Pakistan's Bhutto Killed in Attack by deadlockvictim

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
I think what I was getting at is the notion of waterboarding every single individual detained on suspicion of having some link to terrorism. The thought of using "harsh interrogation"/torture on all of them just makes my skin crawl.

Hmmm...how about terrorist attacks? Do they give you a warm and fuzzy feeling?

Try to be a little more grown up. Fella has information and people's lives are at stake. I'm not saying you drown him...waterboarding simulates drowning. And thats not the only option. Sleep deprivation, drugs, good cop-bad cop, blackmail, carrots (like better food, softer mattress etc.), bribery, a vacation to Bulgaria or Egypt (for more intensive discussions with local experts), Britney Spears (not the music...just stick her in the cell), I mean there's a lot of ways to make folks more willing to talk.

And we should broadcast videos of these terrorists begging for their lives (after all, deep down most big bad Jihadists are cowards), before undergoing gender reassignment surgury (I mean really quality surgury and with DD implants. Not to the public...that would be silly...on closed circuit TVs in their prison.

Ok, that last suggestion was silly...but would you want to be a Muslim woman? If your lucky enough to avoid being stoned or blown up then you get to live as a slave covered head to toe in some of the world's hottest climats.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 28, 2007 3:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Whu.... whAAA? Those folks in Gitmo were picked up at least four years ago and have been held incommunicado ever since!!!

I'm not saying they were involved in the attack. I'm saying that they know somebody, who knows somebody, who knows Kevin Bacon, who knows the bomb maker.

What, you think they didn't exchange names at Terrorist Summer Camp?

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 28, 2007 3:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
10 hours later , for me, since I asked the question anyway-- I've been at work.
ON CNN , they're leading a story that Bhutto told an American advisor that if she was killed, Musharrif world bear at least some responsibility.
Didn't copy it, or the link, so that ain't an exact quote, but that's the gist.

Thats true, she sent an e-mail back in October complaining about the lack of security from the government. I doubt she complained much after that because they had her on house arrest until a week or so ago because she was complaining they were too restrictive.

She wanted it both ways. To be protected and to be out in the public. And she knew the risks.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 28, 2007 4:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
I think what I was getting at is the notion of waterboarding every single individual detained on suspicion of having some link to terrorism. The thought of using "harsh interrogation"/torture on all of them just makes my skin crawl.

Hmmm...how about terrorist attacks? Do they give you a warm and fuzzy feeling?

Try to be a little more grown up. Fella has information and people's lives are at stake. I'm not saying you drown him...waterboarding simulates drowning. And thats not the only option. Sleep deprivation, drugs, good cop-bad cop, blackmail, carrots (like better food, softer mattress etc.), bribery, a vacation to Bulgaria or Egypt (for more intensive discussions with local experts), Britney Spears (not the music...just stick her in the cell), I mean there's a lot of ways to make folks more willing to talk.

OK, the insulting (about being more grown up)--that's exactly what I'm talking about when I criticize these boards. We don't actually talk through the issues. We make inflammatory statements about each other. Hero, I'll talk issues with you all day long. But I just have no desire to engage in gain-saying and insulting.

That said, what troubles me about all this is the ends-justify-the-means style of argument you're taking. Obviously, the thought of terrorist attacks are horrifying to me. But I don't consider the moral good of preventing terrorist attacks as justifying the moral evil of torture.

So, OK, there are many different interrogation techniques. Perhaps we could talk about which ones cross the line and which ones don't. Or perhaps we could make this a conversation about when, if ever, a moral good justifies a moral wrong. But let's not descend into back-biting and insulting.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 28, 2007 4:06 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/28/pakistan.friday/index.html

What disappoints me about the way people are reacting is that it's violent. That tempers my hope a little bit, because they're just buying into the cycle themselves; and I guess we all know where that's going to lead.

Oh, also: Italian news agency says Al Qaeda's claimed responsibility. Wonder if that'll be confirmed...?

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 28, 2007 4:13 AM

The American media is a big fat dirty whore....everyone on TV & cable all sullen & sad, as if they knew this woman personally or something. Fact is this woman represented everything the mainstream media abhors : a leader willing to confront & attack terrorists, a leader willing to acknowledge that there is dangerous war on terrorism (John Edwards & his media whores say WAR ON TERROR IS A BUMPER STICKER MADE UP BY BUSH....and millions of American IDIOTS believe him! God...it musta fuckin' killed those assholes on NBC etc to actually have to say those dreaded words War On Terror in discussing Bhutto's politics. Just like they don't have a fuckin' word to say about the amazing turn-around in Iraq. Just like 911...we can expect the loony-left to lay low for a few days...then they'll come out from under their slimy rocks to again say the war on terror is a myth, and Iraq is a disaster.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 28, 2007 4:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
OK, the insulting (about being more grown up)--that's exactly what I'm talking about when I criticize these boards.

If waterboarding makes you sick, then your being childish. Is it bad? Yes. Is it necessary? Yes. Thats life, doing stuff we don't like because we have to, cause it needs done, cause if it doesn't get done people suffer and die. Its a part of war. Nobody wants to drop a bomb or shoot someone (no good person anyway), but if they are trying to kill us, we have a right to stop them and there's no law that says we have to wait until they've done they're best to kill us before we look into the whole possibility of stopping them.

I understand how you feel, but don't let your feelings get in the way of what needs done.

I note for the record that in war sometimes the only way to tell the good guys from the bad guys is that the good guys regret what they have to do.

Quote:

We don't actually talk through the issues. We make inflammatory statements about each other. Hero, I'll talk issues with you all day long. But I just have no desire to engage in gain-saying and insulting.

Actually, I consider your emotional response to be an issue worthy of discussion. Some people call it the wussification of America. I always thought it was more related to laziness then lack of balls (which is why I consider it childish, rather then cowardess, in this I am in disagreement with some conservatives).

Quote:

But I don't consider the moral good of preventing terrorist attacks as justifying the moral evil of torture.

Neither do I. But the moral good of one's position is something that is best considered by the living. Are you willing to die for your moral belief?

I'm sure we can work out some kind of exchange program. We'll have a list and all the liberals can sign up and every year Al Queda can tell us what they planned to do and we can calculate the deaths and turn that many of you folks over for summery execution. That way you die for your beliefs, but I don't have to. Oh, and if you sign up, your family has to be on the list too.

Quote:

Perhaps we could talk about which ones cross the line and which ones don't.

Drowning...bad, simulated drowning in a controlled setting with proper medical supervision...ok.

Britney...bad.

Drugs...good.

Sleep deprivation...good.

Physical abuse (punching, electro-shock, purple nurples)...bad.

Physical discomfort (forced standing, hot cell, ichy nose)...good.

Good cop...good. Bad cop...better.

Forced Sex change...bad (although we should reserve the right to go half way with Bin Ladden).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 28, 2007 4:49 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I'm not saying they were involved in the attack. I'm saying that they know somebody, who knows somebody, who knows Kevin Bacon, who knows the bomb maker.

Very doubtful. Terrorist organizations are decentralized, fluid, ad hoc, and even spontaneous. BUT! If you waterboard them long enough I'm sure they'd admit to knowing sumpthin' about sumpthin'!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 28, 2007 5:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Are you willing to die for your moral belief?

Yes.

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 28, 2007 5:33 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hero- If you propose to waterboard people who have no idea whatsoever about the issue at-hand then you're delusional.

See? I can call names all day long, too. So can we all. Then the board would be filled with exchanges such as

COWARD!

NAZI!

FAGGOT!

Oh, wait. I see it already is! And mostly coming from....er....

Well, thanks for the informative posts then.

NOT.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 28, 2007 6:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
If waterboarding makes you sick, then your being childish.

Being a responsible grown-up means being inured to violence and torture? Is that really what you believe? That losing empathy for other human beings is a goal to strive for?

Think about it - the ability to choke down feelings and do harm isn't a solution. It's the root of most of the world's problems.

I bet the guy who shot Bhutto had very good reasons (in his own mind) to choke down his guilt over killing this woman and all the innocents in the crowd. I bet his reasons were as solid to him and your reasons to torture anyone remotely connected to Islam (or whatever) are to you. And clearly - he was willing to die for his moral beliefs. Does that pass your standards and win your admiration?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 28, 2007 6:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Yes.

And your wife, kids, family, and do you have the right to make that decision on behalf of you neighbors? Would you see them all dead just so you don't feel so bad. Seems pretty selfish...childish even.

And dying for your beliefs has never been the standard. The question mankind has always struggled with is 'are you willing to kill for them'? If that answer is no then I'd suggest your cause is doomed to failure.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 28, 2007 6:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Yes.

And your wife, kids, family, and do you have the right to make that decision on behalf of you neighbors? Would you see them all dead just so you don't feel so bad. Seems pretty selfish...childish even.

And dying for your beliefs has never been the standard. The question mankind has always struggled with is 'are you willing to kill for them'? If that answer is no then I'd suggest your cause is doomed to failure.

H

I just love the way you can continue to insult me even for being principled. But if you like, why don't you go ahead and do some more of it? You can go ahead and call me a traitor, a coward, a moron. You can accuse me of being gay, being a liberal, being a nincompoop. You can say I've got no experience in the real world. Whatever you like. The sad fact is that I no longer want to be part of this discussion--not because your arguments are ultimately persuasive, but because it's just wearying being attacked on a personal level. There are some really interesting lines of thinking that you've introduced. But I just don't want to wade through the personal bullshit in order to get to it.

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 28, 2007 6:33 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
And dying for your beliefs has never been the standard. The question mankind has always struggled with is 'are you willing to kill for them'? If that answer is no then I'd suggest your cause is doomed to failure.

MLK, Ghandi, Jesus.... they were all influential and they didn't kill for their beliefs.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 28, 2007 6:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Hero- If you propose to waterboard people who have no idea whatsoever about the issue at-hand then you're delusional.

So if we took custody of a fellow some years back, who knew the address of a safe house in Pakistan and the name of people who were connected to terrorism, then was four years later that house and those people were involved in the planning and execution of this attack, you'd oppose interrogation of the prisoner? The people in custody have a lot of information. Names, dates, addresses, contacts, money, weapons caches, codes, phone numbers etc and any of which could lead to other people who have information that could have stopped this attack. Not following those leads and hoping for the best is delusional.

Quote:

See? I can call names all day long, too. So can we all.

I agree. I could say your an ass, but I wont.

I didn't call anyone a name, I described an attitude as childish and I think the issue is worthy of discussion.

Placing one's moral value above saving lives vs. making hard, unpopular, and otherwise morally questionable decisions in order to stop terrorist attack and pursue the ongoing war.

I've suggested that such behaivor is NOT cowardess, as others in my party suggest. I think its because folks don't like to do things that are hard but necessary and that overcoming that natural and understandable tendancy is a sign of maturity.

If you disagree, discuss...

Quote:

COWARD!

NAZI!

FAGGOT!

Hmmm...nice retort...although a tad...childish (in this case the inability to argue a reasoned position without resorting to name calling, hair pulling, or taking your ball and going home).

Here, I'll get you started with something a bit more in line with a reasoned discussion of this valid issue:

"Its not childish. In fact the sacrifice of moral values would mean that while the state may be preserved it is no longer worth preserving. Here is why..."

And so on...

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 28, 2007 6:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Being a responsible grown-up means being inured to violence and torture? Is that really what you believe? That losing empathy for other human beings is a goal to strive for?

I'd answer that...but I already did and you missed it. Here, from the same post you cited me from:

Quote:

I understand how you feel, but don't let your feelings get in the way of what needs done.

I note for the record that in war sometimes the only way to tell the good guys from the bad guys is that the good guys regret what they have to do.

There...turns out I write more then the first line almost every time.

Quote:

I bet the guy who shot Bhutto had very good reasons (in his own mind) to choke down his guilt...Does that pass your standards and win your admiration?

No. But the courage of our brave soldiers who choke down their guilt at having to kill thier fellow man, they are worthy of admiration cause their the good guys. That fellow who shot Bhutto, he was a bad guy. Not seeing the difference is more of a willful blindness then anything else. I think you folks are patriots, maybe you just need new glasses.

I note for the record I successfully resisted the urge to describe your willfull blindness as childish.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 28, 2007 7:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
I just love the way you can continue to insult me even for being principled.

Wow, so you consider your values worthy of you life but not worthy of discussion. Good luck with that.

Quote:

You can go ahead and call me a traitor, a coward, a moron.

I don't need your permission, but lets give it a try...damn...don't consider you any of those.

Sounds a bit self-loathing though I would never say that...being a bit personal and all.

Quote:

You can accuse me of being gay, being a liberal, being a nincompoop.

Ok...well you probably are a liberal but who knows these days(which is not always a negative thing...if you are, be proud, I'm a conservative and proud of it), the rest I can't say I know for one and I sincerely doubt the other.

Quote:

You can say I've got no experience in the real world.

What's experiance got to do with being right? Chamberlain had tons of experiance in world affairs and appeased the Nazis into a war Britain wasn't ready for.

Quote:

The sad fact is that I no longer want to be part of this discussion--not because your arguments are ultimately persuasive, but because it's just wearying being attacked on a personal level.

Ah, the 'taking your ball and going home' argument. Never could figure my way around that one.

Let me try: You are all accusing me of attacking him on a personal level and thats attacking me on a personal level and 'screw you guys, I'm going home'. Nope, I can't sell something like that.

If your position is not childish, argue it. Damn, I could argue it and I don't even believe it. Tell you what, send me $100 and I'll spend the next hour arguing your position for you (like the good lawyer I am). I'll even throw in a vague personal attack.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 28, 2007 7:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
MLK, Ghandi, Jesus.... they were all influential and they didn't kill for their beliefs.

Good point. Finally I decent retort. Kinda short though.

How about:

DUNHAM, JASON L.

Rank and Organization: Corporal, United States Marine Corps
For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while serving as Rifle Squad Leader, 4th Platoon, Company K, Third Battalion, Seventh Marines (Reinforced), Regimental Combat Team 7, First Marine Division (Reinforced), on 14 April 2004. Corporal Dunham's squad was conducting a reconnaissance mission in the town of Karabilah, Iraq, when they heard rocket-propelled grenade and small arms fire erupt approximately two kilometers to the west. Corporal Dunham led his Combined Anti-Armor Team towards the engagement to provide fire support to their Battalion Commander's convoy, which had been ambushed as it was traveling to Camp Husaybah. As Corporal Dunham and his Marines advanced, they quickly began to receive enemy fire. Corporal Dunham ordered his squad to dismount their vehicles and led one of his fire teams on foot several blocks south of the ambushed convoy. Discovering seven Iraqi vehicles in a column attempting to depart, Corporal Dunham and his team stopped the vehicles to search them for weapons. As they approached the vehicles, an insurgent leaped out and attacked Corporal Dunham. Corporal Dunham wrestled the insurgent to the ground and in the ensuing struggle saw the insurgent release a grenade. Corporal Dunham immediately alerted his fellow Marines to the threat. Aware of the imminent danger and without hesitation, Corporal Dunham covered the grenade with his helmet and body, bearing the brunt of the explosion and shielding his Marines from the blast. In an ultimate and selfless act of bravery in which he was mortally wounded, he saved the lives of at least two fellow Marines. By his undaunted courage, intrepid fighting spirit, and unwavering devotion to duty, Corporal Dunham gallantly gave his life for his country, thereby reflecting great credit upon himself and upholding the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service.

*SMITH, PAUL R.

Rank and Organization: Sergeant First Class, United States Army
For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty:Sergeant First Class Paul R. Smith distinguished himself by acts of gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty in action with an armed enemy near Baghdad International Airport, Baghdad, Iraq on 4 April 2003. On that day, Sergeant First Class Smith was engaged in the construction of a prisoner of war holding area when his Task Force was violently attacked by a company-sized enemy force. Realizing the vulnerability of over 100 fellow soldiers, Sergeant First Class Smith quickly organized a hasty defense consisting of two platoons of soldiers, one Bradley Fighting Vehicle and three armored personnel carriers. As the fight developed, Sergeant First Class Smith braved hostile enemy fire to personally engage the enemy with hand grenades and anti-tank weapons, and organized the evacuation of three wounded soldiers from an armored personnel carrier struck by a rocket propelled grenade and a 60mm mortar round. Fearing the enemy would overrun their defenses, Sergeant First Class Smith moved under withering enemy fire to man a .50 caliber machine gun mounted on a damaged armored personnel carrier. In total disregard for his own life, he maintained his exposed position in order to engage the attacking enemy force. During this action, he was mortally wounded. His courageous actions helped defeat the enemy attack, and resulted in as many as 50 enemy soldiers killed, while allowing the safe withdrawal of numerous wounded soldiers. Sergeant First Class Smith’s extraordinary heroism and uncommon valor are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, the Third Infantry Division “Rock of the Marne,” and the United States Army.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 28, 2007 7:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I understand how you feel, but don't let your feelings get in the way of what needs done.

I note for the record that in war sometimes the only way to tell the good guys from the bad guys is that the good guys regret what they have to do.

I did read all that. It's really no new information added on to what I quoted, and doesn't change my point.

It does bring something else up, however. It shows the assumptions you make. The other side feels no guilt, right? YOU and those on your side are the only ones who feel noble emotions? The guy who shot Bhutto is a cardboard cutout villian who was born and grew up with no emotions except the EVIL kind, right? Ahh yes - he was a veritable Reaver. He never experienced his own 9/11, never had people he loved killed or tortured by foreigners. He never had his own way of life threatened by invaders. He never had a brave, noble-seeming leader tell him that he could save his friends and family by making his own sacrifice. He never had anyone say to him: "The question mankind has always struggled with is 'are you willing to kill for them [your moral beliefs]'? If that answer is no then I'd suggest your cause is doomed to failure." And he never turned his enemies into unfeeling villians in his mind, so that he could make himself carry out his cowardly attack.

In case you aren't seeing it, my point is not to defend this man. It's to stress how similar your mentality is to his. Your reasons to torture are no better than his reasons to murder.

And this isn't about our brave soldiers in the field. This is about us, America, as a society, encouraging our brave soldiers to torture helpless, innocent people. This is about us doing that and then turning around and condeming Bhutto's killer, as if we have a special right to cross moral lines but no one else does.

Giving yourself rights that you don't allow others is childish. Answering every challenge with violence is childish. Answering every debate with name-calling is childish. (I'm not speaking of you here, just offering my own definition of "childish". Do what you like with it.

)

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 28, 2007 7:29 AM

"because it's just wearying being attacked on a personal level. There are some really interesting lines of thinking that you've introduced. But I just don't want to wade through the personal bullshit in order to get to it."

Which is, Causal, why they do it.

If they can run off or drown out any voices contrary to their little fantasies, then it makes them feel like they've "won" - it bothers me quite a bit that there doesn't seem to be room in our society anymore to just agree to disagree anymore, but rather the impetus to smash down everyone who does not agree with one.

I think that's silly, myself, for without multiple viewpoints and input, any form of thought tends to stagnate, but we're generally not talkin thought, but rather belief - folks have invested mentally in these concepts to the point of Faith of an almost religious order, and no amount of reason, evidence or logical argument is gonna move em... I only really argue the points for lurkers who don't dare post for the same reasons you yourself are weary of this "discussion" already... but for mine own, I look at the example of a decent man I have idolized long before most folk ever heard of him, when you see a Congressional vote of 434-1, you can prettymuch guess who the 1 is, right ?

So if I stand alone in standing for my principles, well, I will do just that.

As for torture, cause make no bones about it that IS what it is, it's the most useless, worthless counterproductive form of obtaining information, and all it does is flood your database with worthless information to the point of making it unuseable via false positives outweighing any real data.

We've done this dance before, the moment you go hands-on in the interrogation process, you have lost, cause once the torture starts, they'll tell you anything you wanna hear just to make it stop and 99.995% of it is pure fiction that wastes time effort and resources to disprove.

And so instead of getting real data to act on, you wind up torturing some jerk who knows nothing, thus radicalizing his entire extended family and giving them good reason to hate us and want us dead - and all he gives you is a couple names of people that also don't know anything just to make the torture stop, and you torture them, and what happens but that you wind up doin that to everyone you can get your hands on and never learning a damned thing while making the entire region despise you, and quite rightfully.

A PROPER interrogation uses different methods, people are human and done RIGHT, one can play on their pride, sympathies and frailties to get them to spill all kinds of useful things and never even know they handed off the football.

But that utterly requires an understanding of the people you're dealing with, something that has been passionately and deliberately resisted by the cabal in power - they don't WANT to understand them cause that would humanise them and they are too busy using hate and propaganda to DE-humanise them, thus making it easier for americans to hate them and be less resistant to the idea of slaughtering and torturing them wholesale like we're doing.

For all the fussing about their Zealotry towards us, I fail to see how ours towards them is in any way more morally justified or any saner - and on top of that let's be brutally blunt here, the folks in Iraq we're doin it to didn't DO jack diddly crap to us, had zip-diddly to do with 9-11, and under Hussein, who WE propped up in the first place to put the screws to Khomeni after the Iranians threw down The Shah, who WE also propped up, they actually HAD a secular government, if not a very nice one.

But even if you ditch the politics, WHY they do this stuff is pretty obvious - if you were just trying to get by, and someone invaded your country, bombed your church, shot up your neighborhood, killed a bunch of your friends and took your uncle and brother off and tortured them - you'd be pretty pissed about it, wouldn't you ?

Barring the "They're all evil" propaganda, which is EXACTLY the same no matter which direction it's coming from, MOST people just wanna make ends meet, get enough food on the table and the bills paid, and kick back and relax, pray, read a book, watch TV, cruise the net, have a drink, or whatever it is that entertains them best.

They wanna LIVE THEIR LIVE, and when you go interfering with that in such a way that it becomes impossible to DO, then they really don't have anything left TO do but fight you, and fight you they will, tooth and claw with everything they have, until you GO AWAY and stop bothering them - at which point MOST of them will shout some smack in your direction and GO HOME, if they have a life and home to go to, and if you have deprived them of that, woe unto you, cause it's at THAT point they start strapping bombs to themselves and aiming them at you cause they don't have anything left to go home TO.

One rice grain of understanding would make that patently bloody obvious - and WHY any fool listens to the folks at the top on either end, throwing the bodies of folks who'd rather be at home eating dinner at each other in a mutual slaughter of epidemically stupid proportions, is beyond me, but we're totally not helping the situation by our presence in their face, on their turf, encouraging this, no not one bit.

One of the reasons imma Anarchist, as I said, most folk just wanna live their lives, and without the impetus of governments, run mostly by folk who sure hell ain't risking THEIR lives, and resources, driving them at each other, often by force or threat of force - such large scale bloodbaths wouldn't be such a constant in our world.

The whole concept of this idocy has been ludicrous almost beyond belief to me from the very start.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

EDIT: And while we're discussing "juvenille" behavior, one might ponder THIS link.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/21/5933/

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 28, 2007 7:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Ah, the 'taking your ball and going home' argument. Never could figure my way around that one.

If one no longer enjoys the game, is one compelled to continue playing? Not that I can see. So why shouldn't I just "take my ball and go home"? It's no longer an enjoyable discussion.

Quote:
If your position is not childish, argue it.

For the record:

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Here's my trouble with that line of thinking. In order to prevent these sorts of incidents, you'd have to cast a pretty broad net. After all, it's not as though anybody would have the luxury of saying, "One of these five guys has the knowledge we're after. So if we just practice 'harsh interrogation' on these five guys, we'll be able to prevent terrorist attacks." No, I think that you'd have to practice "harsh interrogation" on basically anyone who you suspect of having even a moderate degree of involvement. Obviously, that's going to be one hell of a lot of people. So the question is this, to my way of thinking: is the possible prevention of terrorist acts (read: the saving of lives) worth the broad application of torturous interrogation tactics? I have come to the conclusion that it is not. Because the use of such tactics represents moral compromise, in my view. I do not think that the use of morally objectionable means in order to prevent morally objectionable acts is justifiable. Will that mean the loss of life from terrorist attacks? Yes, and no doubt I'll be attacked on those grounds. But let us not lose sight of the fact that the moral culpability for those acts rests squarely on those who perpetrate them. I refuse to allow a misplaced sense of moral responsibility to lead me to the commission of moral wrong-doing. Let us not be persuaded by ends-justify-the-means reasoning. Does the prevention of terrorist acts justify torture? In my opinion, no, it does not.

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 28, 2007 8:38 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

hero, the problem is that labels like "childish"... aside from being pejorative... don't tell us much. Now, if you were to say (as you did) "willing to make tough, unpopular decisions" that provides a bigger basis for discussion.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 28, 2007 8:50 AM

OLDENGLANDDRY

Whoops, sorry, I thought this thread was about Bhutto's assassination. My mistake.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 28, 2007 10:11 AM

Thread drift caused by classic space dementia, cause they're all paranoid and crochety...

Ya kinda get used to it.

Seriously tho, pitch your two cents, give some input, or offer your thoughts on the matter of Bhuttos assassination and likely effects and outcomes.

I am still waitin for more info to be collected and distilled, but the whole thing has a distinctly fishy aroma to it from what I have seen so far, but a lot of stuff has to be crosschecked, rumors discarded, and evaluated before any sense can be really made of it.

If I had to speculate from just the available info without regard to it's veracity, I would have to say the ISI would be prime suspect, penetration was a little too thorough, it took too many people, and was too well timed an executed for amateurs, no matter how well practiced.

The bomb seems to be a plan-B afterthought, cause apparently, from some accounts, she was hit by rifle bullets from multiple positions (or a kennedy magic bullet, meh) prior to it going off.

Any newsie who refers to an AK47 as a sniper rifle oughta be slapped tho, an AK is an assault rifle, the AK-frame sniper variant is a Dragunov.

No matter how ya slice it tho, it looks awful bad to be Musarraf about now, even if he had little or naught to do with it, folks are going to be suspiciously glaring at him, and the ball is in his court on what to do about that - the possibility of being violently lynched does well exist and is likely figuring rather prominently in his thoughts about now.

Here's for hoping his statemanship is up to the task, cause a fumble at this point would result in a great deal of really needless bloodshed.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 28, 2007 11:07 AM

DEADLOCKVICTIM

Quote:
Originally posted by oldenglanddry:
Whoops, sorry, I thought this thread was about Bhutto's assassination. My mistake.

...yeah, these 'discussions' between folks with differing opinions do seem to veer from the original topic... not that that's a bad thing - as upset as I sometimes get from a rationale that is so different from my own, I do try to weigh one side against the other - it's just that so often one side of the argument carries so little weight....

but, cluck the duck - to each his own - right?
Soooo – to add quick dos centavos - as far as the effect of Prime Minister Bhutto’s assassination will have on the U.S., Senator Arlen Specter says, “It complicates life for the American government.”….. well duh…..shoulda thought of that a little sooner, eh? Seems to me that with all the tough talk by BushCo about fighting a war on terror, our government still shovels out butt-loads of money to a regime led by an “ally” who seems totally indifferent to the re-establishment of Taliban rule along his countries border with Afghanistan – an area some believe is indeed the home sweet hideout of bin LadenCo. Leaders in Washington have ignored Pakistan’s pro-Islamist past while pretending the corrupt regime of President Musharraf is good – offering leniency for billion-dollar debts, lifting economic sanctions and treating the dictator like some freedom-loving statesman.

With the death of Benazir Bhutto, the slim hope of a stabilizing force in the region has certainly faded.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 28, 2007 11:15 AM

I don't think Musharrif was directly involved, but his army & police & secret service are heavily infiltrated by Al Qaida & Taliban. If he's "guilty" of anything, it would be not providing Bhutto with enough security. And the USA ( Condi Rice especially ) bears some responsibility as well. She & Bush urged her out of exile in Dubai to come back to Pakistan and help Bush's precarious position with that dictatorship by having democratic elections....maybe not the best frikkin' idea, and certainly the US should have been able to somehow guard this brave woman.

You may get to see your "anarchist" world much sooner than you think Mr. Minister. Pervy is the ONLY thing right now keeping the jihadists from getting their fingers on the nukes, something like 60 of them. I don't know what missles they are attached to and how far they can fly, but if Pervez is assassinated (been 12 attempts)and the "government" falls, Al Qaida will have that nuclear arsenal at their disposal. Their track record indicates they won't hesitate to use it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 28, 2007 11:29 AM

Follow-up question :
If the worst-case scenario occurs.....Al Qaida gets Pakistan's nukes, then our satellites detect a launch....What do we do?
a) Launch a nuclear strike to wipe out the threat ( the neo-con conservative way )
b) Try talking & negotiating with them...maybe use Jesse Jackson or Pelosi to broker a deal ( the intellectual thinking liberal way )
c) Let Israel wipe them out ( the usual way )
???

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 28, 2007 11:31 AM

Smart move at this point would be reaching out to the moderates who supported Bhutto and helping them direct their rage and fury at the radical militants who wanted Bhutto out of the picture, whether they actually did it or not - given that as I've repeatedly stated, a lot of em are practically looking for an excuse to be shut of the crazy bastards - and this sure hell gives em one, once THAT problem is dealt with, let them decide what the heck to do with Mushie, it's their country, and our meddling is a great part of what keeps them jerks in power.

If things get too chaotic, appeal to the IAEA and send a multinational force with representative forces from each country to keep the nukes secure until there's a stable government to turn em over to, not many would disagree with that cause nobody in their right mind wants to see a mushroom cloud.

Too many times the US has used flimsy excuses like this to prop up some real jackasses, and it's always, always, bit us on the ass down the road - ain't it time we learned our lesson ?

If the moderates are so tired of these radical numnutz that they wish to slaughter em, I say it's past time we got our nose out of it and let that happen.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 28, 2007 11:38 AM

Why aren't there millions of Islamic women out there marching all over the world protesting this assassination? This could be their chance, collectively, to tell their enslavers ( muslim men ) to go F themselves....they could/should all be educated and distinguished like Benazir was, they should shed their veils and tent-dresses, blast some Meatloaf on their MP3's and join the 21st century....or is their batterred-wife syndrome way of life just too ingrained?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 28, 2007 1:05 PM

ERIC

Here's a weird story- Bhutto apparently wrote an "read this only if I get killed" email partly blaming Musharraf:

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/27/bhutto.security/index.
html?eref=edition

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 28, 2007 1:56 PM

I was saving pointing this out till you finally thought about that, Jong.

http://www.rawa.org/index.php

Our mainstream media wouldn't give em the time of day, and I myself don't think they're quite ruthless enough - but I do understand their concern about not becoming worse than the enemy to beat em, so there is that to consider.

Was it me, I'd hand out some AKs to those girls with MOLAN LABE stamped on one side and a Venus symbol on the other... but that's me, yanno.

-Frem

EDIT: and just so you know, THIS poster resides on the back wall of my office, where it's been since 1998, I believe.
http://www.rawa.org/poster-chain.htm

One thing my crew does is collect used cameras and journalism supplies and give em over to help document the horror, hoping against hope to force the world to even acknowledge it, if not do something about it... might not agree with *how* they're doing what they are, but imma support it anyway.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 30, 2007 12:31 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
It does bring something else up, however. It shows the assumptions you make. The other side feels no guilt, right? YOU and those on your side are the only ones who feel noble emotions? The guy who shot Bhutto is a cardboard cutout villian who was born and grew up with no emotions except the EVIL kind, right? Ahh yes - he was a veritable Reaver. He never experienced his own 9/11, never had people he loved killed or tortured by foreigners. He never had his own way of life threatened by invaders. He never had a brave, noble-seeming leader tell him that he could save his friends and family by making his own sacrifice. He never had anyone say to him: "The question mankind has always struggled with is 'are you willing to kill for them [your moral beliefs]'? If that answer is no then I'd suggest your cause is doomed to failure." And he never turned his enemies into unfeeling villians in his mind, so that he could make himself carry out his cowardly attack.

In case you aren't seeing it, my point is not to defend this man. It's to stress how similar your mentality is to his. Your reasons to torture are no better than his reasons to murder.

And this isn't about our brave soldiers in the field. This is about us, America, as a society, encouraging our brave soldiers to torture helpless, innocent people. This is about us doing that and then turning around and condeming Bhutto's killer, as if we have a special right to cross moral lines but no one else does.

Giving yourself rights that you don't allow others is childish. Answering every challenge with violence is childish. Answering every debate with name-calling is childish. (I'm not speaking of you here, just offering my own definition of "childish". Do what you like with it. )

mal4prez,

I'm quoting your post at length because it is brilliant. A truly beautiful analysis and refutation. Don't expect a reply form Mr. Sandwich though. Like any bully, the guy runs from real confrontation, preferring to practice his innuendo and intimidation on folks that aren't looking or ready for a fight.

I wonder a lot lately what we would see if we could look into the homes and cubicles of our fellow browncoats. I sometimes feel surrounded by frat-boys, y'know? All Hero's talk about the childishness of respecting one's emotional response, his more-hyper-masculine-than-thou attitude toward the manly art of murder, bespeak a guy who hasn't quite figured out how to relate to women--at least, women with any self-respect.

I mean no disrespect to Hero, of course, just analysin' the ol' evidence is all. Hero may be a wonderful man with a pitch-black sense of humor and a yen for play-acting. If that were actually the case, he would definitely qualify as a personal hero of mine.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 30, 2007 12:48 PM

LEADB

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I try to keep a realistic eye on what's REALLY going on. (For example, part of the reason why Iraq is settling down is because it IS being partitioned... something I've advocated for years.) And I have a strange feeling that this might be a turning point for Pakistan: That it might reject both authoritarian rule AND Muslim extremists. Five or ten years from now, when Pakistanis look back, they might mark this as the signal event of change.

It's interesting that sometimes what you really need is an horrific event that galvanizes people into action--regretable but, I think, true. I think that's the real failing of terrorism. Up to a point it can be very effective: the instinct to preserve one's own life can be a powerful motivator. But there's a line that, once crossed, causes people to cease complying out of self-preservation and to resist the aggressor out of a desire to preserve something greater than the self (which is, I think, one of the things that makes humanity great). But I digress. In the case of Pakistan, I just wonder if the assassination of Bhutto will be that line beyond which violence no longer compels compliance. How exciting if a Muslim country threw off both theocracy and autocracy on its own!

Causal, Signy, you make a very good point, and I hope you are right. I truly hope Ms. Bhutto did not die in vain; and such an out come would serve as an excellent memorial to the risks she took in continuing to confront the forces of chaos and disruption.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 30, 2007 4:34 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
This is about us, America, as a society, encouraging our brave soldiers to torture helpless, innocent people.

Kindly list the occasions where American soldiers have tortured innocent, helpless people and not been punished for it. Maybe just five or ten instances, so you don't have to type too much. Cites would be nice. Some evidence that we (as a society, not just some individuals) would support torturing innocent, helpless people would also be appreciated.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 30, 2007 5:04 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Some evidence that we (as a society, not just some individuals) would support torturing innocent, helpless people would also be appreciated.

Hold up, Geez. The point is not that there are Americans that want innocents tortured per se (everyone who is subjected to torture is helpless by the way), but that there are Americans who sure wouldn't mind if a few hundred innocent muslims were tortured if it meant torturing one guy who "deserved" it. Also there are Americans who assume that anyone we capture or interrogate is guilty of "something" and so "deserve whatever they get," or at least "knows a guy who knows a guy" (I would say that torturing "the guy who knows a guy" constitutes torturing an innocent right there, but I doubt you would agree). It's the same Americans that believe that we're mainly fighting "Al Qaeda" in Iraq, that "Al Qaeda" is mainly getting killed in Iraq, that "Al Qaeda" would be waging a ground war in the U.S.A. if we weren't fighting them over there.

Nobody wants innocent people to be put to death accidentally, either, but a whole lot of people still find capital punishment acceptable when victim after victim is proven innocent through DNA after the fact.

Beyond that, torture is a wasteful, ludicrously inaccurate method of securing intel. And a whole lot of Americans are blind to that fact, because they like the idea that our "enemies" are being tortured. It soothes their utter sense of powerlessness to control the future if they can imagine individual human beings being placed in prolonged mortal danger by Americans that have complete control over them. If we can't stop "the terrorists," at least we can stick it to a few of the bastards! And if now and then, we stick it to the wrong guy, well, that's his problem--wrong place at the wrong time, these things happen in war, etc.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 30, 2007 6:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Kindly list the occasions where American soldiers have tortured innocent, helpless people and not been punished for it.

Pay attention sweetie.

I’m not talking about what’s been done; I was replying to Hero's assertion that all ills would be diverted if only we "waterboarded a little more... listened in on one more call... or tracked just one more bank transaction...or gotten just one more phone record from a telecommunications company..."

Hero wants us to cast a very broad net, to go after every possible suspect and go after them hard, though he's given no compelling reason that it would actually work.

Some folks around here seem to live in some fantasy 24 world, like there’s a plotline written out nice and clean and all the bad guys are in one network. Obviously, they meet for tea twice a week and discuss all their upcoming terror plots. Oh - and they’re easily identifiable by their steely lack of remorse. They probably wear hats too.

The nefarious plot - the kidnapped innocent or the ticking bomb or whatever - is there for the most manly American man to discover, if only he’s tough and muscular and violent and forceful enough to punch it out of the baddies. Yeah! Testosterone yeah!

Um… that’s TV guys. The writers write it that way so you’ll feel good watching it, so you won’t be bothered by guilt when that bad guy is howling in pain, you’ll feel only righteous and heroic. After all, the bastard deserved it. Doing all that evil without any guilt… He must sub-human! Not like us soft squishy but nobly determined heros!

What me and Causal and HK and Signym and other folks are arguing is that taking this simplistic outlook into real life does not work. Trying to live like that, in a black and white world, would only make you one thing: the problem. This cowboy mentality is the very much identical to the mind set of those who do things like set off bombs and hijack planes. Really – can I just quote this again: "The question mankind has always struggled with is 'are you willing to kill for them [your moral beliefs]'? If that answer is no then I'd suggest your cause is doomed to failure”

Who is Hero to say this is the question of all mankind? Obviously, he puts no weight on MLK or Ghandi or Jesus, as was pointed out above. It may be the question he chooses to live by, but it does not define me in any way.

HK: maybe this post in my way of agreeing with your frat-boy comment.

And I’m not holding my breath waiting for an on-the-subject reply from our Noble Manly Hero. Seems there’s lots of boys here who whine and beat their chests, but run away or get tetchy when things get uncomfortable for them. *cough*Jack*cough*

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 30, 2007 7:33 PM

LEADB

Frankly, I'm curious to know how Hero knows that we are getting good intel through waterboarding, etc. There are other more effective (If someone wants the citations, please search WRED for 'em, been posted before), less 'gray' interrogation techniques... perhaps it is these which are getting the good intel? Just a thought. I know I don't know.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 31, 2007 3:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Some evidence that we (as a society, not just some individuals) would support torturing innocent, helpless people would also be appreciated.

America loves Jack Bauer who I seem to recall using torture, murder, and blackmail (including simulating the murder of a fella's children) in order to get the information he needs.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 31, 2007 3:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Who is Hero to say this is the question of all mankind? Obviously, he puts no weight on MLK or Ghandi or Jesus, as was pointed out above. It may be the question he chooses to live by, but it does not define me in any way.

Actually your are considering your three worthy examples from the wrong perspective. In the case of King and Ghandi (and Christ's legacy if not himself) the question isn't whether they were willing to kill for their beliefs, it was if their opponants were. This is a rare thing...which is why there are so few examples (although more in America due to the inclusive nature of the system), in that it turns the question upon the listener rather then the speaker.

I note for the record that King was murdered and Christ was executed unjustly. Yet those values they presented were not values to kill for, although much killing was done. The Romans and the Americans were simply not willing to kill in large enough numbers to put those values down. Once those values became the dominant ones, then the killing to preserve them began in ernest because the values were worthy of such protection.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 31, 2007 3:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Frankly, I'm curious to know how Hero knows that we are getting good intel through waterboarding, etc.

Thats easy. Man does not confess by waterboarding alone. They should be questioned, drugged, questioned, waterboarded, questioned, drugged, etc. Then their answers can be crosschecked with the answers given by others and with other intel such was money transfers, wiretaps, etc.

You never go by what their telling you alone, you combine it with everything else. Its certainly not reliable for the truth of the matter asserted but it gives you information that is very useful combined with the whole.

Perhaps just a name, who we then tap and track, which leads us to others, and suddenly we've busted another cell. Then we hit them up for names, dates, accounts, safe houses, etc.

And you can't tell me it doesn't work because the govt has told us it has worked and I note for the record that only two prisoners have been waterboarded since 9/11, both top ranking Al Queda folks and both giving us info that busted major plots against the United States.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 31, 2007 4:47 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
I’m not talking about what’s been done; I was replying to Hero's assertion that all ills would be diverted if only we "waterboarded a little more... listened in on one more call... or tracked just one more bank transaction...or gotten just one more phone record from a telecommunications company..."

Hero wants us to cast a very broad net, to go after every possible suspect and go after them hard, though he's given no compelling reason that it would actually work.

But Hero isn't "Amerian society". You're doing the same thing you accuse him of, transferring the opinions (or what you think are the opinions) of some folk to the whole society, and making the whole nation cardboard targets you have no compunction about shooting.

Quote:
Some folks around here seem to live in some fantasy 24 world, like there’s a plotline written out nice and clean and all the bad guys are in one network. Obviously, they meet for tea twice a week and discuss all their upcoming terror plots. Oh - and they’re easily identifiable by their steely lack of remorse. They probably wear hats too.

See?

Quote:
What me and Causal and HK and Signym and other folks are arguing is that taking this simplistic outlook into real life does not work.

Your's, however, is just fine?

It's also interesting that you all focus on the "waterboarded a little more" and skip right over the "listened in on one more call... or tracked just one more bank transaction...or gotten just one more phone record from a telecommunications company..."

Also note that most folk agree that waterboarding per se doesn't work. However, the idea that waterboarding is an option, combined with good psychological technique and normal, tried and true, non-physical interrogation methods, can work.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 31, 2007 5:20 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
It's also interesting that you all focus on the "waterboarded a little more" and skip right over the "listened in on one more call... or tracked just one more bank transaction...or gotten just one more phone record from a telecommunications company..."

Sure, do all that. BUT ONLY WITH A WARRANT.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 31, 2007 6:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Some evidence that we (as a society, not just some individuals) would support torturing innocent, helpless people would also be appreciated.
America loves Jack Bauer who I seem to recall using torture, murder, and blackmail (including simulating the murder of a fella's children) in order to get the information he needs.

Hmm. Now this makes me if HK is right about this: "Hero may be a wonderful man with a pitch-black sense of humor and a yen for play-acting." Hero, you couldn't prove my point from my above post better. Did you do that on purpose?

On the off chance that you were serious...

Jack Bauer isn't real. It's called fiction. The folks he tortures are not real either. They are all created by writers who want you to like Jack Bauer. They make sure you have reason to.

Recall Serenity the pilot, when Dobson clubbed Book that extra time. Listen to the commentary - Joss wrote that low blow in for us, the viewers. We needed to know that Dobson was bad, very bad. So we wouldn't blame Mal for shooting the guy. So we wouldn't dislike Mal. See how it works?

I suggest you put down the remote control, walk away from your computer, and go out in the real world. Meet some real people. Just hang out. In fact, if you're ever in Vermont, drop me a line. I'll buy you a beer. We'll talk sports or something.

Seriously.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 31, 2007 6:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
I’m not talking about what’s been done; I was replying to Hero's assertion that all ills would be diverted if only we "waterboarded a little more... listened in on one more call... or tracked just one more bank transaction...or gotten just one more phone record from a telecommunications company..."

Hero wants us to cast a very broad net, to go after every possible suspect and go after them hard, though he's given no compelling reason that it would actually work.
But Hero isn't "Amerian society". You're doing the same thing you accuse him of, transferring the opinions (or what you think are the opinions) of some folk to the whole society, and making the whole nation cardboard targets you have no compunction about shooting.

Thank goodness he's not American society LOL! But actually, what I'm arguing with is Hero's idea of what American society should be. I'm not transferring his opinion to anyone except those who agree with him that our best solution is to torture freely and give away our rights.

If his opinion isn't yours, I'm not referring to you. See how easy that is?

Quote:
Quote:
Some folks around here seem to live in some fantasy 24 world, like there’s a plotline written out nice and clean and all the bad guys are in one network. Obviously, they meet for tea twice a week and discuss all their upcoming terror plots. Oh - and they’re easily identifiable by their steely lack of remorse. They probably wear hats too.
See?

No. I don't. Really.

I'm talking to Hero. If you don't agree with him, just say so, and don't apply my argument to yourself. Again - easy!

Quote:
Quote:
What me and Causal and HK and Signym and other folks are arguing is that taking this simplistic outlook into real life does not work.
Your's, however, is just fine?

My outlook that I will not become that which I abhor? Yes. I think it's best to not assume I'm on a higher moral plane than everyone else, to not allow myself to step across moral lines that I won't allow others to cross. I think it's better to not think like a terrorist. Do you feel differently?

Quote:
It's also interesting that you all focus on the "waterboarded a little more" and skip right over the "listened in on one more call... or tracked just one more bank transaction...or gotten just one more phone record from a telecommunications company..."

Also note that most folk agree that waterboarding per se doesn't work. However, the idea that waterboarding is an option, combined with good psychological technique and normal, tried and true, non-physical interrogation methods, can work.

My post was long enough already, so I didn't go into the invasion of privacy issues. But I group it with torture in that it is a (much less extreme) case of stepping across our moral lines.

If we did all that Hero wants us to do (and I'm thinking of more than this thread - this isn't the first time the I've been alarmed by Hero's assumptions), we lose the things that make our country worth preserving. We become just like "them."

Come on Geezer. Instead of nit-picking, why don't you try to tell me how Hero's ideas are not actually the same as the extremists on the other side? Why? Does the fact that he feels remorse set him aside? Is it because he may have a Bible and not a Koran behind him? Or is it because he doesn't twirl his mustache? (I assume he doesn't...)

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 31, 2007 6:58 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
It's also interesting that you all focus on the "waterboarded a little more" and skip right over the "listened in on one more call... or tracked just one more bank transaction...or gotten just one more phone record from a telecommunications company..."
Sure, do all that. BUT ONLY WITH A WARRANT.

In most cases I'd agree. If you're going for evidence leading to charges and a trial, then of course. If you're attempting to stop an attack in progress, not so much. Also not sure how you could get a warrant for, say, NSA computers doing keyword, voiceprint and voice-stress analysis of all international phone calls.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 31, 2007 7:29 AM