rvg, some couple of years later?

[Kadagar_AV]

I just noticed my sig, I have had it for... YEARS...

"Occasionally, we have to break our own rules and go against our principles in order to save those principles. Certain situations warrant that."
- rvg

I picked that as my sig because... it was the most stupid thing I had heard an american say. At the time, You were defending going into Iraq to get the Weapons Of Mass Destruction, and You were defending going into Afghanistan to catch Bin Laden.

What I wonder is... What do You think now?

It actually scared me that You not only supported the reason for the wars, but supported the torture and **** that came along with it, with the defense posted in my signature.

I for one will never agree to that belief. If USA go against Your own rules and principles to defend them, how can the rest of the world tell You are the righteous ones?

And if You go torturing people because of a war based on false assumptions of WMD's, can't You understand the rest of the world get... Shocked?

I thought about changing signature, but then... Have you changed?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

We never tortured anyone. That's no better than a conspiracy theory.

[Kadagar_AV]

We never tortured anyone. That's no better than a conspiracy theory.

Agreed.

But only if waterboarding, skateboarding and snowboarding is seen as pretty much equally fun.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Agreed.

But only if waterboarding, skateboarding and snowboarding is seen as pretty much equally fun.

I heard we made someone go snowbearding 183 times and he broke his leg each time. And to think we hung swedes for doing that to our soldiers in the great lutefisk wars of the 1920's.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

LOL, we never tortured anyone?

Rumsfeld and Co. most certainly did.

Conspiracy theorist! I accuse you.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Common knowledge, man. Rumsfeld personally authorized all of the 'enhanced interrogation techniques' we used between 2001 - 2008. For all I know, we still use many of them.

Many things are "common knowledge". Your second sentence is true but irrelevant.

[Kadagar_AV]

All fun and games?

1 (http://www.executedtoday.com/images/Abu_Ghraib_abuse.jpg)
2 (http://laregledujeu.org/en/files/2010/06/ABUGHRAIBfoto.jpg)
3 (http://nimg.sulekha.com/others/original700/abu-ghraib-prison-2009-12-2-13-43-32.jpg)

[Sasaki Kojiro]

All fun and games?


That's not "the usa".


Oh my god, you're serious? Hang on, I'll be back with reading material.

Conspiracy type theories about the government and police are extremely common in our culture. Our nation was founded by delusional conspiracy theorists. It's write in the declaration of independence.

[Kadagar_AV]

That's not "the usa".


It sure is the only USA I know of...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I appreciate that, but there's no conspiracy here--unless you count the former SecDef and friends.

As it became obvious that we were going to need to detain and interrogate many thousands of individuals over the course of the GWOT, a famous 'Torture Memo' was drawn up. This was not some beaurocratic one-off, this was a calculated attempt to avoid being charged with war crimes. That's it. Change the name all you want, its still freaking torture.

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/international/24MEMO-GUIDE.html

Yes I've heard this stuff. I'm sure they didn't want to be charged with war crimes (hardly an accusation of them) but they also didn't want to do anything immoral. They kept far short of immoral. Change the name all you want, it isn't torture.

The conspiracy is the pervasive tendency to believe that anything that is leaked is the truth, that the government is always trying to cover up wrongs, etc. CIA conspiracy theories are one of the most common types.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Waterboarding is torture and we definitely waterboarded. :shrug:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Waterboarding is torture and we definitely waterboarded. :shrug:

Very circular, I congratulate you.


Are you still being serious?

Did you even read that?

Holy jesus man, did you ever think maybe these theories are so prevalent because some of the worst few are actually true!? You probably think the CIA never distributed crack in california, or tested LSD on prison inmates. What do you think of the Iran-Contras? The list is so long, it is actually harder to find credible conspiracy theories that aren't true.


What would "credible but not true" be? Heck there's probably thousands. It's the go to boogie man for many people. But this is just an aside and off topic.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Off-topic and aside whatever, you brought it up.

According to you, we never tortured anyone. This is patently untrue, unless you narrow the definition of torture to something as specific as 'Cutting off parts of you until you die.'

I think your problem (and the problem with many Americans) is that you are personally affronted when someone suggests that our government has done some seriously bad stuff. Try and remember that all governments have done really bad stuff, and that you are not a reflection of your government, and perhaps it might help you.

Not at all, I believed it when they first talked about it and was raised un-patriotic. Still not especially patriotic, the US has done a bunch of terrible stuff starting with the revolution, but I can see that the torture stuff is nonsense.

You guys basically agree with this?:


KING: Bachmann, Cain, Perry there. The Romney campaign said after the debate he does not consider waterboarding to be torture.

What did you make of that, Senator?

MCCAIN: I'm disappointed. Ask any military lawyer, ask any person who knows about the Geneva Conventions that we're signatories to. We actually prosecuted Japanese war criminals specifically for the act of waterboarding against Americans.

And just two additional points, John.

One, it doesn't work. If you put enough physical pain on somebody, they will tell you whatever they think that you want to hear in order to -- for the pain to stop.

[Montmorency]

Sasaki is a gangstalker. :glasses:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

What's your point? We waterboarded people, this is a fact. That McCain doesn't think its a good idea means nothing, considering Rumsfeld and Co. wrote up the policy and the DoD was most responsible for implementing it.

I was asking if you agreed specifically with mccain's critique. Because it seems to be the "common knowledge" view and it's complete nonsense that shows he has no idea what he's talking about.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I was asking if you agreed specifically with mccain's critique. Because it seems to be the "common knowledge" view and it's complete nonsense that shows he has no idea what he's talking about.

Have you been waterboarded?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Have you been waterboarded?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWm-QU9YRCI

Is this waterboarding?


Unfortunately, there is no 'common knowledge' on torture. There's hardly even 'common knowledge' about police interrogations. Everyone has a different breaking point, different values, and different goals, and that all plays in to how effective a torture technique is going to be. It is, in a sense, the most personal kind of experience you can have with someone.

It is not something as simple and straight-forward as 'We torture you, you talk.' It is a long process that, at gitmo, can take many years of sessions that test their physical, mental, and personal fortitude.

Describe what you think the japanese did and then describe what you think we did. Can you tell me what the two most glaring errors in mccain's statement are? Do you think we "waterboarded" anyone at gitmo?

[Kadagar_AV]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWm-QU9YRCI

Is this waterboarding?

A) Wrong material on the cloth. Most of the water skipped off.
B) It's all fun and games until you can't rip the cloth off.

However... did You even LOOK at the first pictures I posted?

EDIT: I know it is the wrong type of cloth because I had a VERY un-PC captain in the army. He also happened to mention some creative ways to use our communication equipment coupled with the scrotum. And did you know small needles can work wonders under nails? Don't get me started on the teeth, now THAT is what you resort to in desperate situations.

But then, the best sort of torture is strapping someone up, sedate the bodies, make them unable to see their body... And then play various cracking sounds in their ears, as you explain what you are doing to them. Or better yet, leave a LOT for imagination.

However, he gave us the knowledge of how to use it in a pinch. And we were all abundantly clear on it breaking each and every international code of honour. We were also clear on the fact that attempting this WOULD breach our contract with humanity at large.

The USA seem to have had the same lesson... But not the same... Lesson...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWm-QU9YRCI

Is this waterboarding?



Describe what you think the japanese did and then describe what you think we did. Can you tell me what the two most glaring errors in mccain's statement are? Do you think we "waterboarded" anyone at gitmo?

No, this is:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58

Torture.

[rvg]

I just noticed my sig, I have had it for... YEARS...

"Occasionally, we have to break our own rules and go against our principles in order to save those principles. Certain situations warrant that."
- rvg

I picked that as my sig because... it was the most stupid thing I had heard an american say. At the time, You were defending going into Iraq to get the Weapons Of Mass Destruction, and You were defending going into Afghanistan to catch Bin Laden.

What I wonder is... What do You think now?

It actually scared me that You not only supported the reason for the wars, but supported the torture and **** that came along with it, with the defense posted in my signature.

I for one will never agree to that belief. If USA go against Your own rules and principles to defend them, how can the rest of the world tell You are the righteous ones?

And if You go torturing people because of a war based on false assumptions of WMD's, can't You understand the rest of the world get... Shocked?

I thought about changing signature, but then... Have you changed?

That quote of mine comes from me supporting the waterboarding of Al-Qaeda guys to extract information from them. I never supported the Iraqi invasion. As for waterboarding, they should keep at it. I don't care if those terrorists get dipped into acid, as long as it helps save American lives.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

What I think doesn't matter. That we waterboarded people is a matter of record, and immediately after posting this I will do my best to bring forth the proof.


But you seem to have no interest in what waterboarding is. The japanese took people, poured water continuously, and then interrogated them--if they answered their mouth would fill up, and if they didn't answer they were beaten. After their stomachs filled with water and were distended they would jump up and down on them to force the water back up. We used a plastic water bottle, no more than 1 liter, held 12-24 inches over the head, blah blah, usually for 10 seconds, and they didn't interrogate people during them. It's a simulation of torture. The "enhanced techniques" were part bluff, part wearing people down, part making them feel like they endured something harsh enough to cooperate without feeling ashamed. So that they don't feel like they are in control. When they accepted that they cooperated.

Why did you accept the equation of japanese "waterboarding" with what we did? Why accept mccain's ignorant statement about "you'll say anything to get the pain to stop"? For that matter why accept that we treated the japanese justly after ww2.

You should know this stuff it's basic.


A) Wrong material on the cloth. Most of the water skipped off.

What's the material of the cloth? They're using a bucket which is excessive to begin with, and you can see in pvc's vid that it only takes a little water. Search for others on youtube that show the cloth more clearly if you want.


B) It's all fun and games until you can't rip the cloth off.

cliche nonsense. If something is torture it isn't fun and games while voluntary.


However... did You even LOOK at the first pictures I posted?


The "US" didn't do abu ghraib, anymore than norway did breivik. Regardless of whether it's the "only us you know".


No, this is:


Some drama queen who is thinks its torture volunteers for it in order to write a vanity fair article? He lasted longer than they usually did it for (ksk used to count to ten on his fingers) too. By the way that was "6 waterboardings" based on their method for counting.


Torture.

Try stating it more firmly.

[Lemur]

I'd re-state and re-link to original documents, such as the mortician reports, but why bother? I've posted it all in the past, and clearly made no impression. Some people are just gonna believe what they want to believe.

On the bright side, other societies that had episodes of torture also took a long time getting around to prosecutions (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/270535.stm), but they got around to it, eventually, sort of. (Sometimes with a little help from other countries.)

I guess the lesson is that the political conditions that allow torture don't vanish overnight, and the defenders of torture will persevere in the face of overwhelming evidence and public consensus.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I guess the lesson is that the political conditions that allow torture don't vanish overnight, and the defenders of torture will persevere in the face of overwhelming evidence and public consensus.

How's life in the echo-zone?





"How do you feel about the use of torture against suspected terrorists to obtain information about terrorism activities? Can that often be justified, sometimes be justified, rarely be justified, or never be justified?" Options rotated








Often
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
Unsure




%
%
%
%
%




5/5-9/11

25
35
14
25
2




1/12-17/10

23
29
19
27
3




5/28 - 6/1/09

20
32
18
29
1








"Do you think it is sometimes justified to use waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation tactics to get information from a suspected terrorist, or are these tactics never justified?"








Sometimes
justified
Never
justified
Depends
(vol.)
Unsure





%
%
%
%





11/6-10/11

45
40
6
9





Republicans

70
20
5
5





Democrats

35
48
6
11





Independents

37
46
8
9








4/22-26/09

37
46
7
10






How do like the trend?

We were blanketed with enough propaganda to cause a noticeable distortion, e.g. most people are now willing to define torture as "something really unpleasant" or at least say that it's torture but that torture can be justified. And frankly I'm not too optimistic about it wearing off. There's evidently something too satisfying to people about perpetuating the idea.

[Kralizec]

It's a simulation of torture.

...

Those inmates at Guantanamo must be feeling really stupid, letting themselves get fooled into that were tortured. "This sentation of drowning is mildly unpleasant. I guess that means I'm being tortured...well, I guess that means I'll have to talk."

[Sarmatian]

That quote of mine comes from me supporting the waterboarding of Al-Qaeda guys to extract information from them. I never supported the Iraqi invasion. As for waterboarding, they should keep at it. I don't care if those terrorists get dipped into acid, as long as it helps save American lives.

Oh, the sacred American lives. It's okay, then.

Don't let the sand around your head bother you.

[Strike For The South]

Other people torture harsher than we do, therefore we didn't torture

[rvg]

Oh, the sacred American lives. It's okay, then.

Not sacred, just valuable. Definitely more valuable than the lives of the terrorists.

[Montmorency]

But you seem to have no interest in what waterboarding is. The japanese took people, poured water continuously, and then interrogated them--if they answered their mouth would fill up, and if they didn't answer they were beaten. After their stomachs filled with water and were distended they would jump up and down on them to force the water back up. We used a plastic water bottle, no more than 1 liter, held 12-24 inches over the head, blah blah, usually for 10 seconds, and they didn't interrogate people during them. It's a simulation of torture. The "enhanced techniques" were part bluff, part wearing people down, part making them feel like they endured something harsh enough to cooperate without feeling ashamed. So that they don't feel like they are in control. When they accepted that they cooperated.

Why did you accept the equation of japanese "waterboarding" with what we did? Why accept mccain's ignorant statement about "you'll say anything to get the pain to stop"? For that matter why accept that we treated the japanese justly after ww2.

You should know this stuff it's basic.

The Japanese? Forgetaboutit. The Klorxorns took people, grazed upon their minds with their Maw-Shears of Incorporeal Rending, and then sucked all the information from them in a process known only as "The Latrine of Mercy". After picking through the gains to get at what they desired, the information would then be mangled and regurgitated back into the prisoners' minds. After the shrieking insanity had set in, they would be made to worship the condition of their own degradation for ten thousand millenniums before being reduced to their constituent fundamental particles, each of which had been converted into another instance of themselves, each of which added to the unity of the individual's experience and so made a mockery of all the torment that had come before. But this was only the beginning. The Japanese just stuck stuff under people's fingernails for like a few minutes, and their techniques weren't even reliable methods of retrieving information. To name Japanese squirming "torture" is to deny the untold groans and wails that have been swallowed up by the untold vastness and sound-slaying gravity of the Klorxorns' fortress in the pit of our galaxy's black hole. The Japanese merely performed what they understood, and their "prisoners" responded as they understood. It was not torture, nor even the simulation of torture, but language. Do not blame the Tower of Babel. The Klorxorns have no language, save the engineered and emergent understanding that it is only fact for us take on the burden, the responsibility, of our own suffering, and so to suffer the more greatly its own continuous encrease.

Also, in Hell you suffer for ever and ever.

Just tell us where exactly you draw the semantic line and make a case for it, Moses.

[Strike For The South]

Not sacred, just valuable. Definitely more valuable than the lives of the terrorists.

I realize you have me on ignore BUT

The life of a murderer is always less sacred than the life of an innocent.

The statement "It's needed to save American lives" is the biggest scare tactic since hair on the palms. Equally bad is the following scenario "I have a terrorist in the room and the bomb will go in the next 5 min if he doesn't talk"

The later is horseshit and the former postulates that Americans are little angels under constant threat from devils from below. 9/11 happened for a reason, now before I go any further, what those men did was cold bolded murder and beyond defensible. However, the idea that two entire countries of people can be held accountable and occupied for the actions of a few is just as indefensible, as is the forfeitures of our freedoms

The occupations of these countries and all the lives lost do not represent American lives saved or democracy spread. They represent ebbs and flows of power, they represent the bread thrown to the hungry crowds, they represent what was politically useful at the time. That is the saddest thing here. All the American servicemen who died, All the civilians, nothing more than collateral damage in the pursuit of power. Not that this is surprising, it has always been like this.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Other people torture harsher than we do, therefore we didn't torture

You mean this like a joke (edit: you too montmorency), but you almost nailed the truth. Waterboarding can be used for torture if that is the wish of the interrogators--just do it like the japanese did. Denying someone water could be torture if it was carried out to long. Isolation or sleep deprivation can be torture if carried out to long. That's the reason the main argument from the gitmo-maniacs is false equations with japanese or nazi's or whoever. The claim that waterboarding is torture has no more merit than the claim that sleep deprivation is torture--they both have a tremendous range that covers everything from not torture to horrendous. If I felt like writing some dumb parody I would take someones claim that sleep deprivation isn't torture and then post a bunch of outraged moralizing about how so-and-so went insane from not being allowed any sleep for 11 days.

There is no argument to be made, all that's needed is a description of reality. I gave a basic description of what was done, you can read more detailed descriptions if you bother to find a good source. Anyone who has a simple desire for the truth will percieve that what we did was not torture and was most certainly a good thing to do. But too many people don't care about that, especially the talking heads on tv and the avid news watching talking-point repeaters, and that's where the arguments start. People who have filled some sort of existential gap in their soul with some ideological beliefs, religious beliefs, moral posturing, social group identification, etc, and are willing to say anything that sounds good to them. It's narcissism gone wild. People love the image of CIA agents dousing people with water with sadistic glee and scribbling down whatever they babble out to make the pain stop. McCain loves his "maverick" image too much to care that he's saying things that are idiotic. The media treats anyone who says "waterboarding is torture" like a hero, and ordinary people want a bit of that glory for themselves, or at least want to avoid being "some patriotic wingnut".

Human nature is deeply flawed and this particular flaw is very well illustrated by the Orwellian equivocation over the word "waterboarding" for deeply selfish purposes.

edit: well, I'm being to harsh on people. We heard nothing but lies and nonsense about it for a long time after all. But still, it's 2012 for goodness sake.

[Strike For The South]

You mean this like a joke (edit: you too montmorency), but you almost nailed the truth. Waterboarding can be used for torture if that is the wish of the interrogators--just do it like the japanese did. Denying someone water could be torture if it was carried out to long. Isolation or sleep deprivation can be torture if carried out to long. That's the reason the main argument from the gitmo-maniacs is false equations with japanese or nazi's or whoever. The claim that waterboarding is torture has no more merit than the claim that sleep deprivation is torture--they both have a tremendous range that covers everything from not torture to horrendous. If I felt like writing some dumb parody I would take someones claim that sleep deprivation isn't torture and then post a bunch of outraged moralizing about how so-and-so went insane from not being allowed any sleep for 11 days.

Not meant as a joke. I do understand why you would think that though. What the Japanese did was much worse, that's why they were hung. I do not wish for any American to be hung, howerver, I would like a good hard look at our techniques. Perhaps not even that, perhaps, I simply wish for Americans to realize what its government does in the name of safety and the boogeyman.


There is no argument to be made, all that's needed is a description of reality. I gave a basic description of what was done, you can read more detailed descriptions if you bother to find a good source. Anyone who has a simple desire for the truth will percieve that what we did was not torture and was most certainly a good thing to do. But too many people don't care about that, especially the talking heads on tv and the avid news watching talking-point repeaters, and that's where the arguments start. People who have filled some sort of existential gap in their soul with some ideological beliefs, religious beliefs, moral posturing, social group identification, etc, and are willing to say anything that sounds good to them. It's narcissism gone wild. People love the image of CIA agents dousing people with water with sadistic glee and scribbling down whatever they babble out to make the pain stop. McCain loves his "maverick" image too much to care that he's saying things that are idiotic. The media treats anyone who says "waterboarding is torture" like a hero, and ordinary people want a bit of that glory for themselves, or at least want to avoid being "some patriotic wingnut".

Well certainly if you follow a realist point of view. What if I said I would be willing to trade some uncertainty with peace of mind?


Human nature is deeply flawed and this particular flaw is very well illustrated by the Orwellian equivocation over the word "waterboarding" for deeply selfish purposes.

I understand and agree with you. I just haven't bought into the cynicism yet. I will continue shouting from the mountaintops even if nothing changes

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more

[Montmorency]

There is no argument to be made, all that's needed is a description of reality.

You argue from duration. What of iterations?

At least we're closer to a working definition of torture, which was my main point.


moral posturing,

Sorry, but I perceive that you do this all the time.


equivocation

Taking polysemousness into account, anything distasteful could be dismissed as equivocation. Why should we accept your narrow definition? That's what I'd like you to argue. There are no mere "descriptions of reality" when each uses a different measuring stick, or the measuring stick has not even been produced.

Argue for your measuring stick.

[Greyblades]

The Japanese? Forgetaboutit. The Klorxorns took people, grazed upon their minds with their Maw-Shears of Incorporeal Rending, and then sucked all the information from them in a process known only as "The Latrine of Mercy". After picking through the gains to get at what they desired, the information would then be mangled and regurgitated back into the prisoners' minds. After the shrieking insanity had set in, they would be made to worship the condition of their own degradation for ten thousand millenniums before being reduced to their constituent fundamental particles, each of which had been converted into another instance of themselves, each of which added to the unity of the individual's experience and so made a mockery of all the torment that had come before. But this was only the beginning. The Japanese just stuck stuff under people's fingernails for like a few minutes, and their techniques weren't even reliable methods of retrieving information. To name Japanese squirming "torture" is to deny the untold groans and wails that have been swallowed up by the untold vastness and sound-slaying gravity of the Klorxorns' fortress in the pit of our galaxy's black hole. The Japanese merely performed what they understood, and their "prisoners" responded as they understood. It was not torture, nor even the simulation of torture, but language. Do not blame the Tower of Babel. The Klorxorns have no language, save the engineered and emergent understanding that it is only fact for us take on the burden, the responsibility, of our own suffering, and so to suffer the more greatly its own continuous encrease.

Also, in Hell you suffer for ever and ever.

Just tell us where exactly you draw the semantic line and make a case for it, Moses.

Dude.

Can I have your dealer's number?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Sasaki - a simulation of torture is torture, because torture is a mental not physical, thing.

You are, frankly, being stupid in claiming that torture is useful, there really isn't a foreseeable instance where you could extract reliable information from someone quicker using torture than by just sitting them down with a cup of tea and talking to them.

[Montmorency]

No no, I basically just wish he would provide a concrete and encompassing formulation of what he would consider torture, and argue for why we should accept this definition over whatever our working definitions might be, or, say, the UN's.

My understanding so far is that Sasaki considers any treatment to be potentially torture, but only on the conditions of its duration and intensity. What are [the definition's] limitations? What thresholds of intensity and duration should be accepted as torturous? Why should we accept the definition as a whole?

This is where the discussion should go, IMO.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Err, yeah. My bad. This was the only bit where I was trying to interpret your post:



The rest was just me stating what I think about it. Which is that any kind of institutionalized and sanctioned torture is wrong. Sometimes governments need to do things that are wrong, but in a democracy those things need to be done with the full knowledge and support of the people. If someone actually needs to be tortured, then surely the need is so great that the people will back you up, right? If not, then perhaps they don't need to be tortured.

My objections are not in the acts themselves, but in the less-than-honest and certainly less-than-democratic way the government handled it. This opinion is not based on legal nitpicking, but on a healthy respect for the golden rule. Every democracy needs that.

While I see your point, I disagree.

We elect politicians to make hard choices. Asking the British people to back up not beefing up Coventry's Air Defense to preserve the secret of Blechly Park is not acceptable. That was a decision for the War Cabinet, and for their consciences. Spreading that kind of pain around is worse than taking the decision and letting people die.

[Papewaio]

The "US" didn't do abu ghraib, anymore than norway did breivik.

9/11 was done by Saudi Arabian individuals in the majority.

How is it by your own standards that it is fine to then invade two nations. One of which was a supporter of AQ the other an opponent of AQ?

If these nations have to take responsibility for AQ then the US has to take responsibility for their prisons and POWs.

If the USA resets/renames the definitions then it is equally fine for other nations to do the same.

[Strike For The South]

Saski has either a nasty strain of realism and or nhilism in him. The whole subjective truth thing has shown up in a few threads.

Whatever, a debate with saski will require soberity and reflection.

Can I concede now? ;)

[Fragony]

How's life in the echo-zone?





"How do you feel about the use of torture against suspected terrorists to obtain information about terrorism activities? Can that often be justified, sometimes be justified, rarely be justified, or never be justified?" Options rotated








Often
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
Unsure




%
%
%
%
%




5/5-9/11

25
35
14
25
2




1/12-17/10

23
29
19
27
3




5/28 - 6/1/09

20
32
18
29
1








"Do you think it is sometimes justified to use waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation tactics to get information from a suspected terrorist, or are these tactics never justified?"








Sometimes
justified
Never
justified
Depends
(vol.)
Unsure





%
%
%
%





11/6-10/11

45
40
6
9





Republicans

70
20
5
5





Democrats

35
48
6
11





Independents

37
46
8
9








4/22-26/09

37
46
7
10






How do like the trend?

We were blanketed with enough propaganda to cause a noticeable distortion, e.g. most people are now willing to define torture as "something really unpleasant" or at least say that it's torture but that torture can be justified. And frankly I'm not too optimistic about it wearing off. There's evidently something too satisfying to people about perpetuating the idea.

Must admit that I feel it is sometimes justified.

[Kralizec]

You mean this like a joke (edit: you too montmorency), but you almost nailed the truth. Waterboarding can be used for torture if that is the wish of the interrogators--just do it like the japanese did. Denying someone water could be torture if it was carried out to long. Isolation or sleep deprivation can be torture if carried out to long. That's the reason the main argument from the gitmo-maniacs is false equations with japanese or nazi's or whoever. The claim that waterboarding is torture has no more merit than the claim that sleep deprivation is torture--they both have a tremendous range that covers everything from not torture to horrendous. If I felt like writing some dumb parody I would take someones claim that sleep deprivation isn't torture and then post a bunch of outraged moralizing about how so-and-so went insane from not being allowed any sleep for 11 days.

Sending a kid to bed without dinner once is not child abuse. Not feeding your kids for several days is. Suffocating your kid to the point of unconsciousness, even if you're careful not to cause any permanenent damage, only requires one time to be abuse.

Water boarding is a technique that artificially creates the experience of drowing in the subject. Even if you use it sparingly it's still torture. Even if you don't sadistically beat them in between like the Japanese it's still torture. Any comparison with the Japanese or the nazis is hyperbole; equivalency is not necessary for something to be torture.

To me it appears that you're merely trying to restrict the meaning of the word "torture" because you're unwilling to challenge the notion that all torture is bad.

You're entitled to your opinion and to think that McCain is a dumbass, of course.

[Fragony]

Sending a kid to bed without dinner once is not child abuse. Not feeding your kids for several days is. Suffocating your kid to the point of unconsciousness, even if you're careful not to cause any permanenent damage, only requires one time to be abuse.

Water boarding is a technique that artificially creates the experience of drowing in the subject. Even if you use it sparingly it's still torture. Even if you don't sadistically beat them in between like the Japanese it's still torture. Any comparison with the Japanese or the nazis is hyperbole; equivalency is not necessary for something to be torture.

To me it appears that you're merely trying to restrict the meaning of the word "torture" because you're unwilling to challenge the notion that all torture is bad.

You're entitled to your opinion and to think that McCain is a dumbass, of course.

Is all torture bad, that really depends on the information you need at the time. I'll do it myself if I know it's a little bit of evil for the greater good.

[Sarmatian]

Is all torture bad, that really depends on the information you need at the time. I'll do it myself if I know it's a little bit of evil for the greater good.

Even if we agree that it is morally acceptable to do a little evil for the greater good (and we don't), this entire theory hinges on you being 100% certain that this person is a bad person and that he knows the exact information you need, with all the details, which you can't really be sure of.

I'm pretty sure that under torture, I'd admit I stabbed Caesar.

[Fragony]

Even if we agree that it is morally acceptable to do a little evil for the greater good (and we don't), this entire theory hinges on you being 100% certain that this person is a bad person and that he knows the exact information you need, with all the details, which you can't really be sure of.

I'm pretty sure that under torture, I'd admit I stabbed Caesar.

I fully a accept that it would be a horrible thing to do, and it will probably haunt me the rest of my life. It certainly wouldn't be something I would take pleassure in doing. But I will do it regardless if I see no other way. What would you do if you are reasonably certain you can safe hundreds of people by pulling out a few nails. Of course you can be wrong but I wouldn't take any chances. I don't know if it would make me immoral really

edit, word of notice, I have a very big mouth for a total pussy

[Hax]

And what if you have the wrong guy?

[Fisherking]

And what if you have the wrong guy?


Torture is usually the method of choice when all you want is for them to tell you what you want to hear. Guilt or innocence has very little to do with it.

[Fragony]

And what if you have the wrong guy?

That's the problem isn't it, I probably couldn't live with myself if I got wrong, and for the innocent person it would of course be infinitely worse. But I think that if you really need something really fast you must take the chance at the risk of being wrong.

[Ironside]

Is all torture bad, that really depends on the information you need at the time. I'll do it myself if I know it's a little bit of evil for the greater good.

Would you institutionalise it, ergo make it legal?

The ticking bomb scenario is probably one of the least effective use of torture btw. The crock also have something he needs to outlast. Getting a location is easy, getting the correct location with the correct disarmament code?

Most effective use of torture should be S-21. Ironically enough they also used waterboarding.

[Vladimir]

Edit: Late to the game.

[rvg]

Would you institutionalise it, ergo make it legal?

It's fine where it is now: in the grey area. Not legal, but still being used when the situation warrants it.

[HopAlongBunny]

... being used when the situation warrants it.

The problem though is you are starting from a presumption of guilt.

Far be it from me to question the motives of someone looking to overthrow centuries of hard fought battles against arbitrary "justice". But then why did our societies fight so hard to get beyond just that? Ah! To flush it down the toilet because someone says we must!!! It's all so clear now...

[Fragony]

The problem though is you are starting from a presumption of guilt.

No, it's acting from reasonable doubt. If you reject our values suit yourself, they won't apply for you

[Fragony]

Double post

[rvg]

Far be it from me to question the motives of someone looking to overthrow centuries of hard fought battles against arbitrary "justice". But then why did our societies fight so hard to get beyond just that? Ah! To flush it down the toilet because someone says we must!!! It's all so clear now...

Must? Nobody said that. Can. Can do and need to do. Occasionally. It's a useful tool when dealing with fanatics like those of al-Qaeda. No amount of religious instruction can trump good old fashioned pain. Everyone feels it, everyone fears it. So you apply it, make the guy wish he was never born, and then he talks. Oh, and make it clear that if he's lying, he'll be introduced to a whole new level of pain. Information received. Terrorist plot foiled. Everybody's happy.

[Lemur]

I see we're back to the familiar game of, "we don't torture, if we do it it isn't torture, and if it is torture it is justified" cul-de-sac of thought. Been here, done this.

Have fun (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jan/03/guantanamo.usa):

Captives at Guantánamo Bay were chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor for 18 hours or more, urinating and defecating on themselves, an FBI report has revealed. [...]

In the 2004 inquiry, the FBI asked nearly 500 employees who had served at Guantánamo Bay to report possible mistreatment by law enforcement or military personnel. Twenty-six incidents were reported, some of which had emerged in earlier document releases.

Besides being shackled to the floor, detainees were subjected to extremes of temperature. One witness said he saw a barefoot detainee shaking with cold because the air conditioning had bought the temperature close to freezing.

On another occasion, the air conditioning was off in an unventilated room, making the temperature over 38C (100F) and a detainee lay almost unconscious on the floor with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been pulling out his hair throughout the night.Not that any evidence (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/14/AR2008101403331_pf.html) will make the slightest difference to torture apologists, who appear to have some sort of emotional need to justify the abuse of prisoners.

The Bush administration issued a pair of secret memos to the CIA in 2003 and 2004 that explicitly endorsed the agency's use of interrogation techniques such as waterboarding against al-Qaeda suspects -- documents prompted by worries among intelligence officials about a possible backlash if details of the program became public.

The classified memos, which have not been previously disclosed, were requested by then-CIA Director George J. Tenet more than a year after the start of the secret interrogations, according to four administration and intelligence officials familiar with the documents. Although Justice Department lawyers, beginning in 2002, had signed off on the agency's interrogation methods, senior CIA officials were troubled that White House policymakers had never endorsed the program in writing.

The memos were the first -- and, for years, the only -- tangible expressions of the administration's consent for the CIA's use of harsh measures to extract information from captured al-Qaeda leaders, the sources said. As early as the spring of 2002, several White House officials, including then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Vice President Cheney, were given individual briefings by Tenet and his deputies, the officials said. Rice, in a statement to congressional investigators last month, confirmed the briefings and acknowledged that the CIA director had pressed the White House for "policy approval."

The repeated requests for a paper trail reflected growing worries within the CIA that the administration might later distance itself from key decisions about the handling of captured al-Qaeda leaders, former intelligence officials said. The concerns grew more pronounced after the revelations of mistreatment of detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and further still as tensions grew between the administration and its intelligence advisers over the conduct of the Iraq war.

"It came up in the daily meetings. We heard it from our field officers," said a former senior intelligence official familiar with the events. "We were already worried that we" were going to be blamed.

A. John Radsan, a lawyer in the CIA general counsel's office until 2004, remembered the discussions but did not personally view the memos the agency received in response to its concerns. "The question was whether we had enough 'top cover,' " Radsan said.

Tenet first pressed the White House for written approval in June 2003, during a meeting with members of the National Security Council, including Rice, the officials said. Days later, he got what he wanted: a brief memo conveying the administration's approval for the CIA's interrogation methods, the officials said.

Administration officials confirmed the existence of the memos, but neither they nor former intelligence officers would describe their contents in detail because they remain classified. The sources all spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not cleared to discuss the events.

The second request from Tenet, in June 2004, reflected growing worries among agency officials who had just witnessed the public outcry over the Abu Ghraib scandal. Officials who held senior posts at the time also spoke of deteriorating relations between the CIA and the White House over the war in Iraq -- a rift that prompted some to believe that the agency needed even more explicit proof of the administration's support.

"The CIA by this time is using the word 'insurgency' to describe the Iraq conflict, so the White House is viewing the agency with suspicion," said a second former senior intelligence official.

As recently as last month, the administration had never publicly acknowledged that its policymakers knew about the specific techniques, such as waterboarding, that the agency used against high-ranking terrorism suspects. In her unprecedented account to lawmakers last month, Rice, now secretary of state, portrayed the White House as initially uneasy about a controversial CIA plan for interrogating top al-Qaeda suspects.

After learning about waterboarding and similar tactics in early 2002, several White House officials questioned whether such harsh measures were "effective and necessary . . . and lawful," Rice said. Her concerns led to an investigation by the Justice Department's criminal division into whether the techniques were legal.

But whatever misgivings existed that spring were apparently overcome. Former and current CIA officials say no such reservations were voiced in their presence.

In interviews, the officials recounted a series of private briefings about the program with members of the administration's security team, including Rice and Cheney, followed by more formal meetings before a larger group including then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, then-White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. None of the officials recalled President Bush being present at any of the discussions.

Several of the key meetings have been previously described in news articles and books, but Rice last month became the first Cabinet-level official to publicly confirm the White House's awareness of the program in its earliest phases. In written responses to questions from the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rice said Tenet's description of the agency's interrogation methods prompted her to investigate further to see whether the program violated U.S. laws or international treaties, according to her written responses, dated Sept. 12 and released late last month.

"I asked that . . . Ashcroft personally advise the NSC principles whether the program was lawful," Rice wrote.If need be, I can track down the mortician reports from Bagram again; case after case of death by blunt force trauma and/or asphyxiation. Heck, I suppose I should just search up some of the earlier torture threads and re-post the sources. But then, I don't think it will make the slightest bit of difference to torture apologists. So why bother?

[rvg]

I see we're back to the familiar game of, "we don't torture, if we do it it isn't torture, and if it is torture it is justified" cul-de-sac of thought. Been here, done this.

I freely admit that it's torture.

[Kadagar_AV]

I freely admit that it's torture.

But You can roll with it, as You are the good guys anyway?

[rvg]

But You can roll with it, as You are the good guys anyway?

Good? Bad? I'm not the one trying to ride the high horse. It's not necessarily about good vs evil, it's about us vs them. Rules of engagement apply only to conventional wars. In the war against al-Qaeda and Taliban rules can be bent and/or broken.

[Fragony]

But You can roll with it, as You are the good guys anyway?

I can absolutely feel that way. You only have to be nice to nice people, the world doesn't play by our lovely rules so it's merely adaptation.

[Lemur]

You only have to be nice to nice people
Fascinating legal theory, there.

[Fragony]

Fascinating legal theory, there.

I am having a harder time in understanding why we would upheld our values with people who flatout reject them. Whatever legal theory you might have doesn't really matter imho, there is no lawful level playing field here.

[Hax]

Good? Bad? I'm not the one trying to ride the high horse. It's not necessarily about good vs evil, it's about us vs them. Rules of engagement apply only to conventional wars. In the war against al-Qaeda and Taliban rules can be bent and/or broken.

Why are we fighting against the Taliban again?

[rvg]

Why are we fighting against the Taliban again?

They are killing our guys in Afghanistan and threatening the already explosive situation in Pakistan.

[Hax]

But you realise they only started killing our guys in Afghanistan after​ we went in there.

[rvg]

But you realise they only started killing our guys in Afghanistan after​ we went in there.
They thought they could harbor OBL and get away with it. They thought wrong.

[Kadagar_AV]

They are killing our guys in Afghanistan and threatening the already explosive situation in Pakistan.

OH NOES!! Are the EVIL EVIL Talibans killing troppers You send there? No wonder You feel You have the right to not only kill them, but torture them as well then.

[rvg]

OH NOES!! Are the EVIL EVIL Talibans killing troppers You send there? No wonder You feel You have the right to not only kill them, but torture them as well then.

And your point is?

[Fragony]

OH NOES!! Are the EVIL EVIL Talibans killing troppers You send there? No wonder You feel You have the right to not only kill them, but torture them as well then.

You like the idea of the Taliban getting a hold of Pakistan?

[Hax]

They thought they could harbor OBL and get away with it. They thought wrong.

Not exactly. What we see as "the Taliban" is actually a pretty loose confederation of different groups in that particular area, some, but definitely not all of them militant. In fact, when the attacks happened, most Taliban leaders actually condemned the 9/11 attacks and denied that Bin Laden was involved or that he was even in the country at the time. Whether or not this is true, one might question the effectiveness of sending an entire army into Afghanistan to capture or kill a single person, which was in fact proven when Bin Laden was assassinated by the strike force over in Abottabad last year.

U.S. policy towards the Middle-East can be characterised by general ignorance concerning even aspects that any amateur historian or anthropologist could know about the Middle-East. As for conspiracy theories and their believers, I have no patience for them. I don't think there are that many ulterior motives where it concerns the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. I think it's plain to see that the invasions were based on misguided preconceptions, a general lack of research and fear mongering.

[Kadagar_AV]

And your point is?

If a nation sent assassination teams against their own and foreign citizens.
If it was known for spying on Western nations, it also tracks any electronic communication by its own citizens.
If it refused to send its war criminals to the international court.
If it was open about torturing others.
If it started wars killing civilians left and right, on very sketchy grounds...
If its operatives directs an attack against UN personnel.


This Nation would be rather evil, no? So You'd think it OK if more civilized countries would occupy it and torture the population?

[rvg]

... and denied that Bin Laden was involved or that he was even in the country at the time.
Which of course was a lie since OBL *was* there and later on he admitted masterminding 9/11


Whether or not this is true, one might question the effectiveness of sending an entire army into Afghanistan to capture or kill a single person, which was in fact proven when Bin Laden was assassinated by the strike force over in Abottabad last year.
Worked out well enough.


U.S. policy towards the Middle-East can be characterised by general ignorance concerning even aspects that any amateur historian or anthropologist could know about the Middle-East.
Lots of epithets. Can you give me some evidence to support them?


As for conspiracy theories and their believers, I have no patience for them. I don't think there are that many ulterior motives where it concerns the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. I think it's plain to see that the invasions were based on misguided preconceptions, a general lack of research and fear mongering.
There's a whole lot of difference between the Afghan and the Iraqi campaigns. I fully supported the Afghan campaign and never supported the Iraqi one.

[rvg]

This Nation would be rather evil, no?
Of course not.


So You'd think it OK if more civilized countries would occupy it and torture the population?
They can try... How did Clint Eastwood put it? Oh yeah: "Go ahead, make my day."

[Lemur]

Gah, if we're going to veer off into whether or not the occupation of Afghanistan was legit, and whether or not the U.S.A. is some uniquely horrible entity, then I'm going to tag out.

This whole thread has a rather retro vibe to it. Carry on.

[rvg]

Gah, if we're going to veer off into whether or not the occupation of Afghanistan was legit, and whether or not the U.S.A. is some uniquely horrible entity, then I'm going to tag out.

This whole thread has a rather retro vibe to it. Carry on.

Yeah, you do that. You evil American, you.

[Kadagar_AV]

Gah, if we're going to veer off into whether or not the occupation of Afghanistan was legit, and whether or not the U.S.A. is some uniquely horrible entity, then I'm going to tag out.

This whole thread has a rather retro vibe to it. Carry on.

I just find the mental hurdles interesting, that pro-USA fanatics have to jump.. And the way they do it is rather amusing. It is also scary how so much is trumpeted out as being "good" or "just" about the USA, where in fact the rest of the world look at USA and think it rather rotten from within. Not to mention dangerous, as the former reasons to go to war seem to have been set aside.

Oh well, I just wondered if RVG had changed plenty of years after originally having high and loud defended the American ideal, and defended breaking those ideals, to, you know, save those ideals, because that makes sense, see?

I have found that a lot of Americans have switched view after the initial paranoia around the WTC attacks died down. But I guess not all. Or even enough.

[Hax]

Which of course was a lie since OBL *was* there and later on he admitted masterminding 9/11

Indeed he was. It does not necessarily imply the Taliban.


Worked out well enough.

And yet, our guys are still being killed. Worked out well enough?


Lots of epithets. Can you give me some evidence to support them?

Hindsight is always 20/20, but let's give it a go, quoting from William L. Cleveland's book A History of the Modern Middle East:


Yet perhaps the most crucial link among September 11, al-Qa'ida, and the core Middle East can be traced to US foreign policy and perceptions of the United States itself [...] It seemed to come as a surprise to many Amerians that their country's policies could generate levels of anger frustration sufficient to trigger suh deadly retribution. Yet, as we have seen eswhere in this beek, recent history reveals a pattern of US policy that was insensitive to, and largely ignroant of, Arab and Islamic public opinion.

For example, concerning the invasion of Iraq:


As Ali Allawi writes, "Being an afterthought does not give rise to gratitute and celebration"

And Lebanon:


Lebanese leaders who pushed for aligning their country more closely with the West were gravely undermined by the assessment of the [2006] war by American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's description of the bloodshed as "the birth pangs of a new Middle East"

And political Islam:


Not only did American policy lump together a diverse collection of actors whose interests often lashed (for example, al-Qa'ida, Saddam Husayn, and the Iranian government), it marginalized religious parties that had followed a strategy of political participation. It alsno ignored the vast majorityt of Islamists who were working peacefully for domestic reforms within their respective countries. By constructing a framework that judged all Islamic movement s in the narrow contet of its security interests and antiterrorist measures, the United States distaned itself from tgenuinely popular movements within Islamic states and reated barriers to working with the forces that might shape the future of Islam globally.

You can buy the book on Amazon for 26 dollars secondhand. I'd recommend it.


There's a whole lot of difference between the Afghan and the Iraqi campaigns. I fully supported the Afghan campaign and never supported the Iraqi one.

Indeed.

[Conradus]

They thought they could harbor OBL and get away with it. They thought wrong.

Are you going to invade Pakistan as well then? In so far that you're not doing it already.

[rvg]

And yet, our guys are still being killed. Worked out well enough?
Well enough.



Hindsight is always 20/20, but let's give it a go, quoting from William L. Cleveland's book A History of the Modern Middle East:
Being insensitive to public opinion <> "characterised by general ignorance concerning even aspects that any amateur historian or anthropologist could know about the Middle-East"


For example, concerning the invasion of Iraq:
I never defended the invasion of Iraq.


And Lebanon:
That's Israel, not us.



And political Islam:
Like Hamas?



You can buy the book on Amazon for 26 dollars secondhand. I'd recommend it.
It's not worth $26.00



Are you going to invade Pakistan as well then? In so far that you're not doing it already.
If the Taliban takes over? Hell yes. We can't allow Taliban get their hands on the nukes.

[Kadagar_AV]

If the Taliban takes over? Hell yes. We can't allow Taliban get their hands on the nukes.

What nukes? The ones found in Iraq?

[rvg]

What nukes? The ones found in Iraq?

No, the real ones.

[Fragony]

I just find the mental hurdles interesting, that pro-USA fanatics have to jump.. And the way they do it is rather amusing. It is also scary how so much is trumpeted out as being "good" or "just" about the USA, where in fact the rest of the world look at USA and think it rather rotten from within. Not to mention dangerous, as the former reasons to go to war seem to have been set aside.

Oh well, I just wondered if RVG had changed plenty of years after originally having high and loud defended the American ideal, and defended breaking those ideals, to, you know, save those ideals, because that makes sense, see?

I have found that a lot of Americans have switched view after the initial paranoia around the WTC attacks died down. But I guess not all. Or even enough.

If there is anything that is rotten it's Europe.

[PanzerJaeger]

There is no argument to be made, all that's needed is a description of reality. I gave a basic description of what was done, you can read more detailed descriptions if you bother to find a good source. Anyone who has a simple desire for the truth will percieve that what we did was not torture and was most certainly a good thing to do. But too many people don't care about that, especially the talking heads on tv and the avid news watching talking-point repeaters, and that's where the arguments start. People who have filled some sort of existential gap in their soul with some ideological beliefs, religious beliefs, moral posturing, social group identification, etc, and are willing to say anything that sounds good to them. It's narcissism gone wild. People love the image of CIA agents dousing people with water with sadistic glee and scribbling down whatever they babble out to make the pain stop. McCain loves his "maverick" image too much to care that he's saying things that are idiotic. The media treats anyone who says "waterboarding is torture" like a hero, and ordinary people want a bit of that glory for themselves, or at least want to avoid being "some patriotic wingnut".

Human nature is deeply flawed and this particular flaw is very well illustrated by the Orwellian equivocation over the word "waterboarding" for deeply selfish purposes.



Brilliant. Thank you for this. I've long held the notion that the hysterical whinging over waterboarding has been more about the whingers than the practice, but I haven't been able to translate that notion into a cogent statement. If people took the time to understand what actually happened, a collective 'meh' would be heard around the nation. Self-righteousness supported by a sensationalist media is a powerful combination. I mean, what a great feeling it must be to take a stand against 'torture', no matter how ridiculously broad the definition has become.

[Xiahou]

To me it appears that you're merely trying to restrict the meaning of the word "torture" because you're unwilling to challenge the notion that all torture is bad.I think you've nailed the other side of the discussion. Sasaki, as I read him, is talking about where the marker for "torture" should be placed. You're asking if some torture can ever be acceptable.

To me, I don't think there's a black and white answer to either question. I think there are places on the far ends of the spectrum that everyone can agree on. Everything in between can get murky. That's where governments and treaties come in so the populace, via their elected representatives can decide....

[Kadagar_AV]

I think you've nailed the other side of the discussion. Sasaki, as I read him, is talking about where the marker for "torture" should be placed. You're asking if some torture can ever be acceptable.

To me, I don't think there's a black and white answer to either question. I think there are places on the far ends of the spectrum that everyone can agree on. Everything in between can get murky. That's where governments and treaties come in so the populace, via their elected representatives can decide....

We have set rules how to treat civilian prisoners.
We have set rules for how to treat captured military personnel.

If a country then decide to make up their own rules, you must understand that the world get somewhat... skeptical. No?

[Hax]

That's Israel, not us.

Since you don't bother reading: American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.


Being insensitive to public opinion <> "characterised by general ignorance concerning even aspects that any amateur historian or anthropologist could know about the Middle-East"

Read again: "and largely ignorant of".


Like Hamas?

Yes, because that's the only Islamist organisation everywhere anywhere all the time.


It's not worth $26.00

Yes well, y'know, it's your choice. You do realise that's exactly what's wrong with the world, right? By the way, it was written by this guy (http://www.sfu.ca/history/faculty-and-staff/faculty/retired/william-cleveland.html).

The thing is that you already think that you know everything you need to know about the Middle-East. Everything that differs from or seems to disagree with this opinion is immediately disregarded as wrong.


EDIT: By the way, remember that thing I said about the Ba‘ath party executing children a couple of threads back? I found the passage:

Warning: graphic descriptions


The next pages, therefore, belong to dr. Shahristani: [...]"One prisoner told me he was seventeen and he was the youngest prisoner and so they made him sweep the corridors of the internal security headquarters every morning at seven o'clock. He saw a peasnt woman from the south with tattoos, he said, a woman from the marshes with a girl of ten and a boy of about six. She was carrying a baby in her arms. the prisoner told me that as he was sweeping, an officer came and thold the woman: 'Tell me where your husband is - very bad things can happen.' She said: "Look, my husband takes great pride in the honour of his woman. If he knew I was here, he would have turned himself in.' The officer took out his pistol and held the daughter up by the braids of her hair and put a bullet into her head. The woman didn't know what was happening. Then he put a bullet into the boy's head. The woman was going crazy. He took the youngest boy by the legs and smashed the baby's brain on a wall.

[rvg]

We have set rules how to treat civilian prisoners.
We have set rules for how to treat captured military personnel.

If a country then decide to make up their own rules, you must understand that the world get somewhat... skeptical. No?

Terrorists are neither civilians nor military. Those rules do not apply to them.


Since you don't bother reading: American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Condi has nothing to do with the 2006 war




Read again: "and largely ignorant of".
Ignorant how?



Yes, because that's the only Islamist organisation everywhere anywhere all the time.
It's an offshoot of muslim brotherhood.


The thing is that you already think that you know everything you need to know about the Middle-East. Everything that differs from or seems to disagree with this opinion is immediately disregarded as wrong.
I do? They are? What makes you think that I think I know everything? I yield to arguments, provided that they are logical.

[Fragony]

We have set rules how to treat civilian prisoners.
We have set rules for how to treat captured military personnel.

If a country then decide to make up their own rules, you must understand that the world get somewhat... skeptical. No?

Who is that world you are talking about, it's certainly not me

[Kadagar_AV]

I think you've nailed the other side of the discussion. Sasaki, as I read him, is talking about where the marker for "torture" should be placed. You're asking if some torture can ever be acceptable.

To me, I don't think there's a black and white answer to either question. I think there are places on the far ends of the spectrum that everyone can agree on. Everything in between can get murky. That's where governments and treaties come in so the populace, via their elected representatives can decide....

We have set rules how to treat civilian prisoners.
We have set rules for how to treat captured military personnel.

If a country then decide to make up their own rules, you must understand that the world get somewhat... skeptical. No?

[Hax]

It's an offshoot of muslim brotherhood.

Which is still not the only Islamist organisation.


Condi has nothing to do with the 2006 war[/QUOTE]

And yet she said this thing about the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Of course she has something to do with it, she was the then-Secretary of State of State.

[QUOTE]I do? They are? What makes you think that I think I know everything? I yield to arguments, provided that they are logical.

How about the presumption that Islamist movements are legitimate. Let's start there.

[rvg]

Which is still not the only Islamist organisation.
It's certainly the largest one, the most influential, with branches all over Middle East.


Of course she has something to do with it, she was the then-Secretary of State of State.
Something? What something?



How about the presumption that Islamist movements are legitimate. Let's start there.
Why should I presume that?

[Hax]

It's certainly the largest one, the most influential, with branches all over Middle East.

Citation required.

Furthermore, all these "offshoots" that you mention are nowadays as far removed from the Muslim Brotherhood as the Marlboro Baptist Church is from the Vatican, theologically speaking.


Something? What something?

You tell me, I'm not an expert on what the Secretary of State can and can't or should and shouldn't say.


Why should I presume that?

I could just go the easy way and say: "read Cleveland's book, maybe just maybe you'd understand why."

The hard way, of course, will be the one to take: the rise to power of secularist and authoritarian regimes largely went hand-in-hand with an increase in unemployment and corruption, which led to widespread disillusionment with the ruling regimes, which in turn led to the formation of political opposition parties which were then more often than not (violently) suppressed. As a result of these crackdowns, the only remaining form of domestic political opposition was through religious opposition.

Examples of a dramatic increase of unemployment can be seen in countries as diverse and with completely different policies as Iran (the Shah vis-à-vis the Tudeh party), Indonesia (the failure of secular parties), Turkey (the rise of the AKP) and more recently Egypt and Tunisia, in which the two dominating political parties were Islamist in nature. The only places so far where we've seen the reverse are Libya and Lebanon, the latter primarily because a sectarian civil war that has lasted more than thirty years has made the people sick and tired of sectarian mumbo-jumbo, to put it mildly.


Basically, Islamism was a logical consequence of the dominating policy concerning political opposition in many different countries. And it should be treated, in my opinion, as a completely legitimate political current.

[rvg]

Citation required.

Furthermore, all these "offshoots" that you mention are nowadays as far removed from the Muslim Brotherhood as the Marlboro Baptist Church is from the Vatican, theologically speaking.
Certainly:
The Society of the Muslim Brothers (Arabic: جماعة الإخوان المسلمون‎, often simply: الإخوان المسلمون, "the Muslim Brotherhood", transliterated: al-ʾiḫwān al-muslimūn) is the Arab world's most influential[1] and one of the largest Islamic movements,[2] and is the largest political opposition organization in many Arab states.[which?] Founded in Egypt in 1928 as a Pan-Islamic, religious, political, and social movement by the Islamic scholar and schoolteacher Hassan al-Banna,[3][4][5][6] by the end of World War II the MB had an estimated two million members.[7] Its ideas had gained supporters throughout the Arab world and influenced other Islamist groups with its "model of political activism combined with Islamic charity work".[8]

That's wikipedia.



You tell me, I'm not an expert on what the Secretary of State can and can't or should and shouldn't say.
You're the one accusing her of being involved in the 2006 campaign...



I could just go the easy way and say: "read Cleveland's book, maybe just maybe you'd understand why."
Yeah, let's do it the hard way.


The hard way, of course, will be the one to take: the rise to power of secularist and authoritarian regimes largely went hand-in-hand with an increase in unemployment and corruption, which led to widespread disillusionment with the ruling regimes, which in turn led to the formation of political opposition parties which were then more often than not (violently) suppressed. As a result of these crackdowns, the only remaining form of domestic political opposition was through religious opposition.
Yes, yes, so far so good...


Examples of a dramatic increase of unemployment can be seen in countries as diverse and with completely different policies as Iran (the Shah vis-à-vis the Tudeh party),
From what I'm hearing out of Iran, people are fed up with the ayatollahs much more than they were with the Shah.


Indonesia (the failure of secular parties),
Failure? Could you elaborate on this?


Turkey (the rise of the AKP)
And their recent cleansing of the military is very troubling...


and more recently Egypt and Tunisia, in which the two dominating political parties were Islamist in nature.
And there already are some troublesome signals coming from Tunisia. Still, too early to judge either one.


The only places so far where we've seen the reverse are Libya and Lebanon, the latter primarily because a sectarian civil war that has lasted more than thirty years has made the people sick and tired of sectarian mumbo-jumbo, to put it mildly.
Libya was a pleasant surprise indeed. Nonetheless, it's too early to tell.


Basically, Islamism was a logical consequence of the dominating policy concerning political opposition in many different countries.
Oh, it's certainly logical. The question is: is it positive?


And it should be treated, in my opinion, as a completely legitimate political current.
Up until the Arab spring islamism manifested itself via Hamas, Hesbollah, and the dear Islamic Republic of Iran. Needless to say, I have a healthy skepticism when looking at islamist movements.

[Kadagar_AV]

We don't torture our own people, so torturing other people is crossing an obvious and easy-to-see moral line in the sand.

Don't know what else to say, really. Apologists gonna apologize. :shrug:

That's kind of the same as:


We have set rules how to treat civilian prisoners.
We have set rules for how to treat captured military personnel.

If a country then decide to make up their own rules, you must understand that the world get somewhat... skeptical. No?

But yeah. I actually would have less against it if the US didn't simultaneously try to picture themselves as "the good guys".

IF, and only when and IF the states and its people come out saying "Yeah, we are as bad as the rest, and the world is filled with grey scales" - I can somewhat have some understanding.

It's the damn "We are gonna lead the civilized world against the horrors" that gets to me. As the US is very VERY much part of what other people find horrific.

[rvg]

We don't torture our own people, so torturing other people is crossing an obvious and easy-to-see moral line in the sand.

Of course it is crossing the moral line. Sometimes that line needs to be crossed.

[Sarmatian]

Sometimes that line needs to be crossed.

That's the exact same thing the chicken said about the road.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Of course it is crossing the moral line. Sometimes that line needs to be crossed.

That's an incredibly dangerous thing to say, it implies above all that the US Government is an immoral entity - such a government has no legitimacy, and it therefore follows that it should be overthrown.

There remains the unanswered question regarding the information extracted during torture - it is by and large useless. torture was used to extract confessions of witchcraft and, most famously, it was used to discredit the Knights Templar and paint them as heretics.

[Kralizec]

Of course it is crossing the moral line. Sometimes that line needs to be crossed.

Kadagar, your sig needs to be updated.

No offense to you rvg, I can understand and sympathize with your opinions most of the time, but in this case I just disagree completely.

EDIT: lol, not one but two people actually jumped to reply to it before I could.

to further clarify, if I were the leader of a country and put in a position where someone came up to me that a ticking bomb scenario had just kicked with 3.000+ deaths at stake in and there was one chance, a realistic one, that those lives could be saved for sanctioning torture this one time I just might approve. I'm enough of a realist to admit that I'd seriously consider it. What bothers me is that people use the ticking bomb scenario as a hypothetical scenario to justify a policy of fighting terrorism in general, even as a strictly preemtive measure - even though that's not equivalent to the ticking bomb scenario.

[Kralizec]

I think you've nailed the other side of the discussion. Sasaki, as I read him, is talking about where the marker for "torture" should be placed. You're asking if some torture can ever be acceptable.

To me, I don't think there's a black and white answer to either question. I think there are places on the far ends of the spectrum that everyone can agree on. Everything in between can get murky. That's where governments and treaties come in so the populace, via their elected representatives can decide....

I think it's pretty obvious. Information can be given:

A) freely, voluntarily, free of any duress or coersion
B) under the conditions imposed, the subject calculates that it isn't worth the hassle
C) blackmail or other forms of coersion not considered torture (broad, and not particulary relevant here)
D) inflicting pain, or other stimuli severe enough to be considered equal or worse, that causes so much stress that the subject mentally breaks and begins to talk

Everything under category D is torture in my view. I can imagine situations where there the distinction between pressure and torture becomes blurred, such as sleep deprivation with intermittent interrogations. Waterboarding is, by definition, a procedure that causes your body to "believe" it's in the process of dying, and should always be considered torture. Wether it can ever be acceptable is, of course, another question.

[rvg]

to further clarify, if I were the leader of a country and put in a position where someone came up to me that a ticking bomb scenario had just kicked with 3.000+ deaths at stake in and there was one chance, a realistic one, that those lives could be saved for sanctioning torture this one time I just might approve. I'm enough of a realist to admit that I'd seriously consider it.

Soooo, how is your position different from mine?


There remains the unanswered question regarding the information extracted during torture - it is by and large useless. torture was used to extract confessions of witchcraft and, most famously, it was used to discredit the Knights Templar and paint them as heretics.

If we ever get our hands on Templar Ayman al-Zawahiri, yeah, let's just say that it'll suck to be him.

[Kadagar_AV]

Of course it is crossing the moral line. Sometimes that line needs to be crossed.


Kadagar, your sig needs to be updated.



Yeah.. Just, me having that in my signature would give whole other connotations... I still would never in any circumstance defend the view though. No matter what you talk about.

[Kadagar_AV]

DP,

To use the blunder to answer RVG though:


Soooo, how is your position different from mine?

Because there is a massive amount of situations where you have tortured people without a ticking bomb scenario?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Soooo, how is your position different from mine?

Ultimately, he probably wouldn't authorise it because there's very little chance it would work. Plus, he's be impeached, tried and convicted if caught.


If we ever get our hands on Templar Ayman al-Zawahiri, yeah, let's just say that it'll suck to be him.

So utility is just an excuse then? The real reason the inmates in Gitmo are tortured is because they can't be tried in a legal court.

[rvg]

Ultimately, he probably wouldn't authorise it because there's very little chance it would work. Plus, he's be impeached, tried and convicted if caught.
Oh, if that's the reason and if he puts his personal safety ahead of that of thousands of his compatriots, then he shouldn't be in a position to make that judgement call.


So utility is just an excuse then? The real reason the inmates in Gitmo are tortured is because they can't be tried in a legal court.
It might come as a surprise, but I really do not advocate torturing people for fun. So no, no need to torture Al Zawahiri if he cooperates.


Because there is a massive amount of situations where you have tortured people without a ticking bomb scenario?
Just because this tactic can be misused does not invalidate it when the situation really calls for it.

[Kralizec]

Soooo, how is your position different from mine?

Well, you've not exhaustively defined the conditions under which you'd approve torture, but you seem to have a basically utilitarian approach to the thing.

My general stance is that torture is unacceptable, but that I would probably not be able to resist approving it when there's 5 minutes left to save thousands of people and it's the only way, and a way I knew had a realistic chance of saving those people. Your stance seems to be that torture is wrong on principle, but that we should have a pre-designed policy of breaking that principle when dealing with terrorists.

Basically, the ticking bomb scenario strikes me as a red herring because it's used to justify a policy of torture for cases that clearly are not ticking bomb scenarios.

[rvg]

Well, you've not exhaustively defined the conditions under which you'd approve torture, but you seem to have a basically utilitarian approach to the thing.

My general stance is that torture is unacceptable, but that I would probably not be able to resist approving it when there's 5 minutes left to save thousands of people and it's the only way, and a way I knew had a realistic chance of saving those people. Your stance seems to be that torture is wrong on principle, but that we should have a pre-designed policy of breaking that principle when dealing with terrorists.

Basically, the ticking bomb scenario strikes me as a red herring because it's used to justify a policy of torture for cases that clearly are not ticking bomb scenarios.

This reminds me of the late Israeli PM Yitzhak Rabin. Not long after he took office, the Israeli security forces apprehended a guy whom they suspected in being involved in a suicide bomb plot. They asked Rabin for a go-ahead on torture to extract the plot from the guy. Rabin, declined, the suicide bomber went kaboom, a bunch of people died. A few months (or was it years) later, same scenario. Only this time Rabin agreed to put a suspect on the rack. The suspect sang like a bird, everyone involved was apprehended, plot was foiled.

The moral of the story is that even a liberal and peacenik like Rabin came to the understanding that sometimes you have to be just as ruthless or even more ruthless than your enemy. Otherwise innocent people die.

[Tellos Athenaios]

With just five minutes left you are going to waste time on physics equivalent of howling to the moon to extract life saving info?

... Yeah, that'll work.

[Beskar]

Of course it is crossing the moral line. Sometimes that line needs to be crossed.

No, it doesn't.

There is of course, relative morality which stands by the notion that your actions are justified on the basis on the need but such an situation isn't acting immoral or against the spirit of morality.

If a person was going to pull a trigger which would kill 100 people, the act for you to "prevent the immorality" is your moral responsibility. Ultimately, as such, a large array of tactics are employed (Should as asking the person to stop) with final "trump cards" as a last resort and only to be used as a last resort.

This is not "crossing that line" because your actions are completely justifiable and follows the spirit of the principles you uphold.

However, members of the Taliban should be treated with the same provision as an enemy combatant during the opening stages of the war (at minimum), since they were members of the regime. Since the regime has been supplanted, they are still citizens of that nation and their actions and crimes should be dealt by that nation. It is not the place of the "outside power" to deal with this and further more, that outside power should not be rule-lawyering like a "tax avoidance" cheat to clearly abuse the framework and system.

[Major Robert Dump]

This one time, I tortured a Taliban by having a 22 year-old female private come in and rub her breasts on his face until he vomited. We call that Boobie Boarding.

Another time, we tied a Taliban face down onto a peice of hard metal, then raised his head, where I pranced about in a thong with little sheep on it, gyrating my buttocks in his direction, to the beat of a Shakira song. The sheep and my manly, hairy buttocks was a double whammy, as his erection pressed against the metal and caused much discomfort. We call this Boner Boarding.

Both scenarios were successful. In the first, he confirmed his own innocence and allowed us to focus on other potential threats. We then erased his mind and dropped him on his Qalat porch, rang the giant bell, and ran off.

In the second scenarion, he was guilty, and led us straight to the one-armed man.

[Kadagar_AV]

Edit: forum is really playing up with me today!! Thunderstorms in Sweden or something else?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

With just five minutes left you are going to waste time on physics equivalent of howling to the moon to extract life saving info?

... Yeah, that'll work.

Well, quite.

Torture - just say no.

[Xiahou]

This one time, I tortured a Taliban by having a 22 year-old female private come in and rub her breasts on his face until he vomited. We call that Boobie Boarding.

Another time, we tied a Taliban face down onto a peice of hard metal, then raised his head, where I pranced about in a thong with little sheep on it, gyrating my buttocks in his direction, to the beat of a Shakira song. The sheep and my manly, hairy buttocks was a double whammy, as his erection pressed against the metal and caused much discomfort. We call this Boner Boarding.

Both scenarios were successful. In the first, he confirmed his own innocence and allowed us to focus on other potential threats. We then erased his mind and dropped him on his Qalat porch, rang the giant bell, and ran off.

In the second scenarion, he was guilty, and led us straight to the one-armed man.I notice you called boobie boarding torture- but not boner boarding. Why is that?

[Strike For The South]

"Well Enough"

Dead Americans, Dead civilians, A more unstable region, A region that hates us more than ever, Wars which have given leaders propaganda for years to come, states which are blackholes for money, states which will topple as soon as we leave.

I shudder to see your definition of average.

As a citizen of this republic I am fully culpable for the actions of my government, especially if I continually allow them to peruse these types policies.

I fully understand the realism of situation, however most America does not. Their kids are dying and our government tells them to wrap themselves in the flag, remember they died spreading democracy, and posts photos of motorcycle brigades, crying wives and opining dogs.

Dressing up the pawns as if they are martyrs in order to silence dissent.

I hold no love for terrorists, mind you. The killing of innocents is very wrong and they certainly deserve no praise or even equivalence. However,you will never hear me defending my government nor wondering why the hate happens.

Shining city upon the hill my ass. Nothing more than another in the long line of superpowers.

[Major Robert Dump]

I notice you called boobie boarding torture- but not boner boarding. Why is that?

It was just an accidental omission, as he was unable to reach me due to being restrained, made all the worse by the fact that it was Man Love Thursday. For what it's worth, he did try to tip me a dollar as we whisked him away blindfolded on a Korean Brackhark.

[Crazed Rabbit]

So it seems rvg is arguing for the sociopathic state, where every evil can be excused by claiming you're fighting the other side.


Of course it is crossing the moral line. Sometimes that line needs to be crossed.

That's ridiculous, as is you're original quote about abandoning principles. We never need to give in to fear.

One of the best reasons, of course, is that doing evil things to the enemy always leads to an expansion of the definition of enemy. Right now it's considered fine to have the President order the assassination of an American citizen without evidence, trial, judge or jury. How long until we do away with more rights in order to get criminals?

Abandoning principles destroys those principles.

Plus, I cannot support immoral actions.

CR

[HopAlongBunny]

Democracy-we had to destroy it in order to save it (tm)

[Ironside]

It's fine where it is now: in the grey area. Not legal, but still being used when the situation warrants it.

So no oversight outside the small group of "hard men making hard choises". That will go well, as it has been doing so many times in history.


Must? Nobody said that. Can. Can do and need to do. Occasionally. It's a useful tool when dealing with fanatics like those of al-Qaeda. No amount of religious instruction can trump good old fashioned pain. Everyone feels it, everyone fears it. So you apply it, make the guy wish he was never born, and then he talks. Oh, and make it clear that if he's lying, he'll be introduced to a whole new level of pain. Information received. Terrorist plot foiled. Everybody's happy.

Outside confessions, where the confession is certain from the beginning, torture is hardly a golden bullet. Many people doesn't give useful information, even when they are known to have important information.

[HopAlongBunny]

We never need to give in to fear.CR

This.

Giving in to fear is handing terrorists a pure win. Roll back rights (win) compromise principles (win) transform into a "torture state" (win); what victory have you actually denied you persecutors?

[Fragony]

Giving in to fear and understanding there is a threat is not the same thing.

@all, if someone kidnapped a loved one and straps up timed explosion with 2 hours on the clock on said loved one, and he's sitting right on front of you but refuses to talk, wouldn't you be prepared to torture him?

[Beskar]

@all, if someone kidnapped a loved one and straps up timed explosion with 2 hours on the clock on said loved one, and he's sitting right on front of you but refuses to talk, wouldn't you be prepared to torture him?

I addressed that in this post (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?142445-rvg-some-couple-of-years-later&p=2053481866&viewfull=1#post2053481866).

It is a completely different situation and you have to be honest, torture is probably one of the worst ways to get him talking. "All I need is hold out a little longer.. then I win!", with that kind of motivation especially when they have a conviction to die themselves, your loved one will blow up.

Most logical choice would be is to try to be reasonable with the said person, whilst in the background, you start doing things like "When was he last seen two hours ago on the CCTV.." "He called that number at roughly that time and there.. ok, the victim might be at 22nd Street.."

You would be employing a vast amount of resources which are far more liking to produce the results you want in that situation and that person knows full well if you kill him, you lose anyway so it would have to be some extreme torture, which unfortunately, would take days and weeks to the point he tells you so you may allow him to have a quick death. The example is fundamentally flawed and counterproductive.

Also on amazing note, you have all those people in Gitmo getting tortured for years and none of them dobbed on Osama Bin Laden and he was found through detective work and deduction.

[Fragony]

I addressed that in this post (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?142445-rvg-some-couple-of-years-later&p=2053481866&viewfull=1#post2053481866).

It is a completely different situation and you have to be honest, torture is probably one of the worst ways to get him talking. "All I need is hold out a little longer.. then I win!", with that kind of motivation especially when they have a conviction to die themselves, your loved one will blow up.

Most logical choice would be is to try to be reasonable with the said person, whilst in the background, you start doing things like "When was he last seen two hours ago on the CCTV.." "He called that number at roughly that time and there.. ok, the victim might be at 22nd Street.."

You would be employing a vast amount of resources which are far more liking to produce the results you want in that situation and that person knows full well if you kill him, you lose anyway so it would have to be some extreme torture, which unfortunately, would take days and weeks to the point he tells you so you may allow him to have a quick death. The example is fundamentally flawed and counterproductive.

Also on amazing note, you have all those people in Gitmo getting tortured for years and none of them dobbed on Osama Bin Laden and he was found through detective work and deduction.

Not counterproductive if you torture him really badly. It isn't a very nice thing to do but I can think of a few situation where it is the best out of bad choices. If every second counts bring on the fishing-hooks, I would certainly do what I would really hate doing. I'm not an agressive or a sadistic person but I will do it if I don't see any other way. Saying you would never torture a person or kill a person is nonsense. Everybody will if the stakes are high.

[rvg]

We never need to give in to fear.

It's not about giving in to fear, it's about putting lives above principles. If you don't want to torture a terrorist in order to prevent an attack, that's your prerogative. Me? I'd light a fire under him in a heartbeat. As for whether or not it is moral or immoral, ask the families of the victims of the terrorist attack that could have been prevented. To me, saving the lives of my compatriots is of higher priority than respecting the rights of a person whose life's aim is the utter destruction of our way of life.



Doing something that is wrong because you are overcome with righteous and violent emotion, understandable to all? We have something for that in our legal system, called a Crime of Passion. It is still a crime. nate or spontaneous. It was cold, calculated, and involved many top white-house lawyers and many layers of secrecy.[

Its moot anyway, though. The process that legitimized torture under the Bush administration was far from passion

What emotion? What passion? It's a matter of logic. If you don't obtain information A, people die. Suspect B has information A, but refuses to relinquish it. So you do what needs to be done to obtain A. End of story. This isn't vengeance, it's intelligence gathering.

[Beskar]

Saying you would never torture a person or kill a person is nonsense. Everybody will if the stakes are high.

I didn't say that in my little speech, I was more addressing that it is purely situational warranted. If that person x had the answer you need, outright killing him would be very counterproductive, and lets say he co-operated (or didn't), outright killing him would not be desired either.

Obviously if it was a "him or me" situation, I would shoot in self-defence. My goal isn't to necessarily kill, it is just to prevent him from killing me.

There is an obvious morality still in play. Going far beyond the scope of that morality is unacceptable.

Sure in the "him or me" situation I might end up killing the person, I don't deny this fact, but I will take solace I did the best I could before that moment. These are boiling kettle situations where the line can be very sketchy, but being able to understand a situation in context does not give ground to the argument that prolonged detention and torture without a trial is acceptable.

So in a nutshell:
"two-hour bomb on a family member, person obviously guilty, he knows codes and location which can save them"
=/=
"I was loading a truck with weapons before the US marines came up and arrested me, I am now on an island off the coast of Cuba being tortured for three years when I have not got any useful information to supply and no chance of foreseeable freedom"

[Fragony]

I didn't say that in my little speech, I was more addressing that it is purely situational warranted. If that person x had the answer you need, outright killing him would be very counterproductive, and lets say he co-operated (or didn't), outright killing him would not be desired either.

Obviously if it was a "him or me" situation, I would shoot in self-defence. My goal isn't to necessarily kill, it is just to prevent him from killing me.

There is an obvious morality still in play. Going far beyond the scope of that morality is unacceptable.

Sure in the "him or me" situation I might end up killing the person, I don't deny this fact, but I will take solace I did the best I could before that moment. These are boiling kettle situations where the line can be very sketchy, but being able to understand a situation in context does not give ground to the argument that prolonged detention and torture without a trial is acceptable.

The best you could you have done you probably already did at the point where you would even consider it. That is also civilisasation, not really liking it.

[Major Robert Dump]

I'm not going to get into the waterboarding is-or-is-not torture argument, although I do think it is sad that we have to argue this to begin with, considering it was used as a desperate tactic in War of Choice, that we rushed into unprepared, to save peoples skins in a textbook insurgency that the VP warned us would happen in 1992 but apparently changed his mind about 10 years later, sending tens of thousands of troops riding in soft skin humvees and then acting all OMGUS when we started getting mass cals, diagnosing the weapons incorrectly and killing civilians, which fueld the insurgency, then finally figuring it our and patting ourselves on the backs for figuring out even though it was just like what happened in the philippines.

Anyway, it appears the two remaining cases have been closed, in which a CIA agent in Iraq tortured a guy to death and one in Afghanistan did the same thing. In both cases, the agents have been promoted. Even if you support torture 100%, this is appalling, considering they obviously sucked at their job and they got lots of military people working under them in deep, deep trouble.

I hope at least some lessons were learned, and that future detainee guards tell civlian "advisors" to **** off when given illegal orders. But I doubt it.

[Papewaio]

It's not about giving in to fear, it's about putting lives above principles. If you don't want to torture a terrorist in order to prevent an attack, that's your prerogative. Me? I'd light a fire under him in a heartbeat. As for whether or not it is moral or immoral, ask the families of the victims of the terrorist attack that could have been prevented. To me, saving the lives of my compatriots is of higher priority than respecting the rights of a person whose life's aim is the utter destruction of our way of life.


Let us skip things like terrorist cells where information is so limited between group members that leakage is virtually impossible.

I'm fine with your rules of engagement as long as you understand that love, war and diplomacy are all reciprical arrangements.

By your own rules it is fine for an enemy combatant to be tortured if it saves lives of your compatriots. Add in rendition, drone strikes and a new definition of surrender being stark naked with hands up. These are all acceptable methods to fight ones enemies.

Of course the reciprical is also true. So Afghans, Iraqis and any other invaded country can fight back against an occupying power as per the Declaration of Independence as it stats some of the key reasons to being allowed to do so is the use of mercenaries against the population and the lack of trials. Drone strikes certainly are a method of skipping innocent until proven guilty. If you want to use the tack that they were armed, well the right to bear arms doesn't make every American an enemy of the state either does it?

So occupied people have the right to fight back as per the Declaration of Independence.

They also have the right to fight back in a manner the same as their aggressor.

So if they torture American soldiers to find out information that will save the lives of their compatriots that is reciprical.
If they don't take American prisoners unless they are naked and have their hands up that as reciprical.
If they shoot first and ask questions later that is reciprical.
If they behead an enemy in an effort to save lives of their compatriots well that is reciprical too. It just a bit of column A and column B together of reciprical behaviour for drone strikes and torture.

If you are fine with this being the new rules of engagement then as we like to say no worries. If not why not? If its good for the goose it's good for the gander.

Every action or in action has consequences. Just not always the ones we intend. Bit like smoking really. :smoking:

[rvg]

I'm fine with your rules of engagement as long as you understand that love, war and diplomacy are all reciprical arrangements.

They're terrorists, they observe no rules.

[Fragony]

They're terrorists, they observe no rules.

^- that. Genevaconvention is about war between nations.

[rvg]

Hah. When they first went over them in basic training, the name was simple "The Rules of Land Warfare." We were trained to treat them properly, and according to the rules.

So, this torture memo went against regular Army policies that were actually still in effect 3 years later. :shrug:

I wonder what their memos are saying...

[rvg]

Mommy, its not my fault, they did it too? I bet you're big on family valus, like most right wingers, right? Why bother teaching those values to your kids if you're not going to apply them to the world?

Oh, wait.. because the lynchpin of your viewpoint is that we are inherently better than them, and because of that its all good. I shouldn't have to explain to you why that is bad.

Is this what you call a rebuttal? Nice try.

[rvg]

Pot calling the kettle black?

Are you saying I'm not right? You're whole point of view revolves around the idea that an American life is worth more than an Afghan life or an Iraqi life. Everything else is just you trying to make it sound rational.

My view is that an innocent life is worth more than the rights of a terrorist. Nothing more.

[rvg]

Orly?
When we detained people in Iraq, especially in the early days, it was 'catch-em-all and sort-em out later.' Lots of innocent people were tortured at gitmo, some of them even US citizens. I believe they were allowed to sue, though I'd have to look up the articles to be sure.
I never advocated torture for the sake of torture, i.e. "let's shake him down and see what falls out."


Either way, your willingness to get into a messy and morally abased situation (i.e. sanctioned torture) led directly to the results you didn't want--innocents being tortured, regardless of their nationality.
Innocent people get sent to prison sometimes. that doesn't invalidate the justice system as a whole.

[rvg]

No such transparency exists here.

That's an entirely different issue. CIA/Military Intelligence aren't subjects to public scrutiny.

[a completely inoffensive name]

That's an entirely different issue. CIA/Military Intelligence aren't subjects to public scrutiny.

So why are you treating them the same as institutions that are?

[rvg]

So why are you treating them the same as institutions that are?

Que?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Que?
Let's walk through it.



Innocent people get sent to prison sometimes. that doesn't invalidate the justice system as a whole.
A typical "Shit happens. We deal with it and accept it." kind of argument.


Because the justice system is relatively transparent, and is generally applied fairly because public outcry is always a possibility. No such transparency exists here.
A reply that this does not apply because we only accept said shit due to the fact that we can look into how and why said shit happened, AKA there is transparency in the system that allows us to understand where things went wrong and attempt ot correct where said error occurred.


That's an entirely different issue. CIA/Military Intelligence aren't subjects to public scrutiny.
Here you accept that the institutions under fire have no transparency and yet you don't recognize the disconnect that without transparency you can't accept when "Shit happens." Because we don't even know if it is an error in judgement or a systematic policy that puts American liberties in danger.

There is no recourse for national security matters (post 9/11) so we must demand more in terms of behavior and make the line in the sand absolutely clear, because we are in a world of pain if we find ourselves on the wrong side of that line due to it being pushed further towards us every time someone says "for the good of american lives...."

Is this clear now?

[rvg]

Here you accept that the institutions under fire have no transparency and yet you don't recognize the disconnect that without transparency you can't accept when "Shit happens." Because we don't even know if it is an error in judgement or a systematic policy that puts American liberties in danger.
Who says that you can't accept it?


There is no recourse for national security matters (post 9/11) so we must demand more in terms of behavior and make the line in the sand absolutely clear, because we are in a world of pain if we find ourselves on the wrong side of that line due to it being pushed further towards us every time someone says "for the good of american lives...."
Demand what you like. Nobody's stopping you. It doesn't obligate me to demand the same.


Is this clear now?
I'm not sure what you're arguing TBH. I was drawing an analogy, i.e "The fact that X is not perfect does not mean it's invalid."

[a completely inoffensive name]

Who says that you can't accept it?
I do. Deal with it.



Demand what you like. Nobody's stopping you. It doesn't obligate me to demand the same.
If you want all American citizens to be regarded as merely criminals in progress, then yeah sure. Nothing obligates you.



I'm not sure what you're arguing TBH. I was drawing an analogy, i.e "The fact that X is not perfect does not mean it's invalid."

I am arguing that you are just being a coward and don't understand that the American life is characterized by a standard of living up to principles in the face of what seems to be invincible odds. We were founded by people who fought against the largest and most dominating empire the world had seen yet. That tradition of pressing onward as long as we can hold our chin up high is what prompted much of American history. Not to say that we have upheld that standard always, but to abandon it completely is to cease being American.

[rvg]

I do. Deal with it.
You do? Oh, okay. Who are you again?


If you want all American citizens to be regarded as merely criminals in progress, then yeah sure. Nothing obligates you.
Um... this is just a total non sequitur.


I am arguing that you are just being a coward and don't understand that the American life is characterized by a standard of living up to principles in the face of what seems to be invincible odds.
Let me guess... says you?


We were founded by people who fought against the largest and most dominating empire the world had seen yet. That tradition of pressing onward as long as we can hold our chin up high is what prompted much of American history. Not to say that we have upheld that standard always, but to abandon it completely is to cease being American.
Rhetoric is nice, but it doesn't replace logic. I see rhetoric here, but no logic.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You do? Oh, okay. Who are you again?
It was a very aggressive joke.



Um... this is just a total non sequitur.
You cannot argue that over the past 11 years the security/intelligence field has grown larger and larger to the detriment of many domestic liberties and there is no sign of it stopping precisely due to the argument that everything we do is so American lives are not killed. When the TSA expands beyond planes, to bus stops, trains and crossing state lines, you are no longer a citizen able to travel freely but a suspected terrorist in perpetuity.




Rhetoric is nice, but it doesn't replace logic. I see rhetoric here, but no logic.
Yeah, you don't. That's a problem.

[rvg]

Quite to the contrary, RVG. Your position is the only one that is logically untenable. I don't know what to say other than to suggest you re-read this thread carefully. :shrug:

If you have issues with the methods used by our intelligence officers, I understand that. Nobody's asking you to adopt those methods or to participate. However, if you are willing to trade innocent lives for a lofty principle, and I am not, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.


You cannot argue that over the past 11 years the security/intelligence field has grown larger and larger to the detriment of many domestic liberties and there is no sign of it stopping precisely due to the argument that everything we do is so American lives are not killed. When the TSA expands beyond planes, to bus stops, trains and crossing state lines, you are no longer a citizen able to travel freely but a suspected terrorist in perpetuity.
We're not discussing some Joe Schmuck who has to take off his shoes at the airport. We're discussing persuading a hardcore terrorist to talk so that an otherwise imminent attack can be averted.

[a completely inoffensive name]

We're not discussing some Joe Schmuck who has to take off his shoes at the airport. We're discussing persuading a hardcore terrorist to talk so that an otherwise imminent attack can be averted.

The legal boundaries we draw at the "hardcore terrorists" are the same boundaries that are drawn for American citizens, because if there is anything that is lofty in this world it is the government definition of terrorist.

[rvg]

The principle isn't lofty, RVG. That's the point. That you think so is actually kind of disturbing. I explained earlier why adherence to these rules is in our enlightened self-interest.

Cube, we're not robots. There are certain situations that require as as decent human beings to make judgement calls. Those judgement calls occasionally might be outside the scope of what the society at large considers acceptable. Rules are great and 99% of the time are applicable. We have to recognize though that rules cannot cover every possible situation. I for once refuse to vilify an operative who saves many at the expense of teaching a terrorist how to breathe under water. If that makes me a bad person, then so be it. Being a slave to rules at the expense of innocent lives is not something that I can accept. Not as an American, but as a human.


The legal boundaries we draw at the "hardcore terrorists" are the same boundaries that are drawn for American citizens, because if there is anything that is lofty in this world it is the government definition of terrorist.
Can you provide an example of us torturing an average Joe?

[rvg]

This has absolutely nothing to do with anything, other than that it is hilarious and ironic.

You don't want to be a slave to rules? Let your government get away with torturing american citizens (or anyone, really) because you are afraid of the bogey man and you're a slave anyway, sooner or later.
What American citizens? Where? When?

[Vuk]

What's an RVG? Red Vision Goggles? Roman Version of God? Ridiculous, Vindictive Guy? Robert's Victim Girls? Rollerblade Vesper Gown?

[rvg]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14453895

There's a freebie.

Okay so let's see...


According to court records filed in the latest case, in 2005 and 2006 Mr Vance and Mr Ertel were working in Iraq for Shield Group Security, a privately-held security company, when they became suspicious the company was making improper payments to Iraqi officials in exchange for influence, and that its employees were engaged in illicit weapons-trafficking and other illegal activity.

The men began feeding information to US government officials in Iraq until, in April 2006, the company confiscated their credentials to enter the Baghdad Green Zone, effectively barring them from the safest part of the war-ravaged country, according to their court pleadings.

Then, US military personnel detained them, confiscated their belongings, handcuffed and blindfolded them and took them to a military base in Baghdad, where they were fingerprinted, strip-searched and locked in a cage.

They were then taken to Camp Cropper near Baghdad International Airport, where they "experienced a nightmarish scene in which they were detained incommunicado, in solitary confinement, and subjected to physical and psychological torture for the duration of their imprisonment - Vance for three months and Ertel for six weeks", the court wrote, reiterating the men's allegations.

Has the fact that they were actually tortured been proven in court?

[rvg]

I'll give you that, but at the very least the bloated intelligence apparatus that has been enabled by the acceptance of torture led directly to these men being illegally detained and deprived of their constitutional rights by our own military. And this after we hired them as mercenaries.

I agree that this is screwed up, but the whole thing ended up where it's supposed to end up: in court. If they were wronged, someone's gonna pay for it.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I agree that this is screwed up, but the whole thing ended up where it's supposed to end up: in court. If they were wronged, someone's gonna pay for it.

Until the law says otherwise....

[rvg]

My point, though, is that the moral line in the sand I was talking about earlier is there for a reason. Once you've crossed the line, it gets easier and easier to cross. The American people will never be able to peacefully take away the blank check on morally bankrupt activities that the government now has access to. It is attitudes like yours that made it possible, and that ensure it will happen again.

:book2:

So...when Obama authorized killing U.S. citizen Anwar Al Awlaki, was that a "morally bankrupt activity" in your opinion?

[rvg]

You're god-damned right.

See, to me this was a direct application of what I've been supporting. I wanted to see that sonuvabitch pushing daisies years ago. Now, he directly inspired the Ft Hood guy and the underwear bomber, imho he got exactly what he deserved. It was justice.

[rvg]

Was he truly so guilty?

Did he get his day in court? As an American citizen, he was entitled to that. He was never even tried in absentia, iirc, unless it was a military court.

That's the good thing about being president: he can authorize stuff like that just because it's the right thing to do. Whether he was tried in the military court, I do not know. Probably not. What matters though, is that with his death AQAP was seriously crippled.

[rvg]

You trust the president so much?
In this particular case, yes. If I were him, I would do the same.


Last time I checked, reaching out and killing those subjects of yours who frighten you too much to give due process to was the province of Kings, not Presidents.
The subject didn't "frighten" him, the subject incited murderers to kill the innocent. Over 20 innocent people died. The subject was permanently silenced. The president did his duty as a Commander in Chief: he protected the American people.


I also don't see how AQAP was 'crippled.' He was just a propaganda guy. He didn't have the money and he wasn't the boss. AQAP is hurting because the Yemeni government turned against them, not because we blew up some whacked-out american citizen who was in way over his dumb-ass head. That missile destroyed the ability of AQAP to effectively recruit people in the West. Furthermore, Awlaki as an orator was well spoken enough to attract plenty of donations. He was a very eloquent guy actually. Even ended up in Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/liveonline/01/nation/ramadan_awlaki1119.htm).

[rvg]

Why not send in a team to extract him? Putting him on trial and proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that he did in fact incite those murders, and then putting a needle in his arm as he was sent to hell? Now that, my friend, would be justice.
If it were feasible, don't you think it would have been done?


Acting on a presumption of guilt (however probable) and sending in some drones to blow him up is just cowardly.
Cowardly? Is Obama a follower of the Bushido? I'm not sure what you mean by "cowardly", was Obama supposed to personally fly to Yemen and beat Al Awlaki to death?

[rvg]

Perfectly feasible. He was in Yemen, a nation that was effectively under the control of Al Qaeda at the time. Sending in a team would have had much less political repurcussions than sending in the team to kill OBL did.
And yet it wasn't done. Perhaps the idea had the drawbacks that you and I aren't privy to know? With Osama the idea of a hellfire missle was also an option. It was rejected because the missile didn't guarantee that Osama would be dead. Awlaki was killed while traveling, got a 100% positive ID via drone and then kaboom. Osama never left the building, that's why the seals were sent in.


And there surely would have been no shortage of voltunteers; hell I was in the Army at the time, I totally would have gone for it.
Why needlessly risk your life?


Unfortunately, the president knew he could get away with taking the easy way out.
A smart way out.



Cowardly, yes. Afraid to do the hard thing even though it is the right thing. If you let your leaders make cowardly decisions, it reflects on the nation. We have a lot of cowards in America, and that's a bummer.The notion of bravado for the sake of sake of bravado smells of a death wish. Accomplishing one's goal with the smallest possible risk is the smart way to go.

[rvg]

Until it leads to compromising your principles in such a way that endangers the people it was meant to protect. Hence the need for concepts of honor and justice to begin with. :shrug:Endangers whom and how? Obama went after a specific threat for a specific reason. Whom did he endanger as a result?

[rvg]

There is now a legal precedent for extra-judicial execution of 'terrorists' who have been been accused (but not convicted or tried) of inciting murder. Not actual murder, but inciting murder. If you think anything good will come of that in the long run, then you probably also thought the Patriot Act was a good idea.

It doesn't mean that just anyone can start popping people. The decision still has to come from the president. If the commander-in-chief can't do what needs to be done, then why have that post at all?

[rvg]

What needs to be done? Or what the administration wants to do, but doesn't want to ask permission for? There is a huge difference between 'making the hard calls that nobody else can' and 'doing it first and asking for permission later.' Neither one is particularly applicable in a democratic society anyway.

Whose permission? He's the commander-in-chief, he needs no permissions.

[rvg]

What? That's not true at all. Are you sure you're not some kind of American Monarchist?
There's a reason we elect him: we delegate our ability to make tough judgement calls to him.

[rvg]

No. You elect him to effect policies that you think will benefit you and the nation, according to your own personal metric of good or bad politics.

That's exactly what he did.

[Kadagar_AV]

RVG, do you watch Fox News, by any chance?

[rvg]

RVG, do you watch Fox News, by any chance?

Sometimes. BBC is my main news source.

[Kadagar_AV]

Sometimes. BBC is my main news source.

Do You understand what they say, when You watch BBC?

[rvg]

Do You understand what they say, when You watch BBC?

Only when they're speaking English.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There's a reason we elect him: we delegate our ability to make tough judgement calls to him.

Within the bounds of your Laws and Constitution.

You guys got more upset about him trying to force you to have health insurance than his extra-judicial murder of a foreign national in an allied nation.

[rvg]

You guys got more upset about him trying to force you to have health insurance than his extra-judicial murder of a foreign national in an allied nation.
Do you seriously expect for someone here to be upset over Osama's death? Really?

[Tellos Athenaios]

No, but the ramifications are unpleasant especially when you have a system of law which enshrines precedent so strongly. It's actually not OBL's death you should be worried about, in the sense that this sort of thing probably is par for the course only usually you are not told about it. Rather you should worry about the precedent of bombing US citizens in Yemen, the PATRIOT act and so on.

[rvg]

Rather you should worry about the precedent of bombing US citizens in Yemen, the PATRIOT act and so on.

If those aforementioned citizens openly declare war on America and openly join the enemy, to hell with them. This isn't even a morally grey area imho: send a hellfire in their direction and move on to the next target.

[rvg]

Oh yeah, its all flag-waving jingoist goodness until the government decides to flex its muscles here at home. The NDAA, the Patriot Act, the precedent of extra-judicial murder... its all more than enough to ensure that the sheep will get slaughtered sooner or later. The lapse of democratic judgement has already occured, and all we can do now is wait for the other shoe to drop.

:shrug:

this imho is nothing but crying wolf at this point.

[Strike For The South]

I love the comment the average Joe won't get tortured.

No country in the history of countries has ever said it was torturing people who were not toattly public enemy #1 and a grave threat.

[rvg]

Well you've refused to see any of the more down-to-earth arguments against the expansion of executive power, so all I can do now is tell you how its gonna be. Hopefully our kids don't hate us too much for it.

Thse arguments simply aren't very convincing. So far we have Osama -- dead, Awlaki -- dead. Those are good things in my book.

[rvg]

They are good, but in order to kill them we broke our own laws and re-wrote the ones we didn't break. We live in a precedent-based society, and things like this always come back to bite you in the ass.

I would argue about the always part. Either way, if those laws become a liability, we'll repeal them. If we decide that the president's job description allows allows him to do too much, we'll change it. That's the beauty of democracy.

[rvg]

RVG, if the Patriot Act is ever repealed, I'll buy you a fifth of whatever booze you want and hand-deliver it to your door.

How can you be a fan of the right and yet be so ignorant of big-government tactics? Watching all the Republicans turn into blunt, straight-up proponents of big-government has been flabberghasting over these last 10 years.

I'm a conservative, yes, but that doesn't make me a republican. The fact that I'll be voting for Obama should be a clear indication that I'm in no way partisan in my views.

[Papewaio]

I would argue about the always part. Either way, if those laws become a liability, we'll repeal them. If we decide that the president's job description allows allows him to do too much, we'll change it. That's the beauty of democracy.

Precedence & Reciprocity. Other belligerents can act in kind and that is not something you can change by changing the rules again. This is not the Americas Cup where you can change the rules and the competitors must abide.

It's also not just about conflicts you are a belligerent in. Your actions have set a new low benchmark for the US which effects leverage in a whole range of diplomatic encounters. It so means other nation states can chose to deal with their dissidents and enemies in the same manner.

US diplomatic leverage has been watered down. How can the US stop Russia, China or any other nation from executing without trials? All they have to say is that the people killed where believed to be terrorists any bystanders or innocents are merely collateral damage.

If an American now incites the murder a foreign national that foreign nation can legitimately order the assassination without trial of that American. That is reciprocity in action.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

They are good, but in order to kill them we broke our own laws and re-wrote the ones we didn't break. We live in a precedent-based society, and things like this always come back to bite you in the ass.

Well, they aren't really good because they were murdered.

Question: Which is better, dead OBL or OBL voluntarily wrapping himself in the US flag and painting a peace symbol on his turban?


I would argue about the always part. Either way, if those laws become a liability, we'll repeal them. If we decide that the president's job description allows allows him to do too much, we'll change it. That's the beauty of democracy.

Executive power naturally expands, especially in a democracy where people keep demanding the government "do" something.

Ergo Patrio Act = Bad.

[Papewaio]

Okay so let's see...
Has the fact that they were actually tortured been proven in court?

Reciprocity it's like a wheel you know. Just remember that your standards state people are guilty until proven innocent. If we don't need a court of law to prove that a terrorist is or is not in fact Joe Average, we don't need a court of law to rubber stamp any other facts or rumours.

Just remember these aren't my standards these are yours applied across the board.

[rvg]

Ergo Patrio Act = Bad.

That's your opinion. Decision on whether on not we should keep it is ours. If people are sufficiently pissed off by a law, any law, they will change it. If it stays, then it's not sufficiently bad.



Question: Which is better, dead OBL or OBL voluntarily wrapping himself in the US flag and painting a peace symbol on his turban?

Dead, of course. Dead, dead, dead.

[Greyblades]

Well, they aren't really good because they were murdered.

Question: Which is better, dead OBL or OBL voluntarily wrapping himself in the US flag and painting a peace symbol on his turban?

Is this pre 9/11 OBL or post 9/11?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's your opinion. Decision on whether on not we should keep it is ours. If people are sufficiently pissed off by a law, any law, they will change it. If it stays, then it's not sufficiently bad.

It won't be repealed before the Revolution.


Dead, of course. Dead, dead, dead.

Why?


Is this pre 9/11 OBL or post 9/11?

Post.

[Beskar]

Question: Which is better, dead OBL or OBL voluntarily wrapping himself in the US flag and painting a peace symbol on his turban?


The latter, assuming this is him surrendering peacefully or self-exile away from it all and preaching that he was wrong and peace is the answer.

[rvg]

It won't be repealed before the Revolution.
Sure it will. If we could repeal The Prohibition, we can repeal anything.




Why?
He killed 3000 innocent people.

[Kadagar_AV]

He killed 3000 innocent people.

So... assassinating one of your former heroes is better than having him turn back into your fold, urging whoever is against you to lay down their cause and weapons?


Quite the fan of punishment, aren't you?

[Greyblades]

Post.

Dead.

[rvg]

Quite the fan of punishment, aren't you?

A fan of justice, and in this case punishment as an extension of justice.

[Kadagar_AV]

A fan of justice, and in this case punishment as an extension of justice.

But don't you just LOVE IT when justice is punishing?

Nevermind results, :cheerleader: PUNISH PUNISH PUNISH :cheerleader:

[Papewaio]

Sure it will. If we could repeal The Prohibition, we can repeal anything.


Except this isn't a domestic law. It was international action. So you can't easily repeal it anymore unless you can revert the damage. As we can't raise the dead I cannot see how other State Actors can be made to not play the same game.

It is now a legitimate act of statehood to assassinate be it drone or radiation. There is no court requirement or innocent until proven guilty.

China and Russia can legitimately poison a dissdent or bomb a house. No need for a court of law to get involved as long as Putin signs off on it that is fine.

New game, new rules. Genie is out of the bottle.

If you really want a do over that would be nigh on impossible. It would require stopping the assassinations internally, a show of contrition, a very real need to prosecute those in the wrong and after all that international treaties with other nations to put this behind us all.

Until that point any regieme can use this new rule set.

[Kadagar_AV]

Except this isn't a domestic law. It was international action. So you can't easily repeal it anymore unless you can revert the damage. As we can't raise the dead I cannot see how other State Actors can be made to not play the same game.

It is now a legitimate act of statehood to assassinate be it drone or radiation. There is no court requirement or innocent until proven guilty.

China and Russia can legitimately poison a dissdent or bomb a house. No need for a court of law to get involved as long as Putin signs off on it that is fine.

New game, new rules. Genie is out of the bottle.

If you really want a do over that would be nigh on impossible. It would require stopping the assassinations internally, a show of contrition, a very real need to prosecute those in the wrong and after all that international treaties with other nations to put this behind us all.

Until that point any regieme can use this new rule set.

This.

But I don't think RVG gets it.

[rvg]

Except this isn't a domestic law. It was international action. So you can't easily repeal it anymore unless you can revert the damage. As we can't raise the dead I cannot see how other State Actors can be made to not play the same game.
Why would we want to revert that?


It is now a legitimate act of statehood to assassinate be it drone or radiation. There is no court requirement or innocent until proven guilty.
And I applaud it. We're not gonna drag every single enemy of the United States to court. They do not deserve that luxury.


China and Russia can legitimately poison a dissdent or bomb a house. No need for a court of law to get involved as long as Putin signs off on it that is fine.
We do not do that.


New game, new rules. Genie is out of the bottle.
About time.


If you really want a do over that would be nigh on impossible. It would require stopping the assassinations internally, a show of contrition, a very real need to prosecute those in the wrong and after all that international treaties with other nations to put this behind us all. Until that point any regieme can use this new rule set.
I have no desire to see this end. In fact, the more of these people we kill, the better. International law gives me zero pause. Zero. I do not care. It is the duty of our government to strike at its enemies wherever and whenever feasible in order to protect our people and our interests. I wish I could convey just how little I care about what the world thinks of this. I wish.

As for the USA turning into a police state and using these methods internally, it is my firm belief that Democracy is a self-correcting system. If the system goes too far, the people will change it. The power is vested with us.

[rvg]

RVG, you're not getting it. Its not just about us.
It is first about us, then everyone else. We're not a charity, our interests come first.


No longer can we point at countries like China and Russia when they do things that are obviously authoritarian. We don't have a leg to stand on.
Sure we can. We do not oppress our own people.


As far as the rest of the world is considered, we're just another big angry empire. :rtwno:
Let them think whatever they like.


And you're whole democracy being self-correcting thing... Care to explain a little more? The only way to self-correct for this is armed insurrection, and Americans just aren't ready for the realities of what that would mean.
Laws get passed, amended and repealed every day. If the people decide that the laws are oppressive, they will change them. If the courts decide that the executive branch is abusing power, we will punish it.


Thankfully, like Rome before us, its good to be on the winning side. But don't kid yourself into thinking this is all about freedom and shit.
If destroying evil is wrong, then I quite frankly do not wanna be right.

[Kadagar_AV]

wow...

[Kadagar_AV]

I think that what RVG fails to see, is that he takes civilization back quite some.

Some of the steps that I am most proud of that humanity has taken, he defends trampling on for some ill-conceived furthering of his nation.

I don't get how he thinks, I'm not sure I even WANT to understand how he thinks.

[rvg]

I don't get how he thinks, I'm not sure I even WANT to understand how he thinks.

To each their own.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The latter, assuming this is him surrendering peacefully or self-exile away from it all and preaching that he was wrong and peace is the answer.


But don't you just LOVE IT when justice is punishing?

Nevermind results, :cheerleader: PUNISH PUNISH PUNISH :cheerleader:

These guys get it, because they read the news.


Sure it will. If we could repeal The Prohibition, we can repeal anything.

He killed 3000 innocent people.


Dead.

You two don't - look up "Martin McGuinness" and "Gerry Adams", then look up "Northern Ireland Peace Process"

[rvg]

You two don't - look up "Martin McGuinness" and "Gerry Adams", then look up "Northern Ireland Peace Process"
This ain't Northern Ireland.

[Greyblades]

You two don't - look up "Martin McGuinness" and "Gerry Adams", then look up "Northern Ireland Peace Process"

Get what? I would rather see him dead rather than pretending to sing americas tune. What's there to get?

[rvg]

Get what? I would rather see him dead rather than pretending to sing americas tune. What's there to get?

Or even more interestingly... Where would Gerry Adams be today, had he commandeered a group of IRA guys to hijack a jet and ram it into the Houses or Parliament.

[gaelic cowboy]

This ain't Northern Ireland.

Then you will never solve half the problems you trying to end with drone's and whatever else yer building in groom lake



Or even more interestingly... Where would Gerry Adams be today, had he commandeered a group of IRA guys to hijack a jet and ram it into the Houses or Parliament.


Then ye have never heard of these then

Brighton hotel bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brighton_hotel_bombing)

Downing Street mortar attack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_mortar_attack)

only pure luck meant the governments of the day were not decapitated.

Basically your answer is Gerry and the lads would still be running things in the North and the UK and Irish government would still have signed the Good Friday Agreement.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This ain't Northern Ireland.

The Middle East is hardly different.


Get what? I would rather see him dead rather than pretending to sing americas tune. What's there to get?

Think strategically, and who said anything about it being fake anyway?

[gaelic cowboy]

Think strategically, and who said anything about it being fake anyway?

Exactly

If Paisley and McGuinness can sit across from each other and hammer out a deal then pretty much ANYONE can.

[rvg]

Then ye have never heard of these then

Yup, that's totally the same scale as 9/11. And successful too!.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yup, that's totally the same scale as 9/11. And successful too!.

9/11 only worked because it was novel, it hasn't worked since - and they got the idea from American Tom Clancy anyway.

I have a name for you: Mountbatton

If HM Queen can shake McGuinness' hand, let alone be in the same room as him, then the American government can get behind peace in the Middle East.

[gaelic cowboy]

Yup, that's totally the same scale as 9/11. And successful too!.

Hmm so an an act of terrorism needs to be successful in order to evoke terror, despite all the fight them on the beech's rhetoric at the end they did a deal.




They british in short had to sit down hold and sign on the dotted line, later everyone wonders what all the fuss was about. (http://www.independent.ie/national-news/martin-mcguinness-from-ira-chief-to-deputy-first-minister-3152310.html?ino=16)

The British have been trying to stop attacks on there homeland since the 19th century and they have failed until they talked

[rvg]

9/11 only worked because it was novel, it hasn't worked since - and they got the idea from American Tom Clancy anyway.
What's your point?


I have a name for you: Mountbatton
It's actually Battenberg.


If HM Queen can shake McGuinness' hand, let alone be in the same room as him, then the American government can get behind peace in the Middle East.
Get behind peace? Sure. We're already doing that. Letting Osama breathe my air? Hell no.

[gaelic cowboy]

What's your point?

Actually it's you that has no point RVG the terrorists only need to be lucky once but you need to be lucky all the time. Sure if you can manage it try and bring them to justice but what then?



It's actually Battenberg.

No he is right, they just changed it cos a Germanic sounding name might not be popular.



Get behind peace? Sure. We're already doing that. Letting Osama breathe my air? Hell no.

Sometimes you have to, people are seriously talking about bringing the Taliban into government.

[rvg]

Actually it's you has no point you cos you can never win.
Oh, I sure do. My point is that Osama is dead and I like that.


No he is right they just changed it cos a Germanic sounding name might not be popular
It was Mountbatten though. Not -batton. If you want to impress me with a dynastic last name, at least care to spell it right (well, not you, him).



Sometimes you have to, people are seriously talking about wooing into government.
And sometimes you don't. I like the "wooing" produced by the hellfire missile. It's more flashy, delivers a stronger message.

[Greyblades]

Think strategically, and who said anything about it being fake anyway?
Point taken on the strategic part but I was thinking about it personally; considering what I know: that he did it and was for years unrepentant, all signs point to fake, if he was genuine the only person who could be made to believe it would be himself.
If I saw him wearing the american flag with a peace sign I might be glad he was destabalizing his side but I would not ever be able to believe it to be genuine, so I'd still want him dead.

[gaelic cowboy]

Oh, I sure do. My point is that Osama is dead and I like that.

I talking broader than that RVG and your are well aware of that.



It was Montbatten though. Not -batton. If you want to impress me with a dynastic last name, at least care to spell it right (well, not you, him).

Actually your the one bringing up the minutiae on last names trying to win the internet, basically he was blew sky high and the Queen still had to shake McGuinness



And sometimes you don't. I like the "wooing" produced by the hellfire missile. It's more flashy, delivers a stronger message.

The message you talking about is for a domestic audience, it does little to prevent terrorism.

By the way your engaging in a zero sum game which is the surest path to disaster in foreign policy, remember your only supposed to have permanent interests thats how you know when you can talk.

[Kadagar_AV]

The main question is what kind of world you all want to live in.

A "might is right" world, or a world accepting some common principles.


I for one prefer to live in a world where you need a trial to be sentenced, and where you wont get tortured.

RVG seem to defend a "might is right" world, where you don't need a trial for anything up to and including murdering someone, and where torture is ok.


For me, I find anyone opposing these basic principles to be the scum of humanity. But that's just me.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Hmm so an an act of terrorism needs to be successful in order to evoke terror, despite all the fight them on the beech's rhetoric at the end they did a deal.




They british in short had to sit down hold and sign on the dotted line, later everyone wonders what all the fuss was about. (http://www.independent.ie/national-news/martin-mcguinness-from-ira-chief-to-deputy-first-minister-3152310.html?ino=16)

The British have been trying to stop attacks on there homeland since the 19th century and they have failed until they talked

You can't kill an idea by killing people, that's the problem.

[rvg]

I talking broader than that RVG and your are well aware of that.
And I'm not. The whole point of discussion in this entire thread is about whether or not it's okay to torture and kill really-really bad guys. That's it. And yes, it's A'OK with me. If it's not okay with you, that's just fine. You can be you and I will remain me. You're offering me your moral compass, which is something I did not ask for and do not need. I have my own.


The message you talking about is for a domestic audience, it does little to prevent terrorism.
By the way your engaging in a zero sum game which is the surest path to disaster in foreign policy, remember your only supposed to have permanent interests thats how you know when you can talk.
I'm not out to change the world. Dealing with the problem one dead terrorist at a time is okay with me.


You can't kill an idea by killing people, that's the problem.
You can. You just need the will to kill sufficient numbers.

[gaelic cowboy]

And I'm not. The whole point of discussion in this entire thread is about whether or not it's okay to torture and kill really-really bad guys. That's it. And yes, it's A'OK with me. If it's not okay with you, that's just fine. You can be you and I will remain me. You're offering me your moral compass, which is something I did not ask for and do not need. I have my own.

Me I much prefer to solve a problem longterm, IF we can solve it by discussion then I am game for that, if we cannot well then that will just have to be fine too.


I'm not out to change the world. Dealing with the problem one dead terrorist at a time is okay with me.

It might be fine with you allright but your government has more than your feelings to worry about.

BTW I didnt offer any moral judgement that's your own doing, interestingly your feelings mirror your enemies.


You can. You just need the will to kill sufficient numbers.

The altar of liberty totters when it is cemented only with blood

[rvg]

Me I much prefer to solve a problem longterm, IF we can solve it by discussion then I am game for that, if we cannot well then that will just have to be fine too.
Bingo.


It might be fine with you allright but your government has more than your feelings to worry about.

So far my feelings are aligning with the actions of my government just fine.

[gaelic cowboy]

So far my feelings are aligning with the actions of my government just fine.

how is that working out for ye?? not too good I hear.

[rvg]

how is that working out for ye?? not too good I hear.

You hear wrong.

[gaelic cowboy]

You hear wrong.

brilliant so the mid east is at peace them yes??

[rvg]

brilliant so the mid east is at peace them yes??

Don't care. America is relatively secure, that's what matters to me.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You can. You just need the will to kill sufficient numbers.

The Romans tried that with the Christians, for two hundred years, they tried a lot harder than you Americans are. The Roman Catholics tried with the protestants - hell everybody tried with the Jews for two millennia.

You have, I think, quite possibly said the most ignorant thing in the history of the Backroom - kudos.

[rvg]

The Romans tried that with the Christians, for two hundred years, they tried a lot harder than you Americans are. The Roman Catholics tried with the protestants - hell everybody tried with the Jews for two millennia.

You have, I think, quite possibly said the most ignorant thing in the history of the Backroom - kudos.

Um...I wasn't advocating extermination of Muslims. Only terrorists.

[Kadagar_AV]

Um...I wasn't advocating extermination of Muslims. Only terrorists.

Oh. Them.

[gaelic cowboy]

Don't care. America is relatively secure, that's what matters to me.

This is the reason why America will continue to suffer terrorism or be dragged into quagmires all over the place.

[rvg]

This is the reason why America will continue to suffer terrorism or be dragged into quagmires all over the place.

Then I guess the defense contractors have nothing to worry about. They'll stay in business. That's good news for me.

[Papewaio]

And I'm not. The whole point of discussion in this entire thread is about whether or not it's okay to torture and kill really-really bad guys. That's it. And yes, it's A'OK with me. If it's not okay with you, that's just fine.
...
You can. You just need the will to kill sufficient numbers.

Just remember everyone else both allies and enemies can use that same strategy.

Also historically the nations who did this tended to be empires. Rome and Mongolia had a kill them all approach from time to time. The last country that systematically tortured prisoners and killed them without courts of law with approval from the highest powers was Imperial Japan. They believed that their citizens were worth more then others, they believed they were in the right, they believed that enemy prisoners had no rights, that a soldier who surrended was no longer a soldier to accord human rights to. Their path of total war meant their enemies required total war and surrender.

Japanese prisoners in allied prisons still were treated as POWs. Despite all the things they had done to civilian and military personnel. Japanese still got a day in court.

Now this country that advocated killing people in sufficient numbers it ended very badly for them.

USA probably won't get a nuclear bomb. Instead it's form of MAD will be mutually assured debt. As investors review the stability of the US government from Patriot Act to torture to assassination to bickering over debt ceiling. The consequences are far more likely to be a slipping in the buying power of the US dollar, being pegged down from a AAA rating and private investors choosing safer havens.

And he final example of why it's not a good thing to try and use force to control a nation:
"On March 5, 1770 the Twenty-Ninth Regiment came to the relief of the Eighth on duty at the Customs House on King (now State) Street. The soldiers, led by Captain Thomas Preston, were met by a large and taunting crowd of civilians. Captain Preston was unable to disperse the crowd and as they chanted "Fire and be damned" he ordered his troops "Don't Fire!" With all the commotion the soldiers probably did not hear his orders and they opened fire on the crowd killing three men instantly and another two who died later."

[Papewaio]

And I'm not. The whole point of discussion in this entire thread is about whether or not it's okay to torture and kill really-really bad guys. That's it. And yes, it's A'OK with me. If it's not okay with you, that's just fine.
...
You can. You just need the will to kill sufficient numbers.

Just remember everyone else both allies and enemies can use that same strategy.

Also historically the nations who did this tended to be empires. Rome and Mongolia had a kill them all approach from time to time. The last country that systematically tortured prisoners and killed them without courts of law with approval from the highest powers was Imperial Japan. They believed that their citizens were worth more then others, they believed they were in the right, they believed that enemy prisoners had no rights, that a soldier who surrended was no longer a soldier to accord human rights to. Their path of total war meant their enemies required total war and surrender.

Japanese prisoners in allied prisons still were treated as POWs. Despite all the things they had done to civilian and military personnel. Japanese still got a day in court.

Now this country that advocated killing people in sufficient numbers it ended very badly for them.

USA probably won't get a nuclear bomb. Instead it's form of MAD will be mutually assured debt. As investors review the stability of the US government from Patriot Act to torture to assassination to bickering over debt ceiling. The consequences are far more likely to be a slipping in the buying power of the US dollar, being pegged down from a AAA rating and private investors choosing safer havens.

And the final example of why it's not a good thing to try and use force to control a nation:
"On March 5, 1770 the Twenty-Ninth Regiment came to the relief of the Eighth on duty at the Customs House on King (now State) Street. The soldiers, led by Captain Thomas Preston, were met by a large and taunting crowd of civilians. Captain Preston was unable to disperse the crowd and as they chanted "Fire and be damned" he ordered his troops "Don't Fire!" With all the commotion the soldiers probably did not hear his orders and they opened fire on the crowd killing three men instantly and another two who died later."

[rvg]

"On March 5, 1770 the Twenty-Ninth Regiment came to the relief of the Eighth on duty at the Customs House on King (now State) Street. The soldiers, led by Captain Thomas Preston, were met by a large and taunting crowd of civilians. Captain Preston was unable to disperse the crowd and as they chanted "Fire and be damned" he ordered his troops "Don't Fire!" With all the commotion the soldiers probably did not hear his orders and they opened fire on the crowd killing three men instantly and another two who died later."
Napoleon just used a cannon. Canister shot is a good teacher.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Um...I wasn't advocating extermination of Muslims. Only terrorists.

What, all terrorists?

Everybody capable of conceiving of terror as a weapon?

You'll have to kill everyone.

Or just Muslim terrorists?

Well, then you'll have to kill all the Muslims, and anyone who might be a Muslim, or who can read Arabic.

Errrrr.....

That would include a lot of Jews and Christians too.

Better kill everyone, just to be sure.

As I said, you can't kill an idea.

[rvg]

What, all terrorists?

Everybody capable of conceiving of terror as a weapon?

You'll have to kill everyone.

Or just Muslim terrorists?

Well, then you'll have to kill all the Muslims, and anyone who might be a Muslim, or who can read Arabic.

Errrrr.....

That would include a lot of Jews and Christians too.

Better kill everyone, just to be sure.

As I said, you can't kill an idea.

Sure you can. You just need to pick a specific idea. In this case, it's the idea that you can attack America or our allies and get away with it.
What those bearded guys carry in the deepest recesses of their minds is their business, it doesn't matter to me. They can think whatever they want, as long as they don't dare act.

[Kadagar_AV]

RVG, you don't seem too fond of addressing the larger implications?

Do you want US troopers to be tortured, or handled humanely?

[rvg]

RVG, you don't seem to fond of addressing the larger implications?

Do you want US troopers to be tortured, or handled humanely?

Depends on who's doing the torturing. If it's another nation, they won't do it, since we don't torture POWs. If it's Al Qaeda, they'll do it anyway, regardless of how we treat them.

[gaelic cowboy]

Sure you can. You just need to pick a specific idea. In this case, it's the idea that you can attack America or our allies and get away with it.
What those bearded guys carry in the deepest recesses of their minds is their business, it doesn't matter to me. They can think whatever they want, as long as they don't dare act.

And what if there attacking you because of that very idea, neither side of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict will talk so logically they can only attack.



Depends on who's doing the torturing. If it's another nation, they won't do it, since we don't torture POWs. If it's Al Qaeda, they'll do it anyway, regardless of how we treat them.

What about Hizbullah or Hamas then people talk to them all the time including Israel, waving AQ around in this discussion is like brandishing a voodoo doll.

[rvg]

And what if there attacking you because of that very idea, neither side of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict will talk so logically they can only attack.

Then you kill them. Just keep killing as they keep attacking. As long as terrorists can't be cloned, this strategy should achieve a certain level of success.

[gaelic cowboy]

Then you kill them. Just keep killing as they keep attacking. As long as terrorists can't be cloned, this strategy should achieve a certain level of success.

Israeli generals might differ with you there, I bet a lot of them acknowledge the need for a political settlement.

[rvg]

What about Hizbullah or Hamas then people talk to them all the time including Israel, waving AQ around in this discussion is like brandishing a voodoo doll.

Fair enough. If Hamas or Hezbollah have their man en route to, say, NYC to detonate a bomb, and we happen to have his accomplice in custody, that accomplice will have to squeal, or he will be made to squeal. Basically, an armed conflict in imho should be limited to men in uniform killing men in uniform. If one side chooses to deliberately target civilians (especially if they are aiming for mass casualties), that debt will be repaid tenfold.


Israeli generals might differ with you there, I bet a lot of them acknowledge the need for a political settlement.
IF the negotiations work. Right?

[gaelic cowboy]

Fair enough. If Hamas or Hezbollah have their man en route to, say, NYC to detonate a bomb, and we happen to have his accomplice in custody, that accomplice will have to squeal, or he will be made to squeal. Basically, an armed conflict in imho should be limited to men in uniform killing men in uniform. If one side chooses to deliberately target civilians (especially if they are aiming for mass casualties), that debt will be repaid tenfold.

But that wont stop there grievance now will it??





IF the negotiations work. Right?

Well if they fail you can always go back to killing them, I don't see how you have anything to lose by talking.

[rvg]

But that wont stop there grievance now will it??
Why wouldn't it? The accomplice squeals, we nab the bomber, tragedy averted.



Well if they fail you can always go back to killing them, I don't see how you have anything to lose by talking.
Sure, and boy have they done their share of talking. Sometimes it worked (like it did with Egypt), sometimes it didn't.

[gaelic cowboy]

Why wouldn't it? The accomplice squeals, we nab the bomber, tragedy averted.

Were talking about two differ things now RVG your in a movie and I am talking about ending conflict.

[Kadagar_AV]

Were talking about two differ things now RVG your in a movie and I am talking about ending conflict.

Brilliant...

[rvg]

Were talking about two differ things now RVG your in a movie and I am talking about ending conflict.

The conflict ends when one side loses its will to fight.

[Kadagar_AV]

The conflict ends when one side loses its will to fight.

I guess that's why the Afghan war has dragged out for longer than world war I and II combined then...

[rvg]

I guess that's why the Afghan war has dragged out for longer than world war I and II combined then...

Yes, you could say that. As long as the will remains, the fight goes on.

[Kadagar_AV]

Yes, you could say that. As long as the will remains, the fight goes on.

... And damn anyone seeking peace!!

[rvg]

... And damn anyone seeking peace!!

The last peace negotiator got a turban full of kaboom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burhanuddin_Rabbani).

[Kadagar_AV]

The last peace negotiator got a turban full of kaboom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burhanuddin_Rabbani).

RVG, I must honestly say that what you write here come off as a caricature of everything the rest of the western world see as the very worst traits of US citizens at large. You just happily bundle it up in a neat little package.

I think, and hope, that you are trolling. By now even the most adamant war hawk should have started to pay attention to what pretty much everyone around him is telling.

But what scares me, is that what you write actually might be your true intention, and that You think that all of us are wrong. Do you know many people thinking the way you think?

[rvg]

RVG, I must honestly say that what you write here come off as a caricature of everything the rest of the western world see as the very worst traits of US citizens at large. You just happily bundle it up in a neat little package.
Like I mentioned earlier in this thread: I do not care.


I think, and hope, that you are trolling.
I'm not. I do not troll.


But what scares me, is that what you write actually might be your true intention, and that You think that all of us are wrong.
Hey, if you wish to be scared, go right ahead.

[Kadagar_AV]

How come you skipped past the last part?

[rvg]

How come you skipped past the last part?
Didn't wanna scare you any further.

[Kadagar_AV]

Didn't wanna scare you any further.

Oh, peoples opinions never scare me.

People with guns scare me :)

[Papewaio]

Napoleon just used a cannon. Canister shot is a good teacher.

You do realize my quote is from the Boston Massacre right?

"On March 5, 1770 the Twenty-Ninth Regiment came to the relief of the Eighth on duty at the Customs House on King (now State) Street. The soldiers, led by Captain Thomas Preston, were met by a large and taunting crowd of civilians. Captain Preston was unable to disperse the crowd and as they chanted "Fire and be damned" he ordered his troops "Don't Fire!" With all the commotion the soldiers probably did not hear his orders and they opened fire on the crowd killing three men instantly and another two who died later."

It a) helped cement the British Empires loss of the lands.
b) In the cool headed trials that followed proved how advanced the colony was in handling such issues.

The founding fathers were both enlightened and politically astute in their handling of the situation. The British Empire was not.

[Kadagar_AV]

You do realize my quote is from the Boston Massacre right?

"On March 5, 1770 the Twenty-Ninth Regiment came to the relief of the Eighth on duty at the Customs House on King (now State) Street. The soldiers, led by Captain Thomas Preston, were met by a large and taunting crowd of civilians. Captain Preston was unable to disperse the crowd and as they chanted "Fire and be damned" he ordered his troops "Don't Fire!" With all the commotion the soldiers probably did not hear his orders and they opened fire on the crowd killing three men instantly and another two who died later."

It a) helped cement the British Empires loss of the lands.
b) In the cool headed trials that followed proved how advanced the colony was in handling such issues.

The founding fathers were both enlightened and politically astute in their handling of the situation. The British Empire was not.

What you fail to get is that the US has evolved from that meager state since then... To this bastion of freedom we now all enjoy!!!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Didn't wanna scare you any further.

Well, personally, I'm already weighing up the danger you pose to the western world at large, given that you're basically riffing off every sociopathic dictator from the last two millennia.

"Let them hate us so long as they fear us" is as foolish as "kill everyone who doesn't agree.", and it has also been shown not to work, and every generation has tried to be a bit scarier and a bit more brutal, and the retaliation has just been that bit more harsh.

[rvg]

You do realize my quote is from the Boston Massacre right?

It a) helped cement the British Empires loss of the lands.
b) In the cool headed trials that followed proved how advanced the colony was in handling such issues.

The founding fathers were both enlightened and politically astute in their handling of the situation. The British Empire was not.

Of course I do. And my point is that Britain *could* have choked the rebellion.

[rvg]

"Let them hate us so long as they fear us" is as foolish as "kill everyone who doesn't agree."

That's a matter of opinion, and ours differ greatly.

[Strike For The South]

That's a matter of opinion, and ours differ greatly.

yup, his is based in reality

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Of course I do. And my point is that Britain *could* have choked the rebellion.

No it couldn't. It could have stopped the War if it had managed to decisively defeat Washington in the field and then offered the Colonists terms - primarily enhanced tax-raising powers for the provincial assemblies so they could pay the British Army directly.

Later, much worse things than what you Americans have done were done to Africans in an attempt to keep other Colonies, and they failed also.


That's a matter of opinion, and ours differ greatly.

Do you know why Napoleon lost?

When he entered a country it was his policy that his soldiers should take what they wanted, rape who they wanted, and destroy anything not able to be made French. Consequently, he was opposed everywhere he fought.

When Wellington invaded France it was his policy that everything should be paid for and that any soldier caught looting should be hanged immediately. That's the equivalent of rogue Marines in Afghanistan coming back to the base, boasting about the ragheads they killed, then being lined up and shot.

Wellington also had forgers in his army who forges francs with a higher silver content than Napoleon's so that his soldiers could pay for everything they needed with legal tended, and pay more than the French.

This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of historical record.