a Pacifist, just not the run of the mill Jerry Sympathizer your Bertrand Russell tradition is used to. I take strategic considerations very, very seriously- because I have a background in it and know disregarding them in making a rather pointless and ignorant point for ‘peace’ isn’t going to actually result in ‘peace’, and furthermore… the conception of ‘peace’ isn’t secular, it has roots in persian theology, and hasn’t ever been systematically approached or separated from it’s origins as a aspect of a state religion. I’m a Christian, my conceptions of a ‘Peace’ will differ considerably from the Persian, and much more so from a Hari Krishna who holds emphasis on Dharma deriving from the Mahabharata.

I’m for tactical formations that don’t result in people dying on the tactical level, and a analysis with increasingly better insight on the strategic level about what is actually going on- so we can progressively reach a position where the regress to warfare is systematically herded into a direction where it’s no longer played/preyed upon the human population.

I’m in the market for solution, not delusions. I’m playing for the endgame. It’s going to be such mindsets that will win in the long term. That’s a Pragmatic Pacifism as summed up. It’s what I push for- in the meantime, as we must always strive to present The Dumbest Common Denominator, consider it a stance of Non-Lethality, without stressing a dogmatic dualism of one extreme. If it happens, there are categorical imperatives that are held to in every cognitive cascade away from non-lethality when not killing is no longer abided to, for whatever the range of reasons.

However… in both the Theological-Linguistic position of Pacifism= a way to Peace via denouncement and show, as well as my position of Pragmatic Pacifism, progressively ending wars… I don’t think you show any evidence of sitting anywhere in the spectrum. Your just a blatant, largely ignorant cultural militarist making statements with little understanding of the long term results.

Are you aware of the spectrum out there, even in classical times? The Just War Theorists beginning with Onasander (not me), or the Chinese Mohists? There are alot of writers I can call upon to support my emphasis- I might put a concerted new emphasis, but I’m not unique in the history of philosophy- there have been several others who have tried, to varying degrees of success, from ancient times to modern… I feel my position will in the long term work. It is a pacifistic position, but is highly evolved and knowledgeable over the mundane, non-analytical position of a common understanding of ‘peace’ used in common rhetoric. It’s a delicate issue requiring considerable long term investment into, both on a individual level in terms of education and production of philosophical works delicately targeted to the right people, as well as a mufti-generational effort to maintain it to it’s momentum once it starts gaining a influence.

I’m opposed to the people who claim pacifism for show, or because they are scared or annoyed by war, or the taxes. It’s nice to know they can be a limiting factor, but they never stopped a war… bankrupt nations can draft scared shitless populations and still fight a war- we’ve seen it happen with considerable success in the past. I’m requiring a deeper analysis and targeted effort. You have to be clear minded- which you show no evidence of, to make it work.

8

If I saw soldiers kill civilians- especially if they were utterly defenseless, like women and children- I would put a immediate stop to the slaughter, armed or unarmed. It’s not for the sake of the war, but for the people in my immediate environment. I would give the partisans training to hold the area realistically, in such a matter they can exploit the terrain, and the weapons they have, to make the area untenable to the forces. If the area couldn’t be made untenable, then I would train them for guarding the population that desires to escape, escorting them out.

Syria isn’t my country, and I would have to make a obvious reevaluation as to why I would want to stay in a territory that plunged into a civil war, especially one where the apparent ‘good guys’ are known terrorists. However, it wouldn’t be pacifistic to leave all those people to die either… hence the golden rule. I want to Live, and to Leave… I would provide people with a similar means. Given I possess such means via myself- past training, and knowledge of warfare and strategic concepts… as well as a little in regards to the mind- I would have a higher responsibility than say… Liz if stuck in a similar position, who could be justifiable in her escape through a swamp half naked crying alone.

Many commanders if they notice location A is just as good as location B, won’t keep their guys in location B if they are losing men without evidence of profit and game, when in any of the four cardinal directions they can reposition their men with greater mass for positive gain and advance. Front Lines produce peculiar mentalities that can be exploited beneficially for the survival of the resident population, as the general emphasis of what the opposition wants in both defense and offense can in general be presumed geometrically, depositional in terms of real terrain, and economically in terms of assets, or even of population when it’s a demographics game. If I merely ignore the warfare, and allow people to die- relative to my capacity that I now possess (as well as this soldier the OP I opened with deals with) I’m effectively aiding the attack in not resisting it in such a matter that I know will break it. Effectively, my actions will lead to the lost of life of countless others. On the flipside… sticking around long term to fight it out pours a lopsided intellectual element into the fight- many guerilla outfits and nationalist militias fighting for their defense would love to have someone of my background with them- I would effectively be playing into the wargame, and not limiting the warfare in the long term, as the cause I would unwittingly be backing would be naturally resented by a considerable portion of the population, and the methods of the war used to win or negate the enemy could be exported for wars internationally.

Such a circumstance is not desirable… so I would have to leave ASAP. Hence… killing a few, despite being Lethality, would more closely abide to a succession of categorical imperatives- a step or two down from the best… in order to assert the best case scenario.

If I was to phrase it in another circumstance, not directly relating to the OP but similar… if I was a expert martial artist, and I’ve taken a classical vow of non-violence… and I’m in the bank, minding my own business, and a bankrobber comes in, and stands next to me and starts shooting others… can I claim my stance of non-violence as justification of not fighting, or to I abide to a deeper meaning of non-violence relative to my own capacity, the incapacity of others relative to the circumstance, and wack the mother fucker shooting upside the head before he get’s a lethal shot off? The latter of course… fuck the vow, priorities have shifted, but stay within the moral elasticity of the vow in order to ensure max non-violence that is reasonable instead of using non-violence as a means of allowing another to mercilessly slaughter others- which is in part a action you supported for not stopping. Not stopping the worst kind of violence is a act of violence even more disturbing given your acceptance.

So I agree with this soldier to degrees… but many I don’t agree with. Especially letting his unit just die in Syria. He knew better… but the reality none the less is that they did (and therefore others beyond just them have to suffer from the lack of local protection to the lack of husbands now because are dead) and he should of sought out a less fucked up circumstance. It would of been wiser to back off from the frontline and train some guys up instead with sound tactics that stress efficiency, cross fire, and moral-esprite concerns. This is basic stuff… and these fighters obviously aren’t considering this, given the wreck the cities in Syria are in. Though lacking absolute control, you can to a high degree control your opponents actions, which they wither are not doing very well, or are, and are choosing bad positions to make their stand. It’s wrecked this country, and this kid we arrested, though he isn’t at fault, he has proven not to be part of the solution.

None the less, I hold out hope he can be used to get the various terrorist groups he’s associated with to renounce their use of terrorism… the moral-esprite aspect… it hasn’t worked in the past in Iraq or Syria or Libya… if they turn mainstream they may very well be supported by the west, meaning a quick end to the Syria war.