450 posts IS a worse crime than wanting to kill us .

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Friday, May 22, 2009 14:59
VIEWED: 29576
PAGE 2 of 5

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

AGENTROUKA

Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:14 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Kind of a non-answer.
You’re asking me about details of the trade. I’m not an interrogator, so I don’t know how detailed I can explain the process. If you query me on the details of basket weaving you’ll get just as vague a response.

I'm not asking about what's used in the real world, I'm asking about the methods you are promoting, so it's only your opinion I'm interested in, which you should be an expert on. :)

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Are you saying that sleep-deprivation is a good kind of torture or are you saying torture them until they can't stand it anymore (which is silly because they could well start lying early and keep lying when they are echausted)?
Ah, so there is a distinction between interrogation and extracting confessions. The first, sleep-deprivation, would be a method of interrogation designed to weaken the will of the suspect. The later would be a means of extracting confessions designed to force the suspect to say what you want to hear.

That's not how I would draw the distinction.

You equare different goals with different methods. Confession = painful torture. Information = psychological torture.

You should have just said that you mean a difference in technique, because I don't think most people necessarily make that same assumption.

It's also an assumption that psychological torture like sleep deprivation is that much more reliable than pain-infliction, methinks. I do think you can get someone to confess a crime they didn't commit by depriving them of sleep long enough, and they could stil lie and lie and lie if you're asking them for particular information.

And it still doesn't answer what I'm really interested in: at what point and how to you verify what they tell you and how does it influence the torture process. If they tell you something, do you let them sleep and go verify? Or do g on? Do you torture them until it's verified? What if that takes a while?

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:16 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I disagree that they knew they would necessarily die. Why else were there all these "tests" to see if someone was actually a witch? The theory was that you'd withstand torture if you were innocent.

You mean like dunking a suspected witch under water and if they didn’t drown they were innocent? The tests were designed to kill you, and if they didn’t you were a convicted witch, and condemned to die.

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Okay, honestly. I'm not trying to be irritating, but I have not noticed you explaining the difference. Maybe I didn't catch it from your words.

So, I guess, in the interest of clarity I will request you to be so kind and restate in very specific terms the exact difference is between torturing for a confession and torturing for information. Please.

The difference lies in the intent. If your intent is to extract a confession then the most painful and damaging techniques will rending results, but if your intent is to find information, then it doesn’t do a lot of good to use those kinds of methods. The methods you want to use are those that result in mental exhaustion to break the will of the suspect. It would seem that inflicting injury, at the very least, would be counterproductive.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:22 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by thatweirdgirl:
There is an immediacy and fear of death that we're disconnecting on here. I don't feel torture coercion is appropriate in interrogation for even terrorists who threaten to bomb my hometown.

So you feel like if the actual act that you are trying to prevent is distant enough then the defense used to prevent it should be less. As the time to the attack grows closer and more immediate does your willingness to be more aggressive in defense become greater?

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SIGNYM

Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:25 PM (P)

Glad you clarified, Finn. Let me quote myself and see if you agree with what I said. If not let me know

Quote:
But as I gather from your statements- It all goes back to INTENT. "Interrogation" is anything that you do to break a person with the intent of getting the truth. That COULD include electric shock, or boiling oil, if in the eyes of the interrogator it was necessary or helpful. The one thing it COULDN'T include is death, because at that point no more information is available. (Unless of course the interrogator thought that all useful information had been extracted and simply didn't want the victim to go squealing to the press later.) Whereas "extracting a confession" is anything you can do to break a person with the INTENT of getting them to tell you what you want to hear!

So it has nothing to do with the "means"... which could include anything that the interrogator might think is useful ... and everything to do with the ends? What I gather from your statements is that you wouldn't rule out any technique on moral grounds but simply on whether a particular technique was effective in obtaining the truth?

I know that you try to draw a correlation between what is moral and what is effective, but that correlation simply doesn't hold up.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

ANTHONYT

Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:27 PM (P)

Hello Everyone,

First of all, I'd like to wag my finger at some of you. Finn and I were managing a productive exchange of ideas last night, and I woke up to see a lot of exchanged insults. I thought to myself, "God Damn, why can't these assholes just have a fucking discussion for a change?!" Which, of course, made me as guilty of name calling as everyone else.

Geezer and Auraptor,

You are astute and correct on one important item. I am more outraged about the US committing heinous acts than I am about our enemies doing so. I am much more critical of US morality than I am of the morality of other nations. I am unfair in my application of judgment to both parties.

I will tell you why torture and other crimes committed by Americans do bother me more than similar crimes committed by other countries and their citizens. It is because of my personal shame and guilt in this matter.

I selected, trained, equipped, and deployed the people who committed torture. I gave them orders to use whatever means were necessary to extract information. I stripped people of their dignity. I grinned next to miserable, naked souls. I corrupted the interrogated and the interrogator. I am guilty of these things.

I am a tax-paying citizen in a republic, and the buck stops here.

My own crimes against humanity will always weigh more heavily on me than the crimes and injustices of others. The American outrages will always feed my outrage to greater heights than the outrages of any other group or people.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

AGENTROUKA

Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:30 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I disagree that they knew they would necessarily die. Why else were there all these "tests" to see if someone was actually a witch? The theory was that you'd withstand torture if you were innocent.
You mean like dunking a suspected witch under water and if they didn’t drown they were innocent? The tests were designed to kill you, and if they didn’t you were a convicted witch, and condemned to die.

They didn't generally wait until they drowned. If they sunk, they were probably not witches and were mostly pulled out. If they swam on top, they were guilty and would be pulled out for further interrogation.

Quote:

The difference lies in the intent. If your intent is to extract a confession then the most painful and damaging techniques will rending results, but if your intent is to find information, then it doesn’t do a lot of good to use those kinds of methods. The methods you want to use are those that result in mental exhaustion to break the will of the suspect. It would seem that inflicting injury, at the very least, would be counterproductive.

Actually, the difference lies in the method, then.

So why not say that right away? And why waterboarding, then? That's painful and damaging, so obviously intent and method don't always match your theory.

But thank you for clarifying what you mean.

I still think that mental exhaustion methods don't make the actual information received more reliable. You receive information, but do you receive the truth? You can torture your suspect longer because they don't have as many medical issues, but does it really improve the quality of the result?

SIGNYM

Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:30 PM (P)

Quote:
First of all, I'd like to wag my finger at some of you.

Does that include me? I hope not! But if so, let me know where I've erred.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

GINOBIFFARONI

Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:43 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Does that it might save lives make it right ?

No. Nothing makes it right to torture someone for information.

However, the prospect of saving lives creates a legal condition known as "exigent circumstances".

Generally this is recognized situations where there is a reasonable belief that life, property, or evidence may be in jeopardy. If this is the case the State may use that as justification to violate a person's Constitutional rights (such as a warrant requirement for entry into a private residence).

"When police have a reasonable and sincere fear that someone is in jeopardy and contraband might be destroyed, this usually constitutes sufficient exigency to justify a simultaneous, no-refusal entry." See McConney, 728 F.2d at 1206; Whitney, 633 F.2d at 909-10.

The harm is still there, so the mere fact that the lives are on the line does not make it right...rather it mitigates the harm...in effect cancelling out the wrong (ie still not right, but no longer wrong).

In order to effectively judge the correctness of the Bush administration's decsion we need to know the basis of that decision (what they reasonably believed) and the results of the interrogation (terror plots uncovered and lives saved). To that end President Obama should have and should now declassify ALL the memos and records. Should any sort of prosecution be undertaken it is likely those additional memos will be declassified by the Court as they would be essential to the defense.

Frankly, it was irresponsible to declassify the torture memos...but the President chose to do it, now it is completely unreasonable to declassify those without the others to give us the "rest of the story".

Cheney says they stopped a 9/11 second wave attack and saved thousands of lives. If thats true, we deserve to know, if its not...we need to know that too.

Truth is Obama is now in a corner. He's stopped these interrogations, then released the memos, which led to us learning the interrogations were effective in stopping attacks. If we are attacked again then he's completely screwed, if he tries to reverse his policy and it comes out, he's completely screwed. He'd have been better off keeping the whole thing secret so he'd have a card to play should we capture a person with information we need when lives are on the line.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

So you are saying " intent " mitigates " the crime.

But could not the same argument be used in ANY torture case ? Sudan, Congo, Balkans, etc

With the precedents set by the Nuremberg trials as well as the US execution of Japanese interrogators for waterboarding Americans, or even more recently the court martial of US interrogators during the Vietnam war for waterboarding Vietnamese prisoners

While I am not a lawyer, your remarks here
" we need to know the basis of that decision (what they reasonably believed) and the results of the interrogation " leads to more questions

could you explain what happens to evidence developed by illegal search, we would definitely need more information here on all case even those where these methods were employed to no result, but if even one case doesn't support reasonable grounds that would bring to question the legality of the order and expose the interrogators and their chain of command to action. And if the use of these methods resulted in the death of the subject ?

Perhaps Obama should simply step sideways on the issue,

He should lift the US prohibitions on the International Criminal Court and allow the Hague to decide this issue. Then it is not a question of the success or failure of an Obama policy, but simply one of complying with international law.

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939

THATWEIRDGIRL

Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:55 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
So you feel like if the actual act that you are trying to prevent is distant enough then the defense used to prevent it should be less. As the time to the attack grows closer and more immediate does your willingness to be more aggressive in defense become greater?

Not really. In my mind, torture or extreme coercion or whatever we're calling it is not acceptable at any point. I expect tenacious and continuing investigations into the threat. I want people out there on the ground looking for evidence and clues and leads. I want people in the offices following the communication trail. I want the inside men to learn key info. I'm not going to give up when the interrogation returns little or no usable information. I'm also not going t resort to harm. I am going to keep looking and verifying.

The best defense may be a good offense but that doesn't apply in national security. We can't attack someone because they might hurt us. We can't torture someone because they might know something. We prepare. We learn. We build intelligence. Then we either stop the threat through legal(national and international law) means or defend ourselves. The best defense is preparedness.

---
Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night."
-- Charlie Brown
www.thatcostumegirl.com
www.thatweirdgirl.com

GINOBIFFARONI

Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:58 PM (P)

Torture, American style
The surprising force behind torture: democracies

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2007/12/16/torture_am
erican_style/?page=1

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939

KWICKO

Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:12 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Rappy:

...the Left is hoping and praying ( well, not literally, as they don't really buy into God™)...

Gee, I wasn't aware that YOU bought into the whole "god" fiasco either. But you seem perfectly content to try to belittle others who don't.

Curious.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

KWICKO

Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:25 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The difference is that coercive interrogation techniques are used with the intent of finding information. Witch trials and inquisitions were used with the intent of extracting confessing and then execution.

"Finding information"... regardless of whether it's actionable, reliable, or even truthful.

Seems waterboarding is used as much for "extracting confessing" as much as it is for anything else.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

KWICKO

Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:41 PM (P)

Quote:
Posted by Finn:

The life of the suspected witch or infidel was forfeit as soon as the trial started.

And the life of the suspected terrorist was forfeit as soon as the torture started. Maybe they aren't being killed by torture, maybe they aren't being executed - but they ARE still being held, with no charges, no trials, no representation, and no hope of ever getting out. Their lives are forfeit the second they're picked up. Don't pretend otherwise.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

KPO

Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:42 PM (P)

Quote:
More empty, gutless lies and rhetoric from the likes of you. It is patently absurd for anyone to believe that skin color, hair thickness , or any way one defines "race" can be shown to hold any level of superiority. Race is bullshit, and any moron who clings to such superficial guides to gauge another person is nothing but a simplistic , useful idiot. I get so damn tired of seeing the RACIST lie perpetuated by the so called enlightened Left.

Huh. Rap, I'm in the centre, and I get damn tired of both the RACIST lie used against the right and equally the HATE-AMERICA lie perpetuated by the right against the left...

Heads should roll

KWICKO

Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:42 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Then perhaps it’s something you need to think about for a while.

Predictably deflective.

The laughing Chrisisall

And further proof that, like AuRaptor, Finn has no answers.

KWICKO

Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:47 PM (P)

Quote:
Confessed by Finn:

I’m not an interrogator, so I don’t know how detailed I can explain the process. If you query me on the details of basket weaving you’ll get just as vague a response.

In other words, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about any more than the rest of us, whom you accuse of not knowing what we're talking about.

There - at least now we know how much weight to give your opinions, your imaginary scenarios that you suspect might have something to do with the possibility of lives being involved, one way or another... and the amount of weight we should give your opinions (since you haven't cited a single fact in all of this) is... NONE!

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 23, 2009 6:19 PM (P)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090422/ts_alt_afp/usattacksmilitaryjusti
cetortureblair_20090422192111

Quote:
"The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security,"- Retired admiral Dennis Blair

Okay, so THAT says that no 9-11 style terrorist attacks were foiled using torture.
That makes AU & Finn look like the bags of hot air they're acting like here.

The laughing Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Thursday, April 23, 2009 6:26 PM (P)

DRAT! Yes, I know... here I am with those terrible questions again! Using the "Gestapo" tactic of asking over and over again, with the intent at getting at the truth! But I'd still like some help Finn. 'Cause I'm not sure I'm getting your distinction. You said

Quote:
The difference lies in the intent.

You also said

Quote:
I suspect that there is a set of circumstances in which even the hardest of resolve will crack.

So maybe I'm taking things out of context, but one statement seems to imply that the only difference between interrogation and extracting a confession is intent, and the other statement seems to imply that there is no length to which you wouldn't imagine going during an interrogation. Now, somewhere in the middle you DID say that causing injury is more likely to cause shock than produce information but... that kind of issue can so easily be gotten around with the right medical help. And electric shock doesn't even cause injury. So IMHO a practical barrier to applying torture during interrogation doesn't exist. Let me quote myself, again, and see if I've got it right:

Quote:
"But as I gather from your statements- It all goes back to INTENT. "Interrogation" is anything that you do to break a person with the intent of getting the truth. That COULD include electric shock, or boiling oil, if in the eyes of the interrogator it was necessary or helpful. The one thing it COULDN'T include is death, because at that point no more information is available. (Unless of course the interrogator thought that all useful information had been extracted and simply didn't want the victim to go squealing to the press later.) Whereas "extracting a confession" is anything you can do to break a person with the INTENT of getting them to tell you what you want to hear!"

So it has nothing to do with the "means"... which could include anything that the interrogator might think is useful ... and everything to do with the ends? What I gather from your statements is that you wouldn't rule out any technique on moral grounds but simply on whether a particular technique was effective in obtaining the truth? I know that you try to draw a correlation between what is moral and what is effective, but that correlation simply doesn't hold up.

So is there a point which you would not go for moral reasons during an interrogation?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

KWICKO

Thursday, April 23, 2009 7:09 PM (P)

Quote:

DRAT! Yes, I know... here I am with those terrible questions again! Using the "Gestapo" tactic of asking over and over again, with the intent at getting at the truth!

Some might even say you're TORTURING him with these questions!

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

KWICKO

Thursday, April 23, 2009 7:10 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090422/ts_alt_afp/usattacksmilitaryjusti
cetortureblair_20090422192111
Quote:
"The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security,"- Retired admiral Dennis Blair

Okay, so THAT says that no 9-11 style terrorist attacks were foiled using torture.
That makes AU & Finn look like the bags of hot air they're acting like here.

The laughing Chrisisall

Not to mention how it makes Geezer and Hero look; they were the ones pointing to that article as their justification for why they want to torture folks!

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

SIGNYM

Thursday, April 23, 2009 8:08 PM (P)

Part of Gino's cite:

Quote:
So torture hasn't really disappeared in the modern age. What have disappeared are forms of torture that leave marks. The police, military investigators, and governments in democratic societies can count on the press and people watching. They know that if a prisoner can't show any marks of torture, people are far less likely to believe his or her story. So as societies have become more open, the art of torture has crept underground and evolved into the chilling new forms - often undetectable - that define torture today.

That include electric shock (widely used by the Gestapo), sleep deprivation, stress positions, hypothermia, waterboarding, and chemicals:
"substance P and neurokinin A must work in combination to account for pain"
www.ninds.nih.gov/news_and_events/press_releases/pressrelease_pain_pep
tides_032598.htm

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SIGNYM

Thursday, April 23, 2009 8:22 PM (P)

So, speaking of batsh*t crazy (sorry AnthonyT, I just gotta grind this in one more time. Then I'll stop, I promise) this is just a refresher about how this whole thread started. From our very own batsh*t crazy rightist!

Quote:
If there was any doubt that the Left is bat shit crazy, and cares purely for 1 thing and 1 thing only, there's no doubt any longer. The Left's ridiculous, phony and 100% fabricated indignation over non-torture torture is nothing more than a purely partisan, politically driven side show intended for one purpose only - to get more power by demonizing anyone who stands in their way. They don't CARE that Islamo fascists are going to try to kill 1000's more. That's what the Left wing leadership WANTS ! They want to cause crisis after crisis after crisis, and as Rahm Emanuel says, do what could not be done otherwise, w/regards to taking more and more power. From illegal immigration, to gay marriages, to terrorist attacks, the Left is hoping and praying ( well, not literally, as they don't really buy into God™ ) to create such chaos in this country, they'll have no other choice than to remake it in their socialist Utopian template.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, April 23, 2009 8:30 PM (P)

AgentR

Quote:
And where and how does verification come into this?

There's the rub, apparently, AgentR - from all I've been able to determine, it don't.

Which means despite all the outraged denials, the general purpose was indeed to extract "confessions", especially in light of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed "confessing" to acts we not only knew he didn't commit, but acts he could not HAVE comitted.

Muchlike american police, there's no investigation worthy of the name, they just pinch the guy they GUESS did it, and squeeze him till he "talks" - and as of late the innocence project and DNA evidence have shown without a doubt how completely worthless those kinds of under-duress "confessions" really are.

TWG

Quote:
Not really. In my mind, torture or extreme coercion or whatever we're calling it is not acceptable at any point. I expect tenacious and continuing investigations into the threat. I want people out there on the ground looking for evidence and clues and leads. I want people in the offices following the communication trail. I want the inside men to learn key info. I'm not going to give up when the interrogation returns little or no usable information. I'm also not going t resort to harm. I am going to keep looking and verifying.

The best defense may be a good offense but that doesn't apply in national security. We can't attack someone because they might hurt us. We can't torture someone because they might know something. We prepare. We learn. We build intelligence. Then we either stop the threat through legal(national and international law) means or defend ourselves. The best defense is preparedness.

That's how it's SUPPOSED to work, TWG - but they don't do it that way, in part because all their on-the-ground personnel are too busy *creating* terrorist plots (WTC 1993, Ft Dix Six, Etc) that they can get high profile media-circuses out of to justify their incompetent existance and hopefully score more funding and harrassing politically unreliable americans, while tapping THEIR phones.

They have jack shit for people who really understand the languages and culture they're dealing with since none will work for them given the obvious bent towards demonising that whole culture and people instead of those who twist it to excuse the harm they do - and as such have become so politicized and incompetent that they've been unable to effectively insert agents for YEARS because of the mindset of their personnel - can you really see someone like, say Rappy not blowing their cover ?

That's why I am so irate about it, that for all that money and their constant assault on our freedoms, these alphabet crooks as not only useless for their intended purpose, they're as much or more a threat to us and our way of life as the goddamned terrorists.

Kwicko

Quote:
In other words, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about any more than the rest of us, whom you accuse of not knowing what we're talking about.

Err, Mikey ?

I do claim some small knowledge of the subject, mind you, and while it's your choice whether to give that claim credence or not, bear it in mind when I say that aggressive interrogation of this type DOES NOT WORK.

And now imma drop the bomb on the bastards claiming it didn't happen.

"There were five cases of detainee deaths as a result of abuse by U.S. personnel during interrogations"

And where is this from, you ask ?

FINAL REPORT OF THE INDEP. PANEL TO REVIEW DOD DETENTION OPERATIONS
PAGE 13.

Read it for your fucking self.
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=7663

Sixty-six known cases of abuse.
One third known to be connected to interrogation.
Five deaths absolutely confirmed to have caused in this fashion.
Twenty some more under investigation.

And that was in 2004.

Yes, Virginia, we DO torture people to death.
And then we lie about it.

-Frem

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

KWICKO

Thursday, April 23, 2009 9:43 PM (P)

Originally posted by Kwicko:
I'll ask again, since you keep avoiding the issue in the other thread...

Quote:

Since you insist that waterboarding isn't torture unless it's done to someone in uniform, let me put a scenario to you:

Say the Iranians have tried and convicted a 30-year-old Iranian-American woman - an American citizen not serving in the military or the diplomatic corps - on charges of spying. Now, since she's clearly NOT a soldier, nor wearing the uniform of any recognized armed forces, then they are clearly within their rights to waterboard her, are they not? I mean, they can use whatever means necessary to "break" her, since she is, in essence, a "terrorist" - at least in their eyes, and according to their law.

So you're totally okay with them doing this, yes?

By the way, her name is Roxana Saberi. She was a former contestant in a Miss North Dakota beauty pageant, holds two masters degrees, and is a graduate of Northwestern, with a degree in journalism.

Iran has a golden opportunity here. They can use the exact same methods that the U.S. has used, and we can't say shit about it, OR they can gain international favor by NOT torturing this girl, and then they end up looking more civilized than we do. Either way, it doesn't work out too well for us...

By the way, your thread title is misleading. "Interrogating" those who want to kill us isn't a worse crime than them wanting to kill us. TORTURING those who want to kill us actually IS a worse crime than them wanting to kill us.

By the way, I'm not going away. Like it or not, you're going to have to face this question.

Is waterboarding acceptable when it's done to our people by people we don't like or agree with?

Finn says it's okay to do it to others if it will save lives. So I ask if it's okay for Iraqi insurgents to capture and "harshly interrogate" OUR soldiers if they think that it will save IRAQI lives to know what we're doing and what we're planning.

And is it okay for the Iranians to "harshly interrogate" an American journalist if she's been tried and convicted of syping?

I'll wait, but your continued refusal to address the issue really isn't helping your case.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 23, 2009 9:58 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
your continued refusal to address the issue really isn't helping your case.

He has no case, so much so that he can't even make something up so he can say you have no case.

The laughing Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Thursday, April 23, 2009 10:58 PM (P)

I can't just leave this SO CLOSE to an even 100 posts! (Call me Monk!)

---------------------------------
THERE! I feel better!

KWICKO

Thursday, April 23, 2009 11:07 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I can't just leave this SO CLOSE to an even 100 posts! (Call me Monk!)

---------------------------------
THERE! I feel better!

125 now.

Make that 126.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

KWICKO

Thursday, April 23, 2009 11:09 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
your continued refusal to address the issue really isn't helping your case.

He has no case, so much so that he can't even make something up so he can say you have no case.

The laughing Chrisisall

Chris: Ssssshhhh... I was humoring him, lulling him into thinking that he DOES have a case.

OPPYH

Friday, April 24, 2009 12:25 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
It is patently absurd for anyone to believe that skin color, hair thickness , or any way one defines "race" can be shown to hold any level of superiority. Race is bullshit, and any moron who clings to such superficial guides to gauge another person is nothing but a simplistic , useful idiot. I get so damn tired of seeing the RACIST lie perpetuated by the so called enlightened Left.

Race is bullshit. There is a common ground for every ethnic type to co-exist peacefully...fruitfully. Sadly, everyone is fighting like Hell to perpetuate the "superior race" card.

We can't take one step into the future until we realize that we are all equal.

SIGNYM

Friday, April 24, 2009 1:34 AM (P)

Damnit. 129.

Now it's 130!

BTW- Rappy? Finn? Geezer?

Helloooooo.....?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

KWICKO

Friday, April 24, 2009 1:35 AM (P)

131 bump!

CHRISISALL

Friday, April 24, 2009 1:42 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:

We can't take one step into the future until we realize that we are all equal.

The steps can be taken, IMO, just, like, awkwardly.
But I agree in spirit.

The laughing Chrisisall

KWICKO

Friday, April 24, 2009 1:45 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:

We can't take one step into the future until we realize that we are all equal.
The steps can be taken, IMO, just, like, awkwardly.
But I agree in spirit.

The laughing Chrisisall

Yup. Hopefully every generation gets a little better.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

CHRISISALL

Friday, April 24, 2009 1:49 AM (P)

It *seems* to be that way, if you look at stats. We may yet develop a Starfleet & Federation Of Planets....

The laughing Chrisisall

GEEZER

Friday, April 24, 2009 2:25 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Oh, well, that certainly proves it; someone SAID it. That's good enough for me!

So "President Obama’s national intelligence director" would lie about it?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Friday, April 24, 2009 2:42 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer- We tortured someone so we could learn about al Qaida's chain of command???? (A chain which morphs as circumstances require.)

Hey, One of President Obama's guys said the intelligence was useful, not me.

Quote:
AFA decrying killing- I'm pissed off as all hell about the Somali government. In fact, there are a LOT of leaders I think should be locked up and the key thrown away, and in my more base moments I imagine strung up by their balls.

But that would be torture!!!!

Quote:
But, to be perfectly honest: We are here to persuade or dissuade each other- a primarily American audience with an American government. There's nothing we can do to the Somali government or for the Somali people, especially when aid is hijacked and aid-workers are held for ransom. Anything we do, we do through our government. That's why the focus is on what OUR GOVERNMENT does.

Fine. But our government is no longer subjecting prisoners to (take your pick) "harsh interrogation" or "torture". People are still dying in Darfur, in Iraq, in any number of places. I'd much rather see our government extending whatever power they have, especially with a president as internationally popular as Obama is, to do something about the hundreds of thousands of people who are still suffering and dying, rather than rehashing unpleasant, but not deadly, interrogation procedures used in the past.

Bush and Cheney aren't going to interrogate anyone else, ever again. Terrorists and rogue governments are still killing a lot of people. Which is more important?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Friday, April 24, 2009 2:55 AM (P)

Geezer, do you believe in punishment as a deterrent to further crime?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

THATWEIRDGIRL

Friday, April 24, 2009 3:14 AM (P)

Remember when I said to the detriment of the interrogator's mental health?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/us-soldier-killed-herself_
b_190517.html

---
Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night."
-- Charlie Brown
www.thatcostumegirl.com
www.thatweirdgirl.com

ANTHONYT

Friday, April 24, 2009 3:49 AM (P)

"Hey, One of President Obama's guys said the intelligence was useful, not me."

Hello,

That something can produce results is not the same as saying that something is good or efficient or best.

Given enough men and enough time, I could dig the Panama canal with spoons.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

KWICKO

Friday, April 24, 2009 11:39 AM (P)

Quote:

Hey, One of President Obama's guys said the intelligence was useful, not me.

I note how you conveniently leave out the part about it not helping national security. He said that, too, but you are quick to dismiss the parts you disagree with. Ironic that you'd try to call someone else for doing exactly what you've done.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

KWICKO

Friday, April 24, 2009 11:42 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, do you believe in punishment as a deterrent to further crime?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

Good question.

So how 'bout it, Geez? Are you against punishing criminals for their actions in ALL cases, or only in cases where said criminal is a Republican?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, April 24, 2009 2:02 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Everyone,

First of all, I'd like to wag my finger at some of you. Finn and I were managing a productive exchange of ideas last night, and I woke up to see a lot of exchanged insults. I thought to myself, "God Damn, why can't these assholes just have a fucking discussion for a change?!" Which, of course, made me as guilty of name calling as everyone else.

I appreciate the opportunity to have a real discussion on the issue. And there are many others were tried to participate, for which I am grateful, but sometimes it’s just impossible with the likes of kwicko’s trolling and signym Gestapo debating tactics.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

AGENTROUKA

Friday, April 24, 2009 2:04 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
AgentR
Quote:
And where and how does verification come into this?

There's the rub, apparently, AgentR - from all I've been able to determine, it don't.

I find it very telling and very disconcerting that you took the time to say this, but none of the torture-advocates have taken the time to refute it or answer my question.

It's not that I don't suspect you're right.. I'm just confused that they're not even making an effort.

SIGNYM

Friday, April 24, 2009 2:17 PM (P)

Quote:
Signym Gestapo debating tactics.

If I were the only one asking for clarification, then I'd think I might be stupid or something. But I'm not the only one, so the problem must be at your end. I've asked several questions which I think get to the heart of where I don't understand you. One of my questions was:

Is there any length to which you would not go for MORAL purposes during an interrogation?

Why do you have such difficulty with this question? It seems a simple yes or no would suffice, along with perhaps an explanation as to why or why not, or a reason for why you might stop at one point but not another. Or, you could tell me that the question was misdirected, that your REAL rationale was more along the lines of cost/benefit: that it would take a combination of circumstances in which you would be willing to go to ANY length during an interrogation... a direct chain of evidence of imminent destruction leading to the exact person being interrogated (much like in "24"). I would imagine that this could be the basis for a very fruitful discussion.

But you seem to have great difficulty answering what seem to me to be rather simple questions, which makes me wonder if you really want to be understood at all.

---------------------------------
They pit us like dogs against each other and rake it in. And I'll bet they laugh when they hear dupes like you defend the system that fucks you over and rewards them so nicely! But the one thing they'll stamp out in horror as if it were the spark of conflagration is any whiff of socialism. That should tell you something.

SIGNYM

Friday, April 24, 2009 5:28 PM (P)

Been biting my toungue with you, Finn. Still not care to step forward? I promise not to bite anything- except my tongue of course!

---------------------------------
They pit us like dogs against each other and rake it in. And I'll bet they laugh when they hear dupes like you defend the system that fucks you over and rewards them so nicely! But the one thing they'll stamp out in horror as if it were the spark of conflagration is any whiff of socialism. That should tell you something.

CHRISISALL

Friday, April 24, 2009 5:34 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
If I were the only one asking for clarification, then I'd think I might be stupid or something. But I'm not the only one

He does have a knack for thinking he's clarified himself when he hasn't, at times.

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Friday, April 24, 2009 5:36 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

So "President Obama’s national intelligence director" would lie about it?

If he felt it was important to, yes, they all do. More likely he just wants to be perceived as knowing what he's talking about, which, of course, most peeps in that position do not.

The laughing Chrisisall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, April 24, 2009 7:53 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Signym Gestapo debating tactics.
If I were the only one asking for clarification, then I'd think I might be stupid or something. But I'm not the only one, so the problem must be at your end. I've asked several questions which I think get to the heart of where I don't understand you. One of my questions was:

Those people who asked for clarification and generally wanted my response received it. I don’t think you can make a very convincing case that you really wanted any clarification. What you wanted was to bully and dehumanize people you don’t agree with, hense the Gestapo Debating tactic. As I told you before, you use manipulative questions, not to find understanding but to attempt to trap and corner people. Then you assign the most egregious and despicable opinion you can come up with to that person and then demand them to defend themselves.

Let’s take a look at that, shall we?

Signym Gestapo restating of my opinion:

“Basically Finn, you're willing to "crack" people, and in the context that you expressed... by any mean necessary. Boiling oil, if need be. Electric shock. Pulling fingernails. Right? As long as doctors are there to control the infection, revive if necessary, keep the person alive and available for further questioning. Because it's all about "effective interrogation", right?”

(1) “by any mean(sic) necessary” I never said or implied this at any point. So why accuse me of it?

(2) Boiling Oil? The only time I mentioned boiling oil was to distinguish what I was talking about from the kind of barbaric measures taken during the Middle Ages? So you’d have to be stupid or intentionally misrepresenting me to say this is what I meant.

(3) Electric Shock, pulling fingernails. In fact what I did say was to limit interrogation to practices that do not result in injury to the suspect. So once again, you have to be intentionally misrepresenting me to accuse me of this.

(4) Reviving the suspect following Signym idea of torture? This is really sick. Something that could only come from very twisted mind. But this is all Signym. There is no comment I’ve ever made, probably in my life, much less in this thread that could even be misconstrued as meaning this. Yet Signym came up with it, all by herself, and accused me of it.

Now Signym is going to cry crocodile tears because I won’t respond, but why should I defend myself from accusations of statements I clearly never made. Signym wants to dehumanize and demonize people she doesn’t agree with, in much the same way that the Gestapo in Nazi Germany dehumanized and demonized people they didn’t agree with. Signym is welcome to her hatreds, but I’m not going to validate this kind of crap.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, April 24, 2009 8:14 PM (P)

AgentR ?

I find it very telling that none of em even addresses my arguments despite the fact that I know something about this kinda thing and happened to provide hard evidence of our own admissions we did in fact torture folks to death.

They just go on arguing with everyone else in the thread and dance around ever having to own up to the facts of the matter - which is rather typical when authoritarian types run up against something that refutes their entire worldview.

It's like it don't even exist, because they cannot fit it into the artificial reality they have constructed for themselves.

-Frem

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

KWICKO

Friday, April 24, 2009 8:15 PM (P)

Quote:
appreciate the opportunity to have a real discussion on the issue. And there are many others were tried to participate, for which I am grateful, but sometimes it’s just impossible with the likes of kwicko’s trolling and signym Gestapo debating tactics.

Finn, if you want to have a REAL discussion on the issue, why don't you answer the question I posed to Rappy? Seems both of you are too cowardly to address that thorny issue, the way you've both run away from it at light speed.

You say it's "trolling", but it's a real possibility that we'll have to face that exact scenario.

Go back to your own trolling.

As for Signy's "gestapo tactics" - you act like you're being tortured or something, the way you cry about it. What's the matter, you can't handle a little light questioning about your "beliefs"?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

HERO

Friday, April 24, 2009 8:18 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, to specifically address rappys' point: You're setting the bar very low if the only thing you can claim is that we're "not as bad as them."

Actually...thats kinda where the bar needs to be. Torturing a terrorist for information is NOT as bad as causing or attempting to cause the death of innocent people.

Seems our options include being better then they are...or being worse with death as the deciding factor. If avoiding death requires torture...we torture and are still better then them. The day may come when we have to be worse then them...and we all know that we can be worse then them very easily. We have vast fields and storehouses of 'worse' we could unleash at a moments notice but for our compassion and mercy.

A little water and discomfort is a mild price to pay for the continued existance of an entire people. If we were them...they would cease to exist in the fire of American fury. But we're not them...so instead the get water and mercy. Such is life.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, April 24, 2009 8:25 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Finn, if you want to have a REAL discussion on the issue, why don't you answer the question I posed to Rappy?

First of all, you weren’t talking to me. Secondly, you’ve not made a post to me that wasn't trolling, which has been your reputation lately. Would you like to deflect that argument to my spelling again? You’ve already demonstrated to me how little your interested in discussion, so you shouldn’t be surprised if people seek out other members of the board when they're interested in discussion.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CHRISISALL

Friday, April 24, 2009 8:36 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

A little water and discomfort is a mild price to pay for the continued existance of an entire people.

So what are you saying here, that we saved the Human race because of waterboarding...?

I don't know, it seems unlikely.

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Friday, April 24, 2009 8:39 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
the way you cry about it

AU has been mean to me, btw. Can I get a hug?

The adolescent Chrisisall

KWICKO

Friday, April 24, 2009 8:42 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Finn, if you want to have a REAL discussion on the issue, why don't you answer the question I posed to Rappy?
First of all, you weren’t talking to me. Secondly, you’ve not made a post to me that wasn't trolling, which has been your reputation lately. Would you like to deflect that argument to my spelling again? You’ve already demonstrated to me how little your interested in discussion, so you shouldn’t be surprised if people seek out other members of the board when they're interested in discussion.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

So now you're trolling me then, eh? What in this post of yours is NOT trollish?

BTW, you misused "your" when you probably meant "you're". Hey, you asked...

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, April 24, 2009 8:46 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So now you're trolling me then, eh? What in this post of yours is NOT trollish?

BTW, you misused "your" when you probably meant "you're". Hey, you asked...

And now you know why I'm not interested, next time don't act so disappointed.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CHRISISALL

Friday, April 24, 2009 8:53 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

BTW, you misused "your" when you probably meant "you're".

You just couldn't resist...

The laughing Chrisisall

KWICKO

Friday, April 24, 2009 9:24 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So now you're trolling me then, eh? What in this post of yours is NOT trollish?

BTW, you misused "your" when you probably meant "you're". Hey, you asked...
And now you know why I'm not interested, next time don't act so disappointed.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

Well, now I know that you're a troll, but I already knew that. And now I know that you're a coward, but I knew that already, too. And now I know that you're an idiot, but again that's nothing I didn't already know.

So I've learned nothing knew from this "discussion" with you. Guess that's proof that you are indeed a troll! Thanks for proving me right, yet again.

KWICKO

Friday, April 24, 2009 9:27 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

BTW, you misused "your" when you probably meant "you're".
You just couldn't resist...

The laughing Chrisisall

Nope, I really couldn't.

He just makes it too easy.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

SIGNYM

Friday, April 24, 2009 9:51 PM (P)

Finn, you said several things which I needed clarified. I specifically quoted them and you have not addressed them.

You said:
"I suspect that there is a set of circumstances in which even the hardest of resolve will crack."

I asked:
"Basically Finn, you're willing to "crack" people, and in the context that you expressed... by any mean necessary. Boiling oil, if need be. Right?... Where do YOU draw the line?"

Apparently you weren't very clear because AgentR asked the same question:
"And what are those circumstances?"

You replied indirectly: "Coercion is most effective when it is used to cause exhaustion, I suspect." but also followed it with "It seems to me that inflicting injury is more likely to result in shock then diminished resolve. I think I've been pretty clear in drawing a line between extracting confessions and interrogation."

Then you said that the difference was a matter of "intent". The implication of all of that is proper intent (intent to get the truth) will lead to proper action (no injury) because of PRACTICAL limitations.

However, those practical limitations seem to me to be very porous. I can think of all kinds of ways in which a person will not necessarily be injured, or can be revived (which, BTW they do during waterboarding)... no matter WHAT the "intent" of the interrogator.

So I feel that my question STILL really hasn't been answered. You talk about intent, and practical limitations (which IMHO don't exist), and circumstances which will crack to most hardened resolve, and non-injurious techniques (which BTW can include electric shock and sleep depreviation) and I'm STILL left with the same question, which I believe is a fair one: IS THERE A LIMIT BEYOND WHICH YOU WILL NOT GO, FOR MORAL REASONS?

And the answer is: I still don't know, and I don't think anybody does.

---------------------------------
They pit us like dogs against each other and rake it in. And I'll bet they laugh when they hear dupes like you defend the system that fucks you over and rewards them so nicely! But the one thing they'll stamp out in horror as if it were the spark of conflagration is any whiff of socialism. That should tell you something.

KWICKO

Friday, April 24, 2009 10:36 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
AgentR ?

I find it very telling that none of em even addresses my arguments despite the fact that I know something about this kinda thing and happened to provide hard evidence of our own admissions we did in fact torture folks to death.

They just go on arguing with everyone else in the thread and dance around ever having to own up to the facts of the matter - which is rather typical when authoritarian types run up against something that refutes their entire worldview.

It's like it don't even exist, because they cannot fit it into the artificial reality they have constructed for themselves.

-Frem

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

Frem, I think Finn is afraid you're going to dehumanize and demonize him because he's in favor of dehumanizing and demonizing others, which he considers "Gestapo tactics" when someone other than him or the intel goons are doing it...

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

SIGNYM

Friday, April 24, 2009 10:38 PM (P)

FINN: I have probably asked provocatively and possibly even unfairly. I was taking your statements and extrapolating them to various circustances to see what stuck. It's a time-honored logical technique... What if in THIS case? what about THAT? But if it helps, I'll ask differently... without attempting to extrapolate your wording to other contexts. But IMHO you still haven't answered the essential question, and I'm wondering if you ever will.

So, without any extraolation on my part: What are the circumstances that you can imagine which will crack the most hardened resolve? Are you willing to use them in the context of interrogations? Assuming that such issues as shock and injury can be gotten around, what limitations would YOU put on interrogations, and why?

---------------------------------
They pit us like dogs against each other and rake it in. And I'll bet they laugh when they hear dupes like you defend the system that fucks you over and rewards them so nicely! But the one thing they'll stamp out in horror as if it were the spark of conflagration is any whiff of socialism. That should tell you something.

SIGNYM

Friday, April 24, 2009 10:44 PM (P)

And BTW, our torture went beyond interrogation to include EXTRACTING CONFESSIONS, according to some:

Quote:
Landay also quoted a former intelligence official, who said, "There were two reasons why these interrogations were so persistent, and why extreme methods were used."

"The main one is that everyone was worried about some kind of follow-up attack (after 9/11). But for most of 2002 and into 2003, Cheney and Rumsfeld, especially, were also demanding proof of the links between al Qaida and Iraq that (former Iraqi exile leader Ahmed) Chalabi and others had told them were there."

According to security sources, that is why the two detainees were waterboarded an total of 266 times. The techniques sought and authorized by the Bush adminstration were those used by the Chinese Communists during the Korean War to EXTRACT FALSE CONFESSIONS.
---------------------------------
They pit us like dogs against each other and rake it in. And I'll bet they laugh when they hear dupes like you defend the system that fucks you over and rewards them so nicely! But the one thing they'll stamp out in horror as if it were the spark of conflagration is any whiff of socialism. That should tell you something.

AGENTROUKA

Friday, April 24, 2009 11:23 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

A little water and discomfort is a mild price to pay for the continued existance of an entire people. If we were them...they would cease to exist in the fire of American fury. But we're not them...so instead the get water and mercy. Such is life.

H

A little water and discomfort.

WHY would they confess anything over "a little water and discomfort"? Fear of death, physical panic and extreme exhaustion are not "discomfort". It may not leave marks, but it's torture, alright, and shouldn't be pretended to be better than other forms of torture.

To me "We torture them but we don't dismember them"... doesn't deserve the term mercy.

And you're equating an entire people with a network of terrorists. Basing your moral highground on a hypothesis of how they would be worse than what you're proposing. That's kind of sad, as value systems go. If all it takes is being just slightly better than a network of terrorists.. well, why on earth did folks ever bother with those human rights they drafted up some 200 years ago? Fools.

SIGNYM

Friday, April 24, 2009 11:35 PM (P)

FINN

"So, without any extrapolation on my part: What are the circumstances that you can imagine which will crack the most hardened resolve? Are you willing to use them in the context of interrogations? Assuming that such issues as shock and injury can be gotten around, what limitations would YOU put on interrogations, and why?"

---------------------------------
They pit us like dogs against each other and rake it in. And I'll bet they laugh when they hear dupes like you defend the system that fucks you over and rewards them so nicely! But the one thing they'll stamp out in horror as if it were the spark of conflagration is any whiff of socialism. That should tell you something.

SIGNYM

Saturday, April 25, 2009 12:00 AM (P)

Finn, if you won't speak for yourself people will naturally wonder why. And they will infer all kinds of thoughts and motivations to you that might not belong.

---------------------------------
They pit us like dogs against each other and rake it in. And I'll bet they laugh when they hear dupes like you defend the system that fucks you over and rewards them so nicely! But the one thing they'll stamp out in horror as if it were the spark of conflagration is any whiff of socialism. That should tell you something.

RUE

Saturday, April 25, 2009 1:20 AM (P)

Apparently, torture is friggin' hilarious to media conservatives

For most rational human beings, even the notion of torture is bone-chilling. Media conservatives, on the other hand, apparently find it hilarious. Following President Obama's release of four previously classified Justice Department memos that had authorized the use of harsh interrogation techniques on detainees -- including "stress positions," "cramped confinement," "sleep deprivation," and "the waterboard" -- numerous conservatives in the media have downplayed, mocked, and jeered the notion that those practices constitute torture. Hard to believe? Here are just a few of the many examples:

Conservative leader and radio host Rush Limbaugh asserted, "If you look at what we are calling torture, you have to laugh," said that "if somebody can be water-tortured six times a day, then it isn't torture," and claimed that "appeasers" have "water[ed] down" definition of torture like "NOW gang" did with definition of domestic violence.

Radio host G. Gordon Liddy compared the proposed technique of placing a detainee who "appears to have a fear of insects" in "a cramped confinement box with an insect" to his appearance on a game show, stating, "I went through worse on Fear Factor."

Fox News contributor Mike Huckabee mocked the same technique: "Look, I've been in some hotels where there were more bugs than these guys faced." Huckabee went on to state that under the Obama administration, "We're going to talk to them, we're going to have a nice conversation, we're going to invite them down for some tea and crumpets."

Fox & Friends co-host Gretchen Carlson replied, "That usually works with your kids, too, right? When they're in trouble for something, they just tell you everything."

To which her co-host Steve Doocy joked, "Mr. Moussaoui, it's time for you over in the time-out chair."

To buttress his support of torture, Fox News' resident conspiracy-theorist-in-chief Glenn Beck aired a clip from Fox's 24.

When they weren't bowled over with laughter, many media conservatives were serving up the dubious claim that harsh interrogation techniques used on Khalid Shaikh Mohammed "stopped an attack on the Library Tower in Los Angeles." The claim conflicts with the chronology of events put forth on multiple occasions by the Bush administration. Indeed, the Bush administration said that the Library Tower attack was thwarted in February 2002 -- more than a year before Mohammed was captured in March 2003. Facts be damned, Fox News and others pressed forward with the story repeatedly. (But missed the bigger story that time travel had been perfected.) Typifying the use of this story, Sean Hannity claimed this week that enhanced interrogation techniques "saved an American city, Los Angeles."

The hysterical nature of coverage surrounding the torture issue by conservatives didn't reach everyone in the media. This week, Fox News' Shepard Smith stood out among his colleagues at the conservative news network when he said of torture, "We are staring into an abyss and it's staring back at us, and we don't do it. We are America."

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

KWICKO

Saturday, April 25, 2009 1:58 AM (P)

Quote:
Facts be damned, Fox News and others pressed forward with the story repeatedly.

I believe this is the story that some posters here have been trying to foist off as genuine, also. This is apparently the attack that Hero is convinced was going to end us as a nation and a people, for which he's heartily glad that we tortured people - er, I mean we subjected them to a little moisture and discomfort.

Because THEY get off on torture, murder, and sadism, they project those same sicknesses on us, accusing us of wanting America to be attacked, of wanting thousands of Americans killed. When they're rounded up and tortured for being right-wing extremists, I won't cheer and I won't laugh. I also won't be terribly surprised.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

SIGNYM

Saturday, April 25, 2009 10:43 AM (P)

People are mesmerized by the "ticking time bomb" scenario... a scenario which has never occurred. And how do I know that???? Because the previous administration has NEVER claimed that torture "saved lives". Never. And if it had, they would be trumpeting that info from the rooftops.

OTOH, we have a real expert telling us that torture DOESN'T WORK. Not Scarborough, and Hannity, and Limbaugh and the rest of the clueless ideology-addled bullshit artists, but an ex CIA officer Robert Baer of the middle East, one who has overseen many torture sessions and has himself been tortured (by Iran, fingernail-pulling and all.) What he says, unequivocally, is that the only thing that you get out of torture is whatever the victim thinks you want to hear.

and if HIS bona-fides aren't hard-core enough, the Israeli Mossad has also given up on torture. Why? Because it's too unreliable. Too hard, actually, to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Apparently, in REAL-LIFE, the "24" scenario just doesn't exist. That's why when people say they can imagine scenarios about how torture MIGHT work (the same as how Saddam MIGHT have active WMD production, even as his nation was being intrusively probed by the CIA and others) it's all pretty much mental masturbation.

---------------------------------
They pit us like dogs against each other and rake it in. And I'll bet they laugh when they hear dupes like you defend the system that fucks you over and rewards them so nicely! But the one thing they'll stamp out in horror as if it were the spark of conflagration is any whiff of socialism. That should tell you something.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, April 25, 2009 2:08 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn, if you won't speak for yourself people will naturally wonder why. And they will infer all kinds of thoughts and motivations to you that might not belong.

Really? You’re really threatening me with accusing me of saying or meaning things I didn’t say and couldn't possibly have meant? After spending the entire thread doing just that to everything I did say? Really. Really?

As it turns out Signym I had a swing dance last night and I’m hosting a swing workshop today as well as a dance tonight. On Sunday I’ll be doing the same thing. I don’t know when I’ll have time to get back to this. Next time, if you actually care that much, try disposing the Gestapo tactic earlier, like before I have to call you on it would be nice.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, April 25, 2009 4:44 PM (P)

Quote:
I won't cheer and I won't laugh. I also won't be terribly surprised.

I will, but quietly, as I prepare a shank for the other end of the political spectrum to slam in their spine while they're busy waterboarding the same assholes who lowered the bar and enabled it.

Neither political "side" wants to end the abuses, really - all they are truly concerned about is whos hand holds the leash of the monstrous and untrustworthy alphabet soup goons that commit them.

The only thing *I* am thinkin when I look at either end of that leash today, is why Old Yeller had to die.

Satsujin no Ken - Katsujin no Ken
The Sword that Takes Life, the Sword that Gives Life
http://www.vachss.com/guest_dispatches/ellis_amdur.html
"Am I a moral failure in that I did not kill him?"

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

HKCAVALIER

Saturday, April 25, 2009 6:56 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Conservative leader and radio host Rush Limbaugh asserted, "If you look at what we are calling torture, you have to laugh," said that "if somebody can be water-tortured six times a day, then it isn't torture," and claimed that "appeasers" have "water[ed] down" definition of torture like "NOW gang" did with definition of domestic violence.

Radio host G. Gordon Liddy compared the proposed technique of placing a detainee who "appears to have a fear of insects" in "a cramped confinement box with an insect" to his appearance on a game show, stating, "I went through worse on Fear Factor."

Fox News contributor Mike Huckabee mocked the same technique: "Look, I've been in some hotels where there were more bugs than these guys faced." Huckabee went on to state that under the Obama administration, "We're going to talk to them, we're going to have a nice conversation, we're going to invite them down for some tea and crumpets."

Fox & Friends co-host Gretchen Carlson replied, "That usually works with your kids, too, right? When they're in trouble for something, they just tell you everything."

To which her co-host Steve Doocy joked, "Mr. Moussaoui, it's time for you over in the time-out chair."

To buttress his support of torture, Fox News' resident conspiracy-theorist-in-chief Glenn Beck aired a clip from Fox's 24.

When they weren't bowled over with laughter, many media conservatives were serving up the dubious claim that harsh interrogation techniques used on Khalid Shaikh Mohammed "stopped an attack on the Library Tower in Los Angeles." The claim conflicts with the chronology of events put forth on multiple occasions by the Bush administration. Indeed, the Bush administration said that the Library Tower attack was thwarted in February 2002 -- more than a year before Mohammed was captured in March 2003. Facts be damned, Fox News and others pressed forward with the story repeatedly. (But missed the bigger story that time travel had been perfected.) Typifying the use of this story, Sean Hannity claimed this week that enhanced interrogation techniques "saved an American city, Los Angeles."

The utter absurdity of their position takes my breath away. If the torture we've put these people through is so laughably mild HOW THE HELL IS IT SUPPOSED TO FORCE A CONFESSION OUT OF ANYONE? 'Cause, y'know, that was the point, supposedly--to get the detainees to crack. The word hypocrisy seems too weak to cover their utter contempt for reason to further their agenda. I've no doubt that if the shoe were on the other foot, and the Libs were defending torture, the Cons would be making a huge stink about what a waste of taxpayer money these woosy-torture programs are!

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.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, April 25, 2009 7:08 PM (P)

I see we have control freaks, dare I say AUTHORITARIANS here who want to play 'change the thread title ' because they simply can't have others who disagree with them.

Classic.

The Left will demonize anyone, any position they can think of, no matter what it is, just to sway public opinion and get more and more political power. The Left, more than any other, is PARTY FIRST, America SUCKS.

Its the tactic of picking the ' low hanging fruit'. Gen up a phony issue, like accusing the Bush admin of TORTURE, where there is no torture, and then let the chaos ensue. Meanwhile, .....

ANTHONYT

Saturday, April 25, 2009 7:18 PM (P)

Hello,

Auraptor, If I was forced to feel that I was drowning, I'm confident I would feel tortured. This is not a political statement.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

AURAPTOR

Saturday, April 25, 2009 7:49 PM (P)

A -

And some might say that being locked in a cell and confined is torture to. Just where does the line get drawn ? These folks are NOT kidding around here, they actually want to , plan and carry out acts of pure terrorism, and I think it's rather important that we stop them from succeeding. I'm not condoning " at any cost ", per se, but we must to acknowledge that sometimes it takes a combination of methods to get these guys to talk.

As I understand 3 were waterboarded, and that practice stopped back in '05. What the Libs are bitching and whining about was abandoned over 4 YEARS ago. And it worked, too. I fail to see where there is ANY legitimate issue here.

CHRISISALL

Saturday, April 25, 2009 7:53 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

The Left will demonize anyone

You know, for a long time now, every time you go on about "the Left...", I hear it in that voice of the guy from Temple Of Doom- you know the one- "..it seems THE BRITISH blah blah blah..." LOL.

The laughing Chrisisall

ANTHONYT

Saturday, April 25, 2009 7:56 PM (P)

Hello,

I am glad the acts of torture we committed are being discussed. 4 years ago is as near as 4 years from now, and if we don't settle the issue on the past, we'll be seeing it again in the future.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

AURAPTOR

Saturday, April 25, 2009 8:13 PM (P)

But discussing torture when there isn't torture.....

what are we talking about again ?

Quote:

You know, for a long time now, every time you go on about "the Left...", I hear it in that voice of the guy from Temple Of Doom- you know the one- "..it seems THE BRITISH blah blah blah..." LOL.

You'd prefer I say 'Freedom hating, commie pinko, pansy assed America hater ' ? I know, means the same thing, but ' Lib ' is so much more concise.

Figures you'd quote Temple of Doom. That's only the 2nd worst Indy film, thanks to the lastest piece of Go Se.

KWICKO

Saturday, April 25, 2009 8:47 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The Left will demonize anyone, any position they can think of, no matter what it is, just to sway public opinion and get more and more political power. The Left, more than any other, is PARTY FIRST, America SUCKS.

And on the other side, we have the right, who spent the last eight years shouting (in unison) "We are NOT fascists!" - and who now come down firmly in favor of torture. If there was ever any doubt that right-wingers are indeed fascists, one only has to listen to them endorse and champion torture to be convinced of their true nature. Hold a man over the volcano, and you'll see the real man - the one being held, and the one holding him over that volcano.

Quote:
Its the tactic of picking the ' low hanging fruit'. Gen up a phony issue, like accusing the Bush admin of TORTURE, where there is no torture, and then let the chaos ensue. Meanwhile, .....
\

You mean a phony issue like flag-burning, gay marriage,
"freedom fries", or faux phoned-in patriotism? Those kinds of phony issues?

Meanwhile, that "low-hanging fruit" you refer to... do you prefer to hang them by their thumbs, or by their balls?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

KWICKO

Saturday, April 25, 2009 8:50 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

The Left will demonize anyone
You know, for a long time now, every time you go on about "the Left...", I hear it in that voice of the guy from Temple Of Doom- you know the one- "..it seems THE BRITISH blah blah blah..." LOL.

The laughing Chrisisall

Funny... I hear it in the voice of Gabby Johnson from "Blazing Saddles".

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

ANTHONYT

Saturday, April 25, 2009 8:53 PM (P)

"But discussing torture when there isn't torture..... what are we talking about again ?"

Hello,

I think there would have been more intense scrutiny of the event years ago when it happened, had we had the full details of the event at that time.

The fullness of time has been needed to reveal the fullness of actions taken, and so it is now, in the fullness of time, that this is being discussed.

Even now, Cheney is encouraging the declassification of additional torture documents, which will help broaden knowledge for this critical discussion.

This is the very hour, Auraptor. This is the time when it is best discussed, because this is the time when we can best discuss it, facts of the issue exposed.

And by discussing it now, we can set policy forever more.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

HERO

Tuesday, April 28, 2009 12:19 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
So what are you saying here, that we saved the Human race because of waterboarding...?

No...I'm saying we chose waterboarding over extinguishing the Arab race in nuclear fire. A choice they would not have made given the means and opportunity.

We know that if the terrorists had the means they would destroy us, all of us, not just the military and the government, but every man, woman, and child. We have the means and choose not to destroy them...we are better then them.

We know that given the means they would use torture...not just to extract information that would be used to take more lives...but to inflict pain and suffering on the victim. They would not stop with waterboarding and sleep deprivation but would use anything and everything at their disposal without regard for sentiment or morality. We use it in limited and strictly controlled circumstances to gain information to save lives....again, because we are better then them.

I'm not saying torture everybody that comes through the door. But the tool should be in the box and they need to know its there...and like any tool it has its proper use by skilled craftmen doing a specific job.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

KWICKO

Tuesday, April 28, 2009 2:16 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
So what are you saying here, that we saved the Human race because of waterboarding...?

No...I'm saying we chose waterboarding over extinguishing the Arab race in nuclear fire. A choice they would not have made given the means and opportunity.

You know that for a fact, do ya? The "Arab race" aleady has nuclear weapons. Pakistan has them. Last time I checked, we were calling them an "ally" of ours. Odd that they haven't tried to extinguish "the American race" in a hell of nuclear fire, as you insist they would if they could.

Quote:

We know that if the terrorists had the means they would destroy us, all of us, not just the military and the government, but every man, woman, and child. We have the means and choose not to destroy them...we are better then them.

We know that given the means they would use torture...not just to extract information that would be used to take more lives...but to inflict pain and suffering on the victim. They would not stop with waterboarding and sleep deprivation but would use anything and everything at their disposal without regard for sentiment or morality. We use it in limited and strictly controlled circumstances to gain information to save lives....again, because we are better then them.

I'm not saying torture everybody that comes through the door. But the tool should be in the box and they need to know its there...and like any tool it has its proper use by skilled craftmen doing a specific job.

And now you've lowered the bar even more. Where once America sought to be the Light of the World, the shining mansion on the hill, the beacon of hope in a world of darkness... Now you're hoping that "we're better than most terrorists" is a catchy new motto. "Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to be free... and we most likely won't cut their heads off or drown them. Maybe a little light drowning."

Wow, you make America suck. You should be ashamed, and if you had any real decency, you'd commit ritual suicide for the dishonor you've brought to your country in its time of need.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

AGENTROUKA

Tuesday, April 28, 2009 3:53 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
So what are you saying here, that we saved the Human race because of waterboarding...?

No...I'm saying we chose waterboarding over extinguishing the Arab race in nuclear fire. A choice they would not have made given the means and opportunity.

We know that if the terrorists had the means they would destroy us, all of us, not just the military and the government, but every man, woman, and child. We have the means and choose not to destroy them...we are better then them.

We know that given the means they would use torture...not just to extract information that would be used to take more lives...but to inflict pain and suffering on the victim. They would not stop with waterboarding and sleep deprivation but would use anything and everything at their disposal without regard for sentiment or morality. We use it in limited and strictly controlled circumstances to gain information to save lives....again, because we are better then them.

I'm not saying torture everybody that comes through the door. But the tool should be in the box and they need to know its there...and like any tool it has its proper use by skilled craftmen doing a specific job.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

Unless you're willing to claim that every single man woman and child on this planet, regardless of nationality, regardless of their actual, professed political or religious beliefs, regardless or whether they actually are terrorists or support terorists.. would destroy a vast portion of this planet for the purpose of extinguishing the U.S. with nuclear weapons if they could, regardless of whether they actually already could.... ONLY because they happen to be of Arab descent... you're talking yourself into one hell of a corner here.

You've created one hell of a demonic picture in your head, one hell of an US vs. THEM schisma, and you live in a very hopeless world because of it, because it will never allow you to believe in a positive solution.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, April 28, 2009 4:01 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:

You've created one hell of a demonic picture in your head, one hell of an US vs. THEM schisma, and you live in a very hopeless world because of it, because it will never allow you to believe in a positive solution.

All I can do is agree if y'all are gonna express my opinions for me here.

The laughing Chrisisall

AGENTROUKA

Tuesday, April 28, 2009 4:15 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:

You've created one hell of a demonic picture in your head, one hell of an US vs. THEM schisma, and you live in a very hopeless world because of it, because it will never allow you to believe in a positive solution.
All I can do is agree if y'all are gonna express my opinions for me here.

The laughing Chrisisall

I just find it seriously upsetting.

Usually these threads are an intellectual exercise for me, but seeing this sort of absolute language with regard to other people... My grandmother grew up hearing this sort of dehumanising rethoric on the radio and reading it in the paper, and we all know what people who think in these terms are capable of doing or supporting.

How can he use the words "Arab race" and not stop short and just shake himself out of what he's cooking up in his head? How blurry is his picture that he lumps it all together, vast populations of wholy individual people, and put it in a pot labled "evil" and then pat himself on the back because no one performed genocide on them?

At some point it stops being funny, or sloppy language. It starts getting scary. Because he's an articulate, educated person, who obviously has decent values in life, otherwise. He's not some bald-shaved freak in a struggling small-town who waves a Nazi flag because he has no options in life.

Even with his views on torture, he should know better than to mess up his language like that, and his view of human beings.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, April 28, 2009 4:19 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:

How can he use the words "Arab race" and not stop short and just shake himself out of what he's cooking up in his head? How blurry is his picture that he lumps it all together, vast populations of wholy individual people, and put it in a pot labled "evil" and then pat himself on the back because no one performed genocide on them?

Indoctrination.

The laughing Chrisisall

KWICKO

Tuesday, April 28, 2009 4:38 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
You've created one hell of a demonic picture in your head, one hell of an US vs. THEM schisma, and you live in a very hopeless world because of it, because it will never allow you to believe in a positive solution.

It's not an US vs. THEM world he's created, it's U.S. vs. THEM. That doesn't make it bad - it makes it PATRIOTIC!

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, April 28, 2009 4:52 PM (P)

Way back when there was a series of threads about demonization and how that makes it possible to dehumanize, torture, kill, or genocide people. It seems like this website has collectively taken a step back from then. Some people are not able to acknowledge their fears openly, and have hardened their positions to vigorously defend actions which they wouldn't have defended previous, or at least might have thought about more.

---------------------------------
They pit us like dogs against each other and rake it in. And I'll bet they laugh when they hear dupes like you defend the system that fucks you over and rewards them so nicely! But the one thing they'll stamp out in horror as if it were the spark of conflagration is any whiff of socialism. That should tell you something.

KWICKO

Tuesday, April 28, 2009 5:04 PM (P)

You're right, Signy - and for proof, you need look no further than those who now rabidly DEFEND the U.S. government torturing people WHILE CLAIMING THAT TO DO OTHERWISE WOULD BE UN-AMERICAN! How fucked up does your morality have to be in order to see torture as a good, moral American value that must be upheld?

And then for these fuckers to stand there and try to defend it by degrees - "Well, if we torture, surely THEY torture worse, so we're still better than them" - it's just disgraceful. It's like saying it's okay to molest kids, as long as they're over the age of 12. It's a bullshit justification of reprehensible, unacceptable behavior.

If that's the America these bastards want to live in, they fucking well deserve it. All of it. Every single thing that happens to them, whether it be at the hands of the terrorists, or those they think are supposed to protect them from the terrorists, because it's impossible to tell the difference anymore.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

HERO

Tuesday, April 28, 2009 5:47 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
No...I'm saying we chose waterboarding over extinguishing the Arab race in nuclear fire. A choice they would not have made given the means and opportunity.

You know that for a fact, do ya? The "Arab race" aleady has nuclear weapons. Pakistan has them. Last time I checked, we were calling them an "ally" of ours. Odd that they haven't tried to extinguish "the American race" in a hell of nuclear fire, as you insist they would if they could.

I note for the record that 99% if the Pakistani people are of the Indo-Iranian ethnic group. Arabs comprise a few thousand, mostly refugees, of the world's sixth most heavily populated nation.

Quote:

And now you've lowered the bar even more. Where once America sought to be the Light of the World, the shining mansion on the hill, the beacon of hope in a world of darkness... Now you're hoping that "we're better than most terrorists" is a catchy new motto. "Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to be free..."

Wow, you make America suck. You should be ashamed, and if you had any real decency, you'd commit ritual suicide for the dishonor you've brought to your country in its time of need.

"You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace." 1864, General Sherman's letter to the Mayor and City Coucil of Atlanta regarding his intent to burn the City.

http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/sherman/sherman-to-burn-atlanta.html

I would suggest that America does not suck because of what was done or what will be done in her defense...I believe your argument is not with me or President Bush or General Sherman...it is with War. This what War is, these are the things War requires of us. War is mankind at its best and mankind at its worst. We know this, we understand this, and knowing and understanding mean we would not and must not bring such terrible conflict upon another people unless the failure to act would bring about that one thing which is worse then War...Defeat.

"But, my dear sirs, when peace does come, you may call on me for any thing. Then will I share with you the last cracker, and watch with you to shield your homes and families against danger from every quarter."

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

KWICKO

Tuesday, April 28, 2009 6:08 PM (P)

Quote:
we would not and must not bring such terrible conflict upon another people unless the failure to act would bring about that one thing which is worse then War...Defeat.

Poppycock. How was it that Iraq was going to defeat us, then? Why did we have to "bring such terrible conflict upon another people"?

Quote:
I note for the record that 99% if the Pakistani people are of the Indo-Iranian ethnic group. Arabs comprise a few thousand, mostly refugees, of the world's sixth most heavily populated nation.

So, who are "the Arab race" that you speak of? I think you're confusing nationality, religion, and race again. Are we at war with the Saudis? Aren't they "Arabs", being from Saudi Arabia and all? And weren't they the largest single group represented by the 9/11 hijackers?

Who do you mean when you say "the Arab race" wants to annihilate us? Muslims? Saudis? Some unspecified brownish people to be named later? Whomever we feel like torturing today? Whomever isn't voting our way in the U.N.? Who?

By the way, did you just use Sherman's sacking of Atlanta to illustrate our mercy and patriotism? AuRaptor will be so proud of you! Maybe next time you can show us how Hitler actually loved the Jews, and was just hiding them in the ovens until the war was over!

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

HERO

Tuesday, April 28, 2009 7:08 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Poppycock. How was it that Iraq was going to defeat us, then? Why did we have to "bring such terrible conflict upon another people"?

That is a good question and one we have been discussing here for years. I argued then and now that there was ample cause for war. I argued then and now that Iraq was acting against its own agreements to end the 1990-91 Gulf conflict, that it was engaged in a WMD program (which was later revealed to be a fraud), that it actively undermined American alliances and the United Nations with the largest bribery scheme in human history, that it was regularly attacking British and American planes, and that it was aiding and comforting terrorist and terrorist organizations. I argue now that Iraq was also engaged in the systematic torture and murder of hundreds of thousands of its own citizens.

Quote:

Quote:
I note for the record that 99% if the Pakistani people are of the Indo-Iranian ethnic group. Arabs comprise a few thousand, mostly refugees, of the world's sixth most heavily populated nation.

So, who are "the Arab race" that you speak of? I think you're confusing nationality, religion, and race again. Are we at war with the Saudis? Aren't they "Arabs", being from Saudi Arabia and all? And weren't they the largest single group represented by the 9/11 hijackers?

By "arab" I meant "arab". I didn't mean Pakistani, I didn't mean Nigerian, I didn't mean Turk. Arabs are arabs, not Iranians, not Mongols, not those nice Muslim folks in Indonesia.

Apparently all those folks look the same to you. Me, I can tell the difference between and Arab and a Seikh and a Berber (and sometimes that difference is a barber).

Quote:

By the way, did you just use Sherman's sacking of Atlanta to illustrate our mercy and patriotism?

Actually I used it because the man was attempting to explain the concept of total war to a bunch of civilians who where begging for mercy. His point was neither about mercy or patriotism (it bothers me still, I being a son of the south). His point was about the American concept of war and peace.

Using Japan as an example...war with America resulted in total destruction and irradiated ruins...peace with America resulted in transformation to a modern and prosperous nation...an equal partner in both trdae and international relations.

In this new modern age we make war on the terrorists...not just their camps and strongholds, upon their ideas, their idealogy, their very souls. We find them and try to kill them. If we wound them we treat their wounds. Once captured and healthy...they must submit to us. That means telling us everything. If they resist they are in effect continuing to fight...in a different form. We then must break down that resistance by reasonable means. If they choose to make their will the battlefield then we will use the tools at our disposal to defeat them...leaving their souls irradiated and ruined. But...should they choose to end the conflict...then we shall be their greatest friend and ally.

I note that civilized nations have agreed by treaty not to engage in the abuse of prisoners. It is a mutual agreement, one made so as to protect their own soldiers from the abuse of others. Terrorists regularly abuse and horrifically murder their prisoners. By all rights of war we could and some argue should do the same thing. We choose not to.

It has been argued that the standard "we are not as bad as the terrorists" is too low. I note for the record that it is much better to hear such a motto spoken by the living then to see "we could have done more" etched on the tombstones of the dead.

If waterboarding a prisoner could have stopped 9/11 would it have been worthwhile? I suspect millions of Americans and hundreds of millions of persons (including most Arabs, even many of those who at that point considered America in a negative fashion,) would agree. I suspect there would be overwhelming agreement on that subject. Course that'

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, April 28, 2009 7:55 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
We used those methods, we stopped a major attack

Details, please.
I could say that I myself stopped a major attack- that doesn't make it so.
So, details, please.

The laughing Chrisisall

HERO

Tuesday, April 28, 2009 8:05 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
We used those methods, we stopped a major attack
Details, please.

Please refer your question to President Obama.

He started this by releasing selected memo's making the Republicans look bad. It backfired.

Until then you'll need to be satisfied with everybody who says it happened.

I note for the record that the official response from Obama has not been to deny the additional memo's existence or the truth being asserted by Dick Cheney and all those who came out saying the same thing. Instead they don't want to release them. If they don't exist...they'd say that...if they don't say what's been asserted they'd have released them. Now they're just hoping it will all go away.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

RUE

Tuesday, April 28, 2009 8:08 PM (P)

ChrisIsAll

It's just the same time-traveling stuff they've been harping on - you know the 2002 attack that was stopped in 2003. They keep missing the BIG PICTURE - somebody perfected time travel !

***************************************************************

Now THAT'S awesome.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, April 28, 2009 8:15 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Until then you'll need to be satisfied with everybody who says it happened.

You can't make me be satisfied with it.

Maybe hearsay stands up in YOUR court, sir....

The laughing Chrisisall

AGENTROUKA

Tuesday, April 28, 2009 8:17 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

It has been argued that the standard "we are not as bad as the terrorists" is too low. I note for the record that it is much better to hear such a motto spoken by the living then to see "we could have done more" etched on the tombstones of the dead.

Anything that keeps you alive is worth it, eh? You have no values you'd treasure, aside from might makes right and enjoying the fantasy of completely erradicating what gives you trouble, like a bullied child?

I swear, this post of yours sounded like a masturbation fantasy. A creepy one. With Biblical themes about complete submission to the all powerful God, and complete annihilation in case of rebellion. And a complete lack of accountability to any rules at all, because You Are All Powerful. Very old testament. Very Job.

KWICKO

Tuesday, April 28, 2009 9:15 PM (P)

Quote:

Until then you'll need to be satisfied with everybody who says it happened.

Aren't they the same ones who said Saddam had WMD, though? And by your own admission, that was a fraud. How many times do you think we'll let you try to pull the wool over our eyes?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

KWICKO

Tuesday, April 28, 2009 9:20 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

It has been argued that the standard "we are not as bad as the terrorists" is too low. I note for the record that it is much better to hear such a motto spoken by the living then to see "we could have done more" etched on the tombstones of the dead.

Anything that keeps you alive is worth it, eh? You have no values you'd treasure, aside from might makes right and enjoying the fantasy of completely erradicating what gives you trouble, like a bullied child?

I swear, this post of yours sounded like a masturbation fantasy. A creepy one. With Biblical themes about complete submission to the all powerful God, and complete annihilation in case of rebellion. And a complete lack of accountability to any rules at all, because You Are All Powerful. Very old testament. Very Job.

Yes indeed. And I note that Hero's love of humanity and desire to save us all from the Big Bad Evil tends to end right where our "liberal" beliefs begin; he'll GLADLY sacrifice anyone who doesn't agree with him. How very christian of him.

I also notice how he utterly fails to identify "the Arab race" he keeps referring to. Anyone who doesn't like the U.S. is his version of "Arab", I guess. But he can tell a "Seikh" from a Berber. Whatever a Seikh is...

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE