-
rvg, some couple of years later?
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?
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
We never tortured anyone. That's no better than a conspiracy theory.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sasaki Kojiro
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.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kadagar_AV
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.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gelatinous Cube
LOL, we never tortured anyone?
Rumsfeld and Co. most certainly did.
Conspiracy theorist! I accuse you.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gelatinous Cube
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.
-
2 Attachment(s)
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kadagar_AV
All fun and games?
That's not "the usa".
Quote:
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.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sasaki Kojiro
That's not "the usa".
It sure is the only USA I know of...
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gelatinous Cube
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/internati...EMO-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.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Waterboarding is torture and we definitely waterboarded. :shrug:
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
a completely inoffensive name
Waterboarding is torture and we definitely waterboarded. :shrug:
Very circular, I congratulate you.
Quote:
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.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gelatinous Cube
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?:
Quote:
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.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Sasaki is a gangstalker. :glasses:
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gelatinous Cube
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.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sasaki Kojiro
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?
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
a completely inoffensive name
Have you been waterboarded?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWm-QU9YRCI
Is this waterboarding?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gelatinous Cube
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?
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sasaki Kojiro
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...
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sasaki Kojiro
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.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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?
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.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gelatinous Cube
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kadagar_AV
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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".
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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.
Try stating it more firmly.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
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, 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.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lemur
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.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sasaki Kojiro
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."
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
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.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Other people torture harsher than we do, therefore we didn't torture
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sarmatian
Oh, the sacred American lives. It's okay, then.
Not sacred, just valuable. Definitely more valuable than the lives of the terrorists.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
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.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
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.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Strike For The South
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.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sasaki Kojiro
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
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.
Sorry, but I perceive that you do this all the time.
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.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Montmorency
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?
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
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.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
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.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gelatinous Cube
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.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sasaki Kojiro
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.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
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? ;)
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sasaki Kojiro
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.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sasaki Kojiro
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.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kralizec
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.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fragony
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.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sarmatian
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
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
And what if you have the wrong guy?
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hax
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.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hax
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.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fragony
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.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ironside
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.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
... 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...
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HopAlongBunny
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
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HopAlongBunny
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.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
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:
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 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?
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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.
I freely admit that it's torture.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
I freely admit that it's torture.
But You can roll with it, as You are the good guys anyway?
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kadagar_AV
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.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kadagar_AV
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.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fragony
You only have to be nice to nice people
Fascinating legal theory, there.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lemur
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.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
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?
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hax
Why are we fighting against the Taliban again?
They are killing our guys in Afghanistan and threatening the already explosive situation in Pakistan.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
But you realise they only started killing our guys in Afghanistan after we went in there.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hax
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.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
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.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kadagar_AV
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?
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kadagar_AV
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?
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
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.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
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?
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hax
... 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
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kadagar_AV
This Nation would be rather evil, no?
Of course not.
Quote:
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."
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
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.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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.
Yeah, you do that. You evil American, you.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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.
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.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Worked out well enough.
And yet, our guys are still being killed. Worked out well enough?
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
As Ali Allawi writes, "Being an afterthought does not give rise to gratitute and celebration"
And Lebanon:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
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.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hax
And yet, our guys are still being killed. Worked out well enough?
Well enough.
Quote:
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"
Quote:
For example, concerning the invasion of Iraq:
I never defended the invasion of Iraq.
That's Israel, not us.
Quote:
And political Islam:
Like Hamas?
Quote:
You can buy the book on Amazon for 26 dollars secondhand. I'd recommend it.
It's not worth $26.00
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Conradus
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.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
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?
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kadagar_AV
What nukes? The ones found in Iraq?
No, the real ones.
-
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kadagar_AV
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.