IDF commander admits "war crimes"

[imported_I, fuzzbot.]

Hi guys! I found this article floating around my internet and I thought I'd plug it in here and see how all the staunch supporters of Israel like it!

"What we did was insane and monstrous, we covered entire towns in cluster bombs," the head of an IDF rocket unit in Lebanon said regarding the use of cluster bombs and phosphorous shells during the war.

Quoting his battalion commander, the rocket unit head stated that the IDF fired around 1,800 cluster bombs, containing over 1.2 million cluster bomblets.

In addition, soldiers in IDF artillery units testified that the army used phosphorous shells during the war, widely forbidden by international law. According to their claims, the vast majority of said explosive ordinance was fired in the final 10 days of the war.

The rocket unit commander stated that Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) platforms were heavily used in spite of the fact that they were known to be highly inaccurate.

MLRS is a track or tire carried mobile rocket launching platform, capable of firing a very high volume of mostly unguided munitions. The basic rocket fired by the platform is unguided and imprecise, with a range of about 32 kilometers. The rockets are designed to burst into sub-munitions at a planned altitude in order to blanket enemy army and personnel on the ground with smaller explosive rounds.

The use of such weaponry is controversial mainly due to its inaccuracy and ability to wreak great havoc against indeterminate targets over large areas of territory, with a margin of error of as much as 1,200 meters from the intended target to the area hit.

'Excessive injury and unnecessary suffering'

It has come to light that IDF soldiers fired phosphorous rounds in order to cause fires in Lebanon. An artillery commander has admitted to seeing trucks loaded with phosphorous rounds on their way to artillery crews in the north of Israel.

A direct hit from a phosphorous shell typically causes severe burns and a slow, painful death.

International law forbids the use of weapons that cause "excessive injury and unnecessary suffering", and many experts are of the opinion that phosphorous rounds fall directly in that category.

The International Red Cross has determined that international law forbids the use of phosphorous and other types of flammable rounds against personnel, both civilian and military.

Read the entire thing, as well as the comments below. (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/761781.html)

SHOCKING.

But as long as it's not the terror smurfs dying who cares right? HIGH FIVE. Congrats guys we won!

[Abcdxxxx]

The title of the article quotes an unnamed source saying Israel "fired more than a million cluster bombs in Lebanon" but the text of the article says "the IDF fired around 1,800 cluster bombs". Meanwhile Israeli reservists are complaining that they were given "no fire" orders on the front lines.

I'd be outraged if the story were credible, but it's likely just one of many fabricated stories (most of which are recycled from accusations made against the US in Iraq) coming from Lebanon, like this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDwqFMIPhbs&eurl=

[imported_I, fuzzbot.]

:lol

I'd be outraged if the story were credible, but it's likely just one of many fabricated stories (most of which are recycled from accusations made against the US in Iraq) coming from Lebanon,
Do you have any idea what the system in Israel is like?

You don't just make up a fucking IDF commander, make up quotes, and publish the article in an extremely well-known Israeli source.

You just don't get away with that sort of thing in Israel. I love how you brag about how great Israel is and then dismiss every other Israeli source as propoganda. It's almost like you're going against your own arguments by admitting that there's a shitload of Israeli propoganda making Israel a not-so-great place after all.

Not every Israeli in the world will agree with you. In fact thousands won't. Does that make them all shitty faggots who give blowjobs to Arabs? 'cause by your definition anyone who disagrees with you sucks and should be shot in the face by some die-hard anti-Muslim nationalist sniper.

[Abcdxxxx]

I don't know about all your talk of blowjob and faggots - you're really insane...

....and your lack of understanding of a free press, and the definition of an opinion editorial makes me feel kind of sad for you.

please do tell me about this "system" Israel has ...will you?

[derrida]

double post my bad

[derrida]

Villages 'carpeted' with cluster bombs (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/20/wmid320.xml) (Telegraph)

Israeli shelling left carpet of bomblets (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0824/p11s01-wome.html) (CS Monitor)


Better article:



http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/761910.html

When rockets and phosphorous cluster

By Meron Rapoport

"In Lebanon, we covered entire villages with cluster bombs, what we did there was crazy and monstrous," testifies a commander in the Israel Defense Forces' MLRS (Multiple Launch Rocket System) unit. Quoting his battalion commander, he said the IDF fired some 1,800 cluster rockets on Lebanon during the war and they contained over 1.2 million cluster bombs. The IDF also used cluster shells fired by 155 mm artillery cannons, so the number of cluster bombs fired on Lebanon is even higher. At the same time, soldiers in the artillery corps testified that the IDF used phosphorous shells, which many experts say is prohibited by international law. According to the claims, the overwhelming majority of the weapons mentioned were fired during the last ten days of the war.

The commander asserted that there was massive use of MLRS rockets despite the fact that they are known to be very inaccurate - the rockets' deviation from the target reaches to around 1,200 meters - and that a substantial percentage do not explode and become mines. Due to these facts, most experts view cluster ammunitions as a "non-discerning" weapon that is prohibited for use in a civilian environment. The percentage of duds among the rockets fired by the U.S. army in Iraq reached 30 percent and the United Nations' land mine removal team in Lebanon claims that the percentage of duds among the rockets fired by the IDF reaches some 40 percent. In light of these figures, the number of duds left behind by the Israeli cluster rockets in Lebanon is likely to reach half a million.

According to the commander, in order to compensate for the rockets' imprecision, the order was to "flood" the area with them. "We have no option of striking an isolated target, and the commanders know this very well," he said. He also stated that the reserve soldiers were surprised by the use of MLRS rockets, because during their regular army service, they were told these are the IDF's "judgment day weapons" and intended for use in a full-scale war.


The commander also said that at least in one case, they were asked to fire cluster rockets toward "a village's outskirts" in the early morning: "They told us that this is a good time because people are coming out of the mosques and the rockets would deter them." In other cases, they fired the rockets at a range of less than 15 kilometers, even though the manufacturer's guidelines state that firing at this range considerably increases the number of duds. The commander further related that during IDF training exercises hardly any live rockets are fired, for fear that they would leave duds behind and fill the IDF's firing grounds with mines.

After being discharged from his reserve duty, the commander sent a letter to Defense Minister Amir Peretz and protested the number of cluster rockets fired in Lebanon, which "perhaps the generals forgot to mention." "As far as the duds are concerned," he wrote, "we have no control over who is hurt. Sooner or later they will explode in people's hands." He has yet to receive a response from the defense minister.

At the same time, soldiers are reporting that they fired phosphorous shells, which are supposed to be used by the IDF for marking or setting fire to areas, in order to start fires in Lebanon. The artillery commander says he saw trucks with phosphorous shells en route to artillery batteries in the North.

A direct hit from a phosphorous shell causes severe burns and a painful death. Around a year ago, there was an international scandal after a television crew presented harsh pictures of the charred bodies of Iraqis injured by phosphorous bombs during the course of the American attack on the city of Fallujah.

International law prohibits the use of weapons that cause "excessive damage and unnecessary suffering," and many experts feel that phosphorous is included in this category. The International Red Cross determined that international law prohibits the use of phosphorous against humans. The American "Book of War," published in 1999, which sets down the rules of war for the American army, states: "The ground war law prohibits the use of phosphorous against human targets." The pact on prohibiting or limiting flammable weapons bans the use of phosphorous against civilian targets and against military targets found amid large civil populations.

The IDF Spokesperson said: "International law does not contain a sweeping ban on the use of cluster bombs. The Conventional Weapons Pact does not stipulate a ban on the use of inflammatory weapons (i.e., phosphorous - M.R.), rather it only offers rules for organizing the use of this weapon. For understandable operational reasons, the IDF will not comment on a detailed listing of the weaponry at its disposal. The IDF uses only methods and weapons that are permitted according to international law. The firing of artillery in general, including the firing of artillery to demolish a target, was initiated in response to firing at the State of Israel only." The defense minister's bureau said in response that it had yet to receive an inquiry on the matter of firing cluster rockets.

[Abcdxxxx]

n.m

[imported_I, fuzzbot.]

I don't know about all your talk of blowjob and faggots - you're really insane...

....and your lack of understanding of a free press, and the definition of an opinion editorial makes me feel kind of sad for you.

please do tell me about this "system" Israel has ...will you?

"Insane," bwahaha, and that's coming from a guy who thinks the politics professor of Israel's most prestigious school is involved in conspiracy theories. :lol

Boy, you really are a laugh a minute. Please convince us that you know absolutely anything about Israel or the Middle East.

Go ahead, I'd love to see you try.

[Immortal Goat]

Jesus, Fuzzbot, you're a dick.

I'm going to be honest. I know NOTHING about Israel and Lebanon. I don't support one or the other, because I can't support something I know next to nothing about. I can imagine that they're at war over something monumentally stupid, but that's just a guess

However, Abcdxxxx had a point. The title of the article did not correspond with its content. That was cause for being a little skeptical about it. I don't see how that's justification for your assumption that anyone who supports Israel's cause is wrong. Because from what I can gather, supporting either side in this war is stupid.

[derrida]

How did the title not correspond withthe content?

The "million" figure refers to the individual explosive devices contained within a cluster munition.

[Abcdxxxx]

Derrida, what's the difference between 1 million cluster bombs, 1,800 cluster bombs? Or a microcluster and a cluster. Does it matter to you, or is the point that Israel used bombs during warfare and you found a misleading article? Haaretz is like Israel's NY Post.

Fuzzbot, your next response should be detailling that "system" of Israel's which you mentioned. Tell us.

[Courage the Cowardly Dog]

yeah it's a shame Israel was heavy handed here. But remmeber Hezballah committed war crimes too in fact 99.99% of all their attacks where non provoked assaults on civilians women and children. Come to think of it they only shoot soliders when the soldiers get between them and the kids.

True Israel should have taken the high ground but I think the international community is turning a blind eye to the bigger evil here. Hezballah is already violating the treaty STILL not releasing the soldiers and still recieving weapons.

Should Israel beheld responsible? sure
How about Hezballah, is anyone EVER going to sue them for a dime or try their leaders for war crimes or Nasrallah's constant comments of express and unflinching genocide?

[mburbank]

I'm pretty sure that the original source is Harretz, for whom it's author, , is a corrspondent.


I found this in EP, a highly reputable journal that covers world press.

Ha'aretz, Israeli Daily, Criticizes Country's Use of Cluster Bombs in Lebanon

Haaretz is a dily newspaper in Israel. I make no claims to knowledge about what sort of paper it is, but if it survives as a daily, one assumes it represents at least some thread of Israeli thought.


By E&P Staff

Published: September 14, 2006 2:00 PM ET

NEW YORK During the recent Israel/Hezbollah war, E&P carried several columns following the news coverage and opinion columns at Ha'aretz, the popular Israeli daily newspaper. While initially very supportive of the Israeli shelling and invasion of Lebanon, the newspaper later offered many probes and commentary on what had gone wrong, and why.

In recent weeks, intense media interest in the conflict during the war has largely evaporated in the U.S., despite the massive destruction in Lebanon and a fierce debate inside Israel over the conduct of the war. Ha'aretz has been at the center of this again, and in recent days has explored its country's use of thousands of indiscriminate cluster bombs in civilian areas of Lebanon -- which go on kiling today.

The newspaper's editorial today was remarkable for its willingness to raise moral issues and take its own government and military to task.

*

During the final days of the war, when it became clear that the Israel Defense Forces had no solution to the ongoing launchings of Katyusha rockets, a decision was made to "flood" the area with cluster bombs, delivered by artillery shells and rockets. This was non-target specific shooting, based on the assumption that the bomblets would cover a large area, possibly destroy Hezbollah rocket launchers and cause as many casualties as possible among its fighters.

A soldier who fired 155mm artillery shells delivering cluster bombs told Haaretz that he was ordered to "flood" the area with these bombs, without having a specific target. A commander of a Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) told Haaretz that his order was to "saturate the area." These statements were published in stories by Meron Rapoport on September 8 and 12. More than a million cluster bomblets were dropped in southern Lebanon. Each M-26 rocket fired by an MLRS contains 644 cluster bomblets, capable of covering an area the size of a football field.

Firing at undefined targets is a problem in and of itself. The dilemma it entails is reflected in statements by soldiers who fired cluster bombs during training and recognized that this type of weapon should be used only in a war against a regular army, for the purpose of hitting arms supply convoys or missile batteries - not against civilian areas. But beyond this dilemma, the committee investigating the war should find out whether anyone considered what would happen to the thousands of cluster bomblets that failed to explode, and were therefore transformed into mines spread throughout southern Lebanon.

The cluster bomb is not a banned weapon, but it is described as an "indiscriminate" weapon, which should not be used against targets in civilian areas because, inter alia, it continues to kill once the war is over. Since the cease-fire went into effect, 12 Lebanese civilians have been killed by duds that exploded unexpectedly. Since the percentage of unexploded cluster bomblets ranges from 5 to 30 percent, according to various assessments, southern Lebanon is now an area littered by thousands of bomblets that have not yet exploded.

Questions regarding the IDF's conduct during the war have many implications, both moral and practical. Israel's ability to rally international support depends in part on the distinction it makes between innocent civilians and the enemy. While Hamas and Hezbollah attack civilians as part of their strategy, Israel declares that it does not do so, and that it makes an effort to avoid harming civilians. The decision to drop cluster bombs on villages, with no specified targets; the decision to use these bombs over a large area, making it impossible to know in advance who will be there; and the well-known fact that a large percentage of these munitions will not explode on impact, and will therefore be transformed into mines in an area to which civilians will return, are all further testimony to the flawed decision-making of those who managed the war.

Now, Israel can do little except accede to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's request and assist in marking the areas hit by the cluster bombs, so that there will be no further casualties among Lebanese civilians, who have already been hurt by the war. Significant portions of southern Lebanon have now become minefields. Annan's condemnation was not without basis.

[Abcdxxxx]

Haaretz is a Leftist paper with a more then questionable track record in the credebility of what they'll publish. Many of their stories are unsubstantiated sensationalism.

We have a correspondent and an unnamed source and that's about it. Yes, the paper is from Israel, but when was that a license for automatic credebility? If Israel wasn't constantly libeled for fictional war crimes on a daily basis it might be easier to take this "report" at face value. It's become the principle source for several articles, but has anybody gone and done a follow up investigation? What with the inhumane destruction this article hints to (including the suggestion that Israel used chemicals) that shouldn't be so hard. The Lebanese Arabs are not shy for the cameras. Israel knew going in that no matter what they did in Lebanon, they would be accused of war crimes. There are people after all who believe Israel's existance alone is a war crime. Many of those people are Israeli citizens, who work for Haaretz, or hold tenure at Israel's Universities. So where are the investigative reports to substantiate the claims? This sure as hell isn't it.

[mburbank]

Okay.

But "it's likely just one of many fabricated stories (most of which are recycled from accusations made against the US in Iraq) coming from Lebanon" is wrong. It comes from a popular Israeli paper and was written by an Israeli, not from Lebanon, as even the smallest amount of reserch or reading would have revealed, Mr. 'read my syllabus and until you do I'm right.' Your knee jerks just as much as anyone elses.

Hypothetically, if it turns out the Israelis did indeed use lots of clusterbombs, the way the US does, what would you think of that?

Is it neccesary? Strategic? Moral?

I think none of the above. Cluster bombs, by design kill indiscriminantly and by design can continue to kill after a conflict is over, or a ceasefire has been signed. Like land mines (which the US uses) they have a function beyond their immediate strategic use. They begin as tactical weapons and become terror weapons.

So you find Haaretz has a... questionable track record. As the source of all knowledge on Israel, I yield to you. It is, hwoever, my experience that governments have a 'questionable' track record as well when it comes to being truthful. So. As a hypothetical, would it be okay with you if Israel deployed a large number of cluster bombs in their war with Lebanon?

And just so we're on an even playing field, and before you ask, no, it is not at all okay with me that Hezbollah kidnapped two soldiers and won't give them up, and that they deliberately target civillians. In fact, I can't think of much Hezbollah does that's okay with me, but even in the light of that, I am sometimes able to wonder if what Israel does is okay.



And just to be clear, are there seriously Many Israeli citizens, who work for Haaretz, or hold tenure at Israel's Universities who believe that te existance of Israel is a war crime? That the state commits war crimes, I'd be happy to believe that, I believe it of my own country. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a country that goes to war that doesn't commit war crimes. It's just the winners are usually not punished. But that the existence of israel is in and of itself a war crime and ergo it should not exist? Citizens? And you know them to be employees of Haaretz and Israeli unniversities? Not just a few loose canons, but 'many'? I'm not an Israeli, I never lived there, I hold no doctoral degrees in the history of Israel or the middle east as I know you might be, although the source of your superior knowledge has never been revealed. I'd be very interested in a thread devoted to your sourcing the idea that many israeli citizens feel the existence of israel constitues a war crime. I do not deny the possability in the least. But you have certainly piqued my curiosity.

[mburbank]

I post this article from the UK Independant knowing full well that A.) it too, is liberal, left leaning and has that 'questionable track record' and B.) They quote the haaretz artcile and have not uncovered who the unamed IDF officer is. However, they also site observations of cluster bombs, victims and operations designed to remove unexploded cluster bomblets.

Deadly Harvest: The Lebanese Fields Sown With Cluster Bombs
By Patrick Cockburn
The Independent UK

Monday 18 September 2006

Lebanese villagers must risk death in fields "flooded" with more than a million Israeli cluster bombs - or leave crops to rot.

The war in Lebanon has not ended. Every day, some of the million bomblets which were fired by Israeli artillery during the last three days of the conflict kill four people in southern Lebanon and wound many more.

The casualty figures will rise sharply in the next month as villagers begin the harvest, picking olives from trees whose leaves and branches hide bombs that explode at the smallest movement. Lebanon's farmers are caught in a deadly dilemma: to risk the harvest, or to leave the produce on which they depend to rot in the fields.

In a coma in a hospital bed in Nabatiyeh lies Hussein Ali Ahmad, a 70-year-old man from the village of Yohmor. He was pruning an orange tree outside his house last week when he dislodged a bomblet; it exploded, sending pieces of shrapnel into his brain, lungs and kidneys. "I know he can hear me because he squeezes my hand when I talk to him," said his daughter, Suwad, as she sat beside her father's bed in the hospital.

At least 83 people have been killed by cluster munitions since the ceasefire, according to independent monitors.

Some Israeli officers are protesting at the use of cluster bombs, each containing 644 small but lethal bomblets, against civilian targets in Lebanon. A commander in the MLRS (multiple launch rocket systems) unit told the Israeli daily Haaretz that the army had fired 1,800 cluster rockets, spraying 1.2 million bomblets over houses and fields. "In Lebanon, we covered entire villages with cluster bombs," he said. "What we did there was crazy and monstrous." What makes the cluster bombs so dangerous is that 30 per cent of the bomblets do not detonate on impact. They can lie for years - often difficult to see because of their small size, on roofs, in gardens, in trees, beside roads or in rubbish - waiting to explode when disturbed.

In Nabatiyeh, the modern 100-bed government hospital has received 19 victims of cluster bombs since the end of the war. As we arrived, a new patient, Ahmad Sabah, a laboratory technician at the hospital, was being rushed into the emergency room. A burly man of 45, he was unconscious on a stretcher. Earlier in the morning, he had gone up to the flat roof of his house to check the water tank. While there, he must have touched a pile of logs he was keeping for winter fires. Unknown to him, a bomblet had fallen into the woodpile a month earlier. The logs shielded him from the full force of the blast, but when we saw him, doctors were still trying to find out the extent of his injuries.

"For us, the war is still going on, though there was a cease-fire on 14 August," said Dr Hassan Wazni, the director of the hospital. "If the cluster bombs had all exploded at the time they landed, it would not be so bad, but they are still killing and maiming people."

The bomblets may be small, but they explode with devastating force. On the morning of the ceasefire, Hadi Hatab, an 11-year old boy, was brought dying to the hospital. "He must have been holding the bomb close to him," Dr Wazni said. "It took off his hands and legs and the lower part of his body."

We went to Yohmor to find where Hussein Ali Ahmad had received his terrible wounds while pruning his orange tree. The village is at the end of a broken road, six miles south of Nabatiyeh, and is overlooked by the ruins of Beaufort Castle, a crusader fortress on a ridge above the deep valley along which the Litani river runs.

Israeli bombs and shells have turned about a third of the houses in Yohmor into concrete sandwiches, one floor falling on top of another under the impact of explosions. Some families camp in the ruins. Villagers said that they were most worried by the cluster bombs still infesting their gardens, roofs and fruit trees. In the village street, were the white vehicles of the Manchester-based Mines Advisory Group (MAG), whose teams are trying to clear the bomblets.

It is not an easy job. Whenever members of one of the MAG teams finds and removes a bomblet, they put a stick, painted red on top and then yellow, in the ground. There are so many of these sticks that it looks as if some sinister plant had taken root and is flourishing in the village.

"The cluster bombs all landed in the last days of the war," said Nuhar Hejazi, a surprisingly cheerful 65-year-old woman. "There were 35 on the roof of our house and 200 in our garden so we can't visit our olive trees." People in Yohmor depend on their olive trees and the harvest should begin now before the rains, but the trees are still full of bomblets. "My husband and I make 20 cans of oil a year which we need to sell," Mrs Hejazi says. "Now we don't know what to do." The sheer number of the bomblets makes it almost impossible to remove them all.

Frederic Gras, a de-mining expert formerly in the French navy, who is leading the MAG teams in Yohmor, says: "In the area north of the Litani river, you have three or four people being killed every day by cluster bombs. The Israeli army knows that 30 per cent of them do not explode at the time they are fired so they become anti-personnel mines."

Why did the Israeli army do it? The number of cluster bombs fired must have been greater than 1.2 million because, in addition to those fired in rockets, many more were fired in 155mm artillery shells. One Israeli gunner said he had been told to "flood" the area at which they were firing but was given no specific targets. M. Gras, who personally defuses 160 to 180 bomblets a day, says this is the first time he seen cluster bombs used against heavily populated villages.

An editorial in Haaretz said that the mass use of this weapon by the Israeli Defence Forces was a desperate last-minute attempt to stop Hizbollah's rocket fire into northern Israel. Whatever the reason for the bombardment, the villagers in south Lebanon will suffer death and injury from cluster bombs as they pick their olives and oranges for years to come.





So, a few questions.

Do you have a source denying the use of cluster bombs?

Do you have a source denying what Haaretz's alleged officer reported?

Do you feel cluster bombs are a legitimate weapon with a purpose beyond terrorism that could not be accomplished by other weapons?

[Geggy]

I thought it was already widely reported, especially by cnn and usatoday, that cluster bombs were used by israeli's, even photographs of unexploded cluster bombs were shown. But I do believe it was an act of crime. I'm not saying it because I want it to be but from what I have read, a lot of things the israelis had done clearly didn't make sense to me if they were really motivated in defeating hezbollah. Does it make any sense to you that they would drop leaflets warning the civilians to get out yet at the same time they're blowing up the airports and bridges? Why would they bomb milk and pharmaceutical factories? Seem like an unlikely hiding place for hezbollah. In my gut intuition this was planned. Israeli MI's knew of impending kidnappings and did nothing to stop it. Similiar tactic were used in the gaza recently before israel pulled the plug on the 1.5 million palestinians.

[Courage the Cowardly Dog]

In shoe on the other foot news Israel is charging Hezballah with murder. They never declared war, all they did was shoot rockets at unarmed civilians with no soldiers around for miles. They aren't POWs because no war was declared, and they didn't kill any soldiers. I hope they rot for a goooooood long time.

Anyway here us the article.

Israeli authorities on Monday charged three Hezbollah militants captured in Lebanon with murder and other terrorism-related crimes.

Israel says its forces captured the three Lebanese men, who are all in their 20's, during its recent intervention against Hezbollah in Lebanon. However, Israeli officials say the three are not prisoners of war, but terrorists who will be tried as common criminals. Mickey Rosenfeld is a spokesman for Israel's police.

'All three men are being charged for murder, attempted murder and being members of a terrorist organization, Hezbollah, and carrying out terrorist attacks against Israeli forces,' said Rosenfeld.

The three were allegedly involved in the July 12 Hezbollah raid into Israel, during which two Israeli soldiers were abducted. Eight other Israeli soldiers died in subsequent fighting. Mickey Rosenfeld says one reason the three are being charged as common criminals is because they were allegedly involved in an operation that took place inside Israel.

'The crimes that were committed and the attacks that happened did take place on Israeli soil, and this is the background and the basis of the decision that has been made about taking these three individuals, and charging them for what they are being charged for,' said Rosenfeld.

A lawyer for one of the three men said on Monday that the three do not deny belonging to Hezbollah, but they consider themselves prisoners of war. Israel and the United States consider Hezbollah to be a terrorist organization, and Israel says it will not treat Hezbollah militants it captures as prisoners of war.

While they face lengthy prison terms, if convicted, the three are likely to be part of a prisoner exchange that is currently being negotiated by a senior U.N. official.

Monday's development came just a day after Israel's Cabinet appointed a commission of inquiry to examine the decision-making process behind the 34-day conflict in Lebanon. The Cabinet decision falls short of demands by many Israelis for a state commission of inquiry that would have the authority to recommend the dismissal of senior officials for their conduct of the war.

[Zhukov]

If the use of cluster and phosphorus bombs could somehow be proven, I would be outraged.

[mburbank]

I'm all for trying them as criminals. If it's a fair and open trial and they're fpund guilty, that's great. It would set an excellent precedent for dealing with terrorism under the rule of law.

[Preechr]

Consider it proven, then. Be outraged if you want. Please, though, let us know when your outrage becomes so frustrating for you that you start thinking it might be Ok to kill as many people as you can in order to draw attention to your outrage. The bar has been raised recently... I'm not sure if you got that memo. Now that everybody's at least a little outraged, the rest of us only care when somebody snaps, turning into a mass-murderer.

I have no doubt whatsoever Israel used cluster bombs, knowing full well that old dude would shake one loose from his olive tree. They've done it before, and they will do it again. They done it in Lebanon before, so the poor, innocent farmers of South Lebanon that can't harvest their olives and oranges knew this was coming... yet they STILL supported the actions of Hezzbollah.

I support cluster bombs. Torture, too... and not just the playing loud music variety, either. People like to point at the Geneva Conventions as if they represented the idea that we of the Western World are somehow above barbarity now. Well, I wouldn't support cluster bombs being used on France... but the enemy in this war is to blame for starting a war with no foundation in the rules of sane warfare.

Hezzbollah, Al Quaeda and all the other "terrorist organizations" are deliberately shunning any illusion of civility... humanity even... with their chosen brand of hostility. Take control of a country, uniform your soldiers and STOP HIDING BEHIND YOUR WOMEN AND CHILDREN, for God's sake! All this moaning and crying about what Israel and the US are doing never seems to find the proper context of reality. Lebanon has been a hell hole since the sixties because the Lebanese want it that way. Palestinians could have had their state decades ago if that's what they had ever really wanted.

We sit over here... or there in some cases... wringing our hands at how long it's taking for any signs of success, blaming Israel and the US for poor planning when goals aren't met in a timely fashion. Here's the thing: The plan of the enemy in this case is to disrupt ANY success. They want stalemate. They want the daily chaos of a never-ending war. Hezzbollah was not thrown off by Israel's attacks. They were upset at what they called Israel's "over-reaction" to their provocation. Why? They don't want REAL war. They know they don't stand a chance in one of those.

What they want os a persistent stand off. They want sanctions. They want ceaseless diplomatic negotiations. They seek the fog of war in order to keep things just as they are... just as they have been for as long as they can remember. That poor old schmuck in a coma is not in the sad shape he's in because of Israel. He's fucked because that's what those that are running his country want all of the people in that region to be. They want people that are totally screwed but loyal, and you only get that by keeping your people ignorant, poor and angry.

We are fighting brutal, inhuman barbarians. We will not win by fighting like modern, intelligent and sensitive people. They hope we will try, because they know that is the key to their endless war. They are not limiting the tools available to them in this struggle. In fact, they are proving to be remarkably creative in their ability to forge weaponry out of nothing. That creativity should not be admired, however. Look closely at how they are fighting and you will see their methods should only be deplored. For their war crimes, they should be destroyed. Utterly. They have proven themselves to no longer be human.

They are not remnants of the past that have yet to be enlightened by our modern age. They know more about our civilization and all it's sensitivity and humanity than do most of us. They reject it, and they seek to utilize it in their fight as a vulnerability. They don't want a civilized, humane or free society for their people. We do. Personally, I want this war over as quickly as possible. I want to see the people of the Middle East, Africa, Asia and South and Central America joining our modern, free, humane and civilized world. I want that so badly that I like it when I see the assholes standing in the way of that being tortured, phosphorized and cluster bombed. Those barbaric acts reflect perfectly my will to finish this and move on to a better tomorrow.

I know our enemy, and they are the enemy of the modern world. What they are doing is worse by far. Cluster bombs pale in comparison to our roping off 1/3 of the world, calling it quits and trying our best to ignore what's going on in there. A future without a War on Terror is the nightmare. Don't kid yourselves, and treat this just a little seriously, Ok?

[Preechr]

I'm all for trying them as criminals. If it's a fair and open trial and they're fpund guilty, that's great. It would set an excellent precedent for dealing with terrorism under the rule of law.

Trying who? The Israelis? Come ON, Max!

I'll give you a minute to read through the above novellette before I start screaming at you... Just a minute, though.

[Abcdxxxx]

I'm all for trying them as criminals. If it's a fair and open trial and they're fpund guilty, that's great. It would set an excellent precedent for dealing with terrorism under the rule of law.

I guess you're not aware that the Palestinian Authority assets were frozen by a US District Court in Rhode Island when they lost a terrorist suit from American families. That was the precedence.

Shurat Hadin, Israeli Law Center is one group that uses the legal system to fight terror crimes....they just served Khatami the night he addressed CAIR, for crimes against Iranian Jews.

[Abcdxxxx]

All your other questions are irrelevant untill we know what happened. I think it's war...and before you try and turn this into a moral argument, let's work on getting the factual argument laid down first. Haaretz was wrong about Kana, the Beach Blasts, and Jenin amongst other stories....but I guess I'll have to remember that Israel's press is suddenly beyond error. It's a free press, with agendas and ties to various political partys, and I've never ever represented Israel's Press as anything but. While it's more credible then say, Al Jazeera, they do print their share of nuttiness - most of which Americans never latch on to. Notice I'm not ruling out the possibility that there's truth to certain accusations against Israel, but for goodness sakes, how credible are these reports if the Haaretz article is STILL the prime source, and nobody has verified it? Now you want me to prove it didn't happen? Well there are tons of stories coming out as fact that didn't happen (like the double bombing of an ambulance, that is complete fiction) .... so thanks to Hezbolla and a sensationalist corrupt media, you have to prove a crime DID happened...that used to be called responsible journalism. There is no more benefit of the doubt. How many times can you cry wolf and then try to test us with questions of morals? People are STILL claiming Jenin was a massacre. The Arab leadership in the region makes policy decisions on what will make Israel look bad, not what's best for their people. Frankly, you're lucky Lebanon wasn't turned "back to the stone ages" like people were claiming. It's cute how you're trying to engage me in conversation all of a sudden, but I think you're trying to have a different conversation then I am. You've concluded that Israel's defense puts it in a "two wrongs don't make a right" category. In that case, it doesn't really matter if they used clusters or not, now does it?



But that the existence of israel is in and of itself a war crime and ergo it should not exist? Citizens? And you know them to be employees of Haaretz and Israeli unniversities? Not just a few loose canons, but 'many'?

Yup, that's all correct. The names are too many to mention. You can add "elected officials sitting in parliament" to that list of Israeli citizens who call for the States destruction and will coroborate any accusation you level against Israel, even the fictionalized ones. When you consider these people continue to hold residency in Israel, it's pretty clear they're just psychotic. Why are they even there then?

As a side story, I have some cousins who are currently living in an illegal outpost near the Arab village of Abu Gosh - which is near Jerusalem. It's conquered territory, taken from Jordan. So they're in this secluded villa and as long as they pay a fine to Israel they're allowed to stay, though technically the State has ruled it illegal for them to be there. Why do I mention all this? Because their father is incredibly active in Peace Now. It's total hypocrisy. Somewhere along the way, Israel became a dumping ground for crazy Americans and Australians with some very twisted self hating politics.

[mburbank]

Preech, get a grip. I'm in favor of trying the Hezbollah fighters Israel caught, as they are suggesting they will.

Alphaboy (your new nickname), I believe I finally begin to understand some of your position. Not agree, mind you, just understand it.

"I support cluster bombs. Torture, too... and not just the playing loud music variety, either."
-Alphaboy.

Good to know. It makes me feel much better about disliking you. Kev, remember what you were just asking me about what it would be like if you brought a right wing marine to "My house" and he said a lot of horrid shit, would I respect him? Well, here you go, except Alphaboy isn't a marine. So I'll just turn the question back to you. Having said "I support cluster bombs. Torture, too... and not just the playing loud music variety, either." do you still think Alphaboy has anything to bring to the table? I would say I think he still does. But like I said, I have less doubts about thinking there's something wromng with him aside from being an oppinionated prick.

"Take control of a country, uniform your soldiers and STOP HIDING BEHIND YOUR WOMEN AND CHILDREN, for God's sake!" and " Lebanon has been a hell hole since the sixties because the Lebanese want it that way.
-Alphaboy

If the Lebanese women and Children Hesbollah is hiding behind want Lebanon to be a hell hole, then aren't they really standing in front of Hezbollah? And that being the case, why shouldn't Israel blow the entire place to kingdom come with all the people in it? That's what they want, Alphaboy.

"Hezzbollah was not thrown off by Israel's attacks. They were upset at what they called Israel's "over-reaction" to their provocation. Why? They don't want REAL war. They know they don't stand a chance in one of those."
-Alphaboy

So, you're suggestion is? If not total annihilation, and I can't see where your argument tends against it, "REAL" war, the killing of every single armed person, and then I assume occupation. Do you see that working, or am I misreading you? If you were King of israel, what would you do, I shudder to ask.

"We are fighting brutal, inhuman barbarians. We will not win by fighting like modern, intelligent and sensitive people."
-Alphatollah

So, what should we fight like? Brutal inhuman barbarians as well, or something more nuanced. Brutal semi-human proto-barbarians. Principled human like soldiers with a dash of barbarianism. Since they started it, can't we fight exactly the same way they do? How should we fight? I'd make a guess as to what level of inhuman barbarism you're good with, but I'm so busy wringing my hands.

" Look closely at how they are fighting and you will see their methods should only be deplored."
Alphabismal

I do. Totally. I also deplore ours, especially when they sink to the inhuman, barbaric level of theirs. Like weapons specifically designed to kill indiscriminantly. I also dislike weapons that make really big explosions that kill all sorts of people anywhere around the person you're aiming at, but they are less barbaric, and while I deplore them, I don't deplore them as much and see that their use is sometimes unavoidable even if your aim is not speciffically to terrorize your opponent. See, I like to be better than the 'enemy', even if that's what they want. If they wanted me to shower, I'd do it, even though it's what they want. Cause I like showering. It's okay to do something a bad person wants you to do if it's a good thing. Them wanting you to do it doesn't make it bad. Like not using cluster bombs. Although maybe they want me to use clusster bombs. Crazy people are hard to figure. That's why I don't want my sie to go crazy.

"They. They they they they they."
-Alphabits

Okay, I get it, you don't like them. Me neither. But I think your idea of 'them' is all mishy mashy. There's the Them we agree on, real life terrorists with weapons in hand ready to kill anyone anytime and laugh. But then you have this other them, which is people who live near the boogetman them and don't rise up against the boogeyman them, which is everybody in the countries where the Boogeymen are. And probably they don't like us that much, and seriosuly, lets be reasonable, no matter how much some of them blame the boogeymen terrorists, if we blow up your house and family and lace your olive grown with cluster bombs, it's hard not to dislike us at least a little. So, while your "Utterly" destroying them for thir war crimes (The boogeymen, I'm assuming) how many of the lesser them are you willing to plow under? Say, if we could utterly destroy the Bogeymen, would it be all right if in the process 10% of the rest of the population got made into human pot pie? How about 50%? Say we had to kill everyone, and I'm thinking that's possible, because killing the bad guy is a game it's hartd to stop. Cause you're making more bad guys by being all barbaric and whatnot. And then you need to kill the new ones, cause if you don't, it's not utterly. You've got your mad up, your all afroth at the mouth, take the bull by the horns. Are you willing to kill them all? You seem manly enough.

"I want to see the people of the Middle East, Africa, Asia and South and Central America joining our modern, free, humane and civilized world. I want that so badly that I like it when I see the assholes standing in the way of that being tortured, phosphorized and cluster bombed. "
-Alphamale

Uhm... heh heh... anybody ever tell you you're cute when you get crazy? No? Huh. So now it's not just okay to cluster bomb and torture, you "like" it. It's not a neccesary evil, it's a pleasure. You know how movements with the best possible aims end up going all wiggy French Revolution style?

"Those barbaric acts reflect perfectly my will to finish this and move on to a better tomorrow. "
AlphabaCRAZY

That's why.

"I know our enemy, and they are the enemy of the modern world."
-Alphabawaaaaaah?

Gosh. You know them. You're so... so... manly. I just feel safe in your arms. You do the thinking. I can sleep better at night knowing you are out their protecting me from the enemy you know by posting on message boards about getting off on torturing them.

"A future without a War on Terror is the nightmare. Don't kid yourselves, and treat this just a little seriously, Ok?"
-Alphababoon

OK. Ok. I will. Shhhhhh, now. Put down the lamp. You're giving yourself a nosebleed.

[Preechr]

I can die happy now

[Preechr]

Ok... as I am formulating my reply, I'm finding it funny that I keep wanting to refer you to books I have read. The funny part is that I'm starting to think that if you have not partaken of my syllabus, you cannot understand my position. That's just eerie. At first, I thought you might have mistaken my post for one of Abcdxxx's, but then I realized you directed that squarely at me... But you called me Alphaboy, which was maybe a little close to someone screen-named so alphabetically... someone also pro-Israeli...

I am confused now... Have I become Abcdxxx just in your mind, or in reality? I'm scared and a little bit cold...

Give me a moment to get ahold of myself, and I think I might be able to go on...

[Courage the Cowardly Dog]

I still don't understand how MrBurbank thinks we can address problems of terrorism without force? Or is he supporting the killing of civilians as a method to get what you want, unless their on the opposite side then it's wrong?

May i ask how do you suggest you fight terrorism? Ignore it like we did in the 90s? Throw money at their enemies like we did in the 80s? Fight it but make no attempt striking their sources? Like arms and monetary suppliers?

What if they take hostages or do the entire war carring around their whole family?

It kind of reminds me of a famous egyptian battle. The Babylonians (or Assyrians I forget) put small cages on the front of their shields and put cats in the cages. The egyptans couldn't fire from a distance without hurting tha cat and had to be extra careful not to hurt it when they got close, cause the cat is sacred to them.

Of course children are far more important then cats, but you can't just roll over, you take caution and fight as much as you can around the kids cause you are protecting YOUR kids who have been dying from their constant rocket attacks. If a few of their kids die it's a very sad thing, but you don't blame the police sniper for the hostage holder's crime. You cant cease at every death or else you and your children will die. It's children dying that is why this war was provoked in the first place, the kidnappings just pushed the edge and broke the camel's back.

[ziggytrix]

Blowing up a building with civillians and terrorists in it is a bit different than blowing up a whole city because there are terrorists somewhere in it, isn't it?

You gotta draw a line somewhere. Mine just happens to be before turning cities into minefields or leaving behind poisonous clouds that could blow into anyone's territory. Getting exasperated and doing as much damage as we possibly can in the hope that we hit some terrorists would be a sign we aren't winning the war on terror, in my opinion.

Take out the enemy where you find them - sure, that much is a given. But you guys who are defending Israel's alleged use of these cluster bombs - would you have supported Israel if they had just nuked Tyre? I'm just curious. Is there a concept of going too far when the enemy is "terror"?

If not, then let's just blow up the whole planet. That would teach those terrorists there is NOWHERE they can hide. Who's with me?

[Abcdxxxx]

...But since Israel didn't nuke Tyre, or even cause the destruction of an entire city some unsubstantiated article in an Israeli leftist paper is the best you can do. That smacks of desperation. I do understand the anger for such needless destruction... I just don't understand why you blame the defense rather then the provocation. What the hell did Hezbollah expect when they picked a fight with Israel?


Here's one Lebanese bloggers take:
http://lebanonheartblogs.blogspot.com/2006/07/concepts-in-10th-century-more-accurate.html

Concepts in the 10th century (more accurate)

When you attacked without being provoked, you are a resistance movement. When you sacrifice a country for your agenda, you are righteous.

Tribal Mentality:
So, you cross into a sovereign nation, kill some of their soldiers and kidnap others. Of course you're justified, they're soldiers. That's what they're there for.

What, the nation wants retribution? Murderers! Imperialists! Zionists! Leave me alone, I don't want to play anymore. Wait, how about I trade you my soldiers for yours? That's fair? No? Maaaaaaaa! The big bad zionist doesn't want to let me play... Maaaaaa!

Retribution:
So, you want your soldiers back? Why? They're cowards? Aren't they? I mean... no, they're not cowards. They're willing to die. Right? No? Jihaaaad! (oops, sorry), no let's talk. This is a fun game, I sneak in and hurt you every once in a while, then you say ok let's negotiate. No? You want to hurt me back? You're invading? Maaaaaa! Invador!!!! You're not allowed.... I am, of course... I'm still a baby.

Logic:
What is tworisem? What is an ehkonomi? What is a cuntry? What is a low?

Sense:
Syria? Oh, they have prisoners as well? No. We can't fight Syria. They're not dirty jews. They're muslims. That's haram. The Lebanese prisoners there? Oh, it's not important, they're christians.

Politics:
You can't criticize me, I'm a religious figure. Kaboom. We are fighters, we are politicians. What? Don't criticize me, I'm a religious figure. If you express an opinion different from mine, you're a traitor zionist dog. What? Shush, I'm a religious figure. I will cut your arms and gouge your eyes. Because I'm a religious figure. I'm a religious figure, yes i'm the real religious figure. What? Eminem? Shut up, I'm a religious figure. whatever.

Analysis:
Let's be blind-sighted, selective and subjective for a minute here. What's wrong with you people? So we invaded israel first and kidnapped soldiers. That's history. Let's forget about that and start analysing WHY they're fighting back. Come on, let's say that we didn't kidnap anyone. Ok? Israel might have still attacked for some other reason. It's possible? Can you deny it completely? No. See!? Haha, I win! Maaaaa... I won! Let's assume that we didn't do anything, and that they attacked for no reason. It's more fun to come up excuses and crazy theories than to be evolved creatures for a minute.

[Preechr]

Preech, get a grip.

Ok... I'm back now.

I'm in favor of trying the Hezbollah fighters Israel caught, as they are suggesting they will.



Alphaboy (your new nickname),

Which I think I like... It's not entirely disrespectful... kind of like "Neo" but more "Alpha..." Plus, you can do fun things with it, like you've proven so aptly...

I believe I finally begin to understand some of your position. Not agree, mind you, just understand it.

Well, that's a good start.

"I support cluster bombs. Torture, too... and not just the playing loud music variety, either."
-Alphaboy.

Good to know. It makes me feel much better about disliking you.

See, this is where I was thinking you were confusing me with Abcdxxx... You dislike me now? I really thought we had a mutual respect thing going... Hopefully, this little rift I've started can be all fixed up by me explaining the differences between the me I've always been and the me with which you now so vehemently disagree... and apparently dislike...

Kev, remember what you were just asking me about what it would be like if you brought a right wing marine to "My house" and he said a lot of horrid shit, would I respect him? Well, here you go, except Alphaboy isn't a marine. So I'll just turn the question back to you. Having said "I support cluster bombs. Torture, too... and not just the playing loud music variety, either." do you still think Alphaboy has anything to bring to the table? I would say I think he still does.

Well, thanks for that, anyways...

But like I said, I have less doubts about thinking there's something wromng with him aside from being an oppinionated prick.

Y'know, I meant for my statements to be provocative, but not so much as to make people hate me... Now I have to dig myself out of the "opinionated prick" hole.

I've said this stuff before. Maybe with less vehemence... I will try my best to patch this up, but I'm still a bit puzzled as to where I've suddenly crossed a line.

"Take control of a country, uniform your soldiers and STOP HIDING BEHIND YOUR WOMEN AND CHILDREN, for God's sake!" and " Lebanon has been a hell hole since the sixties because the Lebanese want it that way.
-Alphaboy

I stand by that. The first part is what would be required for us to adhere to the Geneva Conventions. The second part is pure and simple fact. Well, maybe conjecture that is obvious to me based on pure and simple fact.

If the Lebanese women and Children Hesbollah is hiding behind want Lebanon to be a hell hole, then aren't they really standing in front of Hezbollah?

Ok... I'm not sure what that means. I'm thinking it was meant to be funny, but maybe you messed it up. The answer to your question is yes, but your question adds nothing. You were trying to suppose a paradox, but I think you phrased it wrong. Were we still friends, I might try to sort out what your paradox might have inferred, but I'm not sure I owe that to someone that dislikes me so easily.

And that being the case, why shouldn't Israel blow the entire place to kingdom come with all the people in it? That's what they want, Alphaboy.

I'm really very sure I addressed that option. I'm left to assume you were feeling facetious when you wrote this, either that or you were responding as you read along. Just to play along, my position is that every option for peace in Lebanon over the last forty years has been rejected in favor of just more unrest. Yes, we have been offerred excuses... tribalism, Western Imperialism... all that crap you said you were tired of hearing...

Frankly, I am tired of it too.

Why shouldn't Israel blow the rest of the MidEast to Hell? Is that really your question? Are you ascribing that viewpoint to me? Allright, I'll tell you why: Israel and finally the US are doing what is right, regardless... mostly... of the cost, minimalized as it is by technology and planning, for two reasons... one primary and one a lucky side-effect. Primarily, Israel and finally America are fighting the War on Terror as a defensive measure. 9/11 proved that ignoring the "troubles" in the Middle East weren't going to cause them to go away. Responding half-assedly wasn't going to cut it either.

This is symbolic gangland warfare that makes our crips and bloods look like kindergardners that are getting along swimmingly, Max. Even the biased news coverage of current events can't help but let it slip that, for our enemy, "impressions," "insults" and "positions" mean more than actual deaths, even when we are talking on a scale of MILLIONS. Think about that, my soft-hearted, quasi-liberal friend.

"Hezzbollah was not thrown off by Israel's attacks. They were upset at what they called Israel's "over-reaction" to their provocation. Why? They don't want REAL war. They know they don't stand a chance in one of those."
-Alphaboy

So, you're suggestion is? If not total annihilation, and I can't see where your argument tends against it, "REAL" war, the killing of every single armed person, and then I assume occupation. Do you see that working, or am I misreading you? If you were King of israel, what would you do, I shudder to ask.

Well, Israel has no king... but I'm not gonna catfight like that with you on this. Were I made to lead this fight, I can tell you I would not do it with my head in the clouds. I would start by doing much more of what I have already been doing: READING ABOUT MY ENEMY. Are you laboring under the impression that America started this? I used to believe that we had somehow forced their hand. I still admit that we should have worked harder to understand what we were in for when we utilized the MidEast in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War, but I've come to realize that we did not, in fact, impose our world upon an altogether unwilling Arabic battlefield... at least not in the way I'd once assumed.

If America is the cause of this war, it's more in the manner of your neighbor burning down your house because you purchased a nicer car than his. We make them look bad, and that pisses them off. Rather than calm down and satisfy their jealousy through self-improvement, they choose to simply stay mad. Yes, I'm over-simplifying it. It's an analogy, and that's what you do with analogies. You reject this sort of explanation because you don't see such loss of life making sense on that level. I am offering you the opportunity to understand how it makes sense when explained this way, but I'd roll around and piss all over myself with glee were you to offer up your own explanation of our enemy's mindset. Really. I'm answering your questions...

Anyhoo, your question was "what would I do," right? I would take terror off the table. To do so, I would need to learn how and why it works, then do whatever it takes to make everyone involved in this dispute understand it's just not a viable alternative to more-or-less peaceful, democratic dispute. It's the "whatever it takes" part on which, I assume, we disagree, right?

Max, do you know this is not the first time Israel has invaded Lebanon? Do you know that Beruit has been the focal point of a civil war that's pretty much been going on since the partition? Do you know that most of Arafat's power derived from his involvement in that civil war? What DO you know about this war, Max?

I only ask because I am truly interested in your visceral reaction to my position on this subject. I am interested because I really do like and respect you. I'm actually very hurt that the feeling is no longer mutual. I favor a war with all options available against an enemy that has been PROVEN by history to have never wrestled with such moral concerns. Maybe our disagreement here comes down to what we have already pegged as our basic, unalterable opinions of the human race... I believe in our inherent goodness where you do not.

Yes, I know that, coming from a guy that's advocating torture of children in minefields, that statement might seem a bit questionable. Hyperbole aside, what I am asking for here is simply that we do not attempt to fight this war with our hands tied behind our backs. You want this to be a fair fight if it is to happen at all. I say fuck that. We are better at this, so the only way to make it fair is to hinder our capabilities. I reject that entirely, because doing so will only drag the killing, maiming and general ridiculousness out even longer.

"We are fighting brutal, inhuman barbarians. We will not win by fighting like modern, intelligent and sensitive people."
-Alphatollah

Good one...

So, what should we fight like? Brutal inhuman barbarians as well, or something more nuanced.

Why let them know ahead of time? We are having a hard enough time figuring out what we are up against. Why fax them a copy of our mission statement? Again, I understand that you feel we are all disgusting individuals chained to morality only by rigid social structures from which we would flee on a murderous rampage at the first opportunity, but I don't agree with you. I believe in people. I believe in our future, and I believe it will be free.

You believe our soldiers are natural born killing machines, chomping at the bit to be let loose with iron maidens on darker colored children.

Brutal semi-human proto-barbarians. Principled human like soldiers with a dash of barbarianism.

You don't trust us. I do. You believe we all blindly follow an admistration you despise. I don't.

I know that what separates us from animals is our compassion, and I know that's a complex thing to work out in the real world. You want nuance? There it is. How can we do the right thing the right way when the terms of victory are set by those that see compassion as a weakness to be exploited?

Since they started it, can't we fight exactly the same way they do? How should we fight? I'd make a guess as to what level of inhuman barbarism you're good with, but I'm so busy wringing my hands.

How do you propose we level the playing field, Max? Are our Marines dressing up in burkahs and blowing up their Mosques during morning prayers? No. A Terror War is a war of public relations. It's a war of, as I said before, "impressions," "insults" and "positions." THEY are the ones that decided people must die over such petty things. Which people do YOU choose, Max? Our people, or their's?

" Look closely at how they are fighting and you will see their methods should only be deplored."
Alphabismal

I do. Totally. I also deplore ours, especially when they sink to the inhuman, barbaric level of theirs.

Allrighty. Let's look at how you thnk we are sinking to their level, shall we?

Like weapons specifically designed to kill indiscriminantly. I also dislike weapons that make really big explosions that kill all sorts of people anywhere around the person you're aiming at, but they are less barbaric, and while I deplore them, I don't deplore them as much and see that their use is sometimes unavoidable even if your aim is not speciffically to terrorize your opponent.

Whoa there, buddy... Don't you see you're hitting the nail on the head? Sure, these methods are terrible, but if this war is unavoidable (and it is) and if the rules are set by the enemy (and they are) isn't the aim for either side to "terrorize your opponent" into victory? If we "terrorize" our enemy into peace, isn't that better than them "terrorizing" us into what THEY want?

See, I like to be better than the 'enemy', even if that's what they want. If they wanted me to shower, I'd do it, even though it's what they want. Cause I like showering. It's okay to do something a bad person wants you to do if it's a good thing. Them wanting you to do it doesn't make it bad. Like not using cluster bombs. Although maybe they want me to use clusster bombs. Crazy people are hard to figure. That's why I don't want my si{d}e to go crazy.

I totally see your point. See how we came right back to your trust issues? You are placing your distrust of your neighbors on a higher plane than what's actually going on. You may not see it yet, but our culture is markedly different from that of the still oppressed portion of the world. This is one of those times that I would love to be handing you a book. Unfortunately, now that you have decided to hate me, I'm reluctant to suggest any titles as you'd likely avoid them, being that you hate me now. I'm left to hope you'll find them by accident, I suppose...

Are we really in such danger of "going crazy," Max? I've read the "One Minute Manager," so I'll take a moment to praise you for falling in with "our side," but let's get back to this slippery slope where we all become raving lunatics at the drop of a hat, Ok? I have long ago gone on record with my feelings regarding the option of torture being made available to "our side" as well as theirs. I'm for it. I make no secret of it, and I've already explained why. Now that I'm adding cluster bombs, you are calling me out on my rationale.

In response, I'll call you out on your opinon of the men and women that constitute our fighting force. I've yet to do this directly, so please, give me a little latitude, as I'd like to do this in the form of yet another analogy, Ok? Being a libertarian (You're welcome, Kevin) you know I am against the drug war on principle. I respect the Hell out of choices and our power, as enlightened humans, to wield them virtually without fear for the consequences, as I believe the natural consequences ingrained into the fabric of life, when combined with our innate, though admittedly often errant, abilities to guide our paths to ever more prosperous places, cause things to work out for the best in the end, hopefully (...and generally, in fact.)

At least in my opinion...

The base principle behind the war on drugs, as it is prosecuted here in America anyway, is that certain substances radiate EVIL... substances such as a joint stuck under the back seat of a Nova. Under our laws, were Ted Kennedy (a wholesome and upright man if ever there was one) catching a ride with you in your Nova, he would be commiting a crime because of that joint you lost back in college. This situation, to me, is stupid.

So, too, is your view of torture. You seem to believe that the availability of torture to our troops is the same as it's rampant abuse on every level imagineable. I just don't see where that slippery slope starts for you, Max. If I see any slippery slopes here, I'd think you didn't like killing or anything close to it being used in any situation, including war... at least if it's Bush's war.

Let's say it's not his war. Let's say this was 1979 and it was bizarro Jimmy Carter's war. What now? Given the benefit of knowing where all this was going, what would be our rules of engagement, Max? Let's say we HAD to fight... How could we? Were your fellow Americans all that different back then? Could we have trusted them with the tools of war back then?

Let's switch perspectives for a moment... How in the fuck is torturing a terrorist any better or worse than blowing his freaking head off in the field of battle? Where are these lines drawn? Which is more morally repugnant to you, Max: a laser sighted smart-bomb taking out out an arms depot during an Al Quaeda meeting or the water-boarding of a scumbag that gets the location of that depot and the time of that meeting?

"They. They they they they they."
-Alphabits

Okay, I get it, you don't like them. Me neither. But I think your idea of 'them' is all mishy mashy. There's the Them we agree on, real life terrorists with weapons in hand ready to kill anyone anytime and laugh. But then you have this other them, which is people who live near the boogetman them and don't rise up against the boogeyman them, which is everybody in the countries where the Boogeymen are. And probably they don't like us that much, and seriosuly, lets be reasonable, no matter how much some of them blame the boogeymen terrorists, if we blow up your house and family and lace your olive grown with cluster bombs, it's hard not to dislike us at least a little.

Ok. Let's move on to that.

Unfortunately, we're gonna have to get all "nuanced" again. Take away the "everybody else." Leave just the terrorists. That's a nice clean war, right? Y'know, Max, I've got a buddy in the Gaza Strip with a line on a sweet curator job in a Holocaust Museum. Interested? We're talking six figures here, dude. Moving expenses and a signing bonus? What's it gonna take to get you to move your family into Hell, Max?

In WWII there were no innocent Americans. Our grandparents either fought in the war or worked and sacrificed in support of the war. The same can be said of the British, The Italians, the Germans or the Japanese.

This war is no different, at least on the side of "they." We have the luxury of fighting this fight from the point of view of the largest economy in the history of the world wielding the most powerful military force in the history of the world. "They" don't.

We know we are on the right side of this war, don't we, Max? We know they are mistaken in their belief that they are going to prevail, to whatever ends. We are demonstrating a measure of respect... a considerable one if you look at the big picture.... for human life, as well as a general disdain for human suffering. "They" have demonstrated nothing even close to that, in fact, "they" are opposed to us in that moral stance.

Is that not true, Max?

What do you accept as true in this war, Max, as far as that goes? I am truly, and respectfully, interested.

So, while your "Utterly" destroying them for thir war crimes (The boogeymen, I'm assuming) how many of the lesser them are you willing to plow under? Say, if we could utterly destroy the Bogeymen, would it be all right if in the process 10% of the rest of the population got made into human pot pie? How about 50%? Say we had to kill everyone, and I'm thinking that's possible, because killing the bad guy is a game it's hartd to stop.

There you go again... You big silly.

Such a lack of faith in your fellow humans. I won't rehash this, as I know you are unmoveable in your distrust of humanity, but I thought this deserved to be pointed out...

A question instead: If we win this war without doing what no war in history has ever done, wiping out entirely everyone associated with our enemy, how will you parse that?

Cause you're making more bad guys by being all barbaric and whatnot. And then you need to kill the new ones, cause if you don't, it's not utterly.

Will the madness ever stop?!

Can you conceive a point at which the bad guys start to have problems with recruitment? Oh... wait... now I'm just feeding you material, ain't I? WE are having problems with recruitment, isn't that one of your arguments against the war? Funny how it always works out that you are worried that we, somehow, might be the REAL enemy. Isn't that odd?

You've got your mad up, your all afroth at the mouth, take the bull by the horns. Are you willing to kill them all? You seem manly enough.

Well, while I appreciate the misplaced compliment, my whole point here is that I am not, infact, all that big on harming others. I have accepted that his war is worth fighting in order to achieve a future worth creating, but I cannot accept dragging it out for any longer than absolutely necessary. I'm all about saving innocent lives here, Max, and I believe you really are, too. I think we have an honest disagreement on how to achieve that goal... a disagreement, in an unfortunate turn of events, that has caused you to despise me... hopefully just temporarily.

"I want to see the people of the Middle East, Africa, Asia and South and Central America joining our modern, free, humane and civilized world. I want that so badly that I like it when I see the assholes standing in the way of that being tortured, phosphorized and cluster bombed. "
-Alphamale

Uhm... heh heh... anybody ever tell you you're cute when you get crazy? No? Huh. So now it's not just okay to cluster bomb and torture, you "like" it. It's not a neccesary evil, it's a pleasure. You know how movements with the best possible aims end up going all wiggy French Revolution style?

You questioned my likening of terrorists to animals before. Given their goals, I just don't see them as human. While I don't make it common practice to torture and maim non-humans (far from it, in fact,) I really do not like the practice of human slavery living one second more into this century. I have been entirely consistent in this regard. I am touchy on the subject, and I admit to having relatively extreme views on it, hence my posiiton on immigration and foreign economic policy.

I am simply not willing to "mish mash" a very real war where very real people are suffering and dying every day because we have "mish mashed" this for 40 years. I really do think we are both aligning with a higher plane here, but I just believe you are failing to see the larger picture.

"Those barbaric acts reflect perfectly my will to finish this and move on to a better tomorrow. "
AlphabaCRAZY

That's why.

Yes, it is. I hope I have done an adequate job of explaining to you why I think so. I know I'm not in any danger of changing your mind on this for many reasons. The only reason I have responded at all is because I didn't like the idea of you writing me off for this.

"I know our enemy, and they are the enemy of the modern world."
-Alphabawaaaaaah?

Gosh. You know them. You're so... so... manly. I just feel safe in your arms. You do the thinking. I can sleep better at night knowing you are out their protecting me from the enemy you know by posting on message boards about getting off on torturing them.

Like you, I've been saving the best for last.

I understand the difference between me saying before that I wanted to keep up at the very least the illusion that torture was available as an option, for psychological reasons, and the Israelis actually littering Lebanon with cluster bombs. One is a potential disaster, and the other is a very real tragedy. I've only hinted so far as to my perspective on that seemingly irreconcilable moral duality. The hints I have given you should lead you to believe that I am rejecting the near automatic label of "innocent" that has been affixed to the forehead of every farmer in South Lebanon.

Is that so hard to deal with? Why?

I can't stand it anymore. At the risk of being tagged Abcdxxx's fellow traveler and thus ascribed every seedy capability he's ever employed, PLEASE READ UP, MAX. Pick up a freakin book. You may not want to understand the people and the history into which you are diving, but if you are going to have an opinion here it really does need to be based in something deeper than what it is for you now. That's just as honest as I can be. This has NOT been going on forever. You are not an ignorant redneck that could honestly swallow all the easy lies surrounding this conflict. You CAN fully grasp what has transpired in the past 100 years, and I honestly think you will find it all more compelling than any movie you have ever seen.

Go get a book. NOW.

"A future without a War on Terror is the nightmare. Don't kid yourselves, and treat this just a little seriously, Ok?"
-Alphababoon

OK. Ok. I will. Shhhhhh, now. Put down the lamp. You're giving yourself a nosebleed.

Northshore Mall is right there on your way home. There is a Barnes and Nobles there. Tonight, stop. Find a book of your choice that describes the history of the conflict in the Middle East. I really don't think you can go wrong.

[Preechr]

Blowing up a building with civillians and terrorists in it is a bit different than blowing up a whole city because there are terrorists somewhere in it, isn't it?

This is a good example of an American trying to sort out this conflict without any sort of context.

No offense, Zig...

The father of the king of Syria had a problem with insurgents, too, once. There was also a fairly large city called Hama, once. He paved it... with tens of thousands of people serving as gravel, and many of his problems ceased to bother him. This was widely regarded as better than the clusterfuck in Beruit that had been going on for 14 or so years at that time.

These are the rules by which we are playing in the Middle East.

They do not share your values.

That is not to say they won't, just that they don't.

[Courage the Cowardly Dog]

Blowing up a building with civillians and terrorists in it is a bit different than blowing up a whole city because there are terrorists somewhere in it, isn't it?

You gotta draw a line somewhere. Mine just happens to be before turning cities into minefields or leaving behind poisonous clouds that could blow into anyone's territory. Getting exasperated and doing as much damage as we possibly can in the hope that we hit some terrorists would be a sign we aren't winning the war on terror, in my opinion.

Take out the enemy where you find them - sure, that much is a given. But you guys who are defending Israel's alleged use of these cluster bombs - would you have supported Israel if they had just nuked Tyre? I'm just curious. Is there a concept of going too far when the enemy is "terror"?

If not, then let's just blow up the whole planet. That would teach those terrorists there is NOWHERE they can hide. Who's with me?

I'm so sick of the Cana thing. First of all the hit occurred at the base of it at 1:00 AM after all civilians were advised to leave, the collapse occured 5 hours later. These people were not hostages they were harbouring them in their homes. They were the terrorists kids they and wives they brought to work with them, and people giving them safe harbor. Millions of leaflets even phone calls in palestine, passing up a strike multiple times because of to many civilians, and a gigantic collection of weapons and terrorists and people harbouring them means nothing should be done?

The strike had 5 hours for people to evacuate then they went right back in to go to sleep and at 6 am it fell. I'm not buying the "we can't leave the city" excuse cause they felt safe enough to rush the embassy and protest in broad daylight in gigantic numbers in beirut.

Are cluster bombs innaccurate and a bad choice? sure, are they tantamount to nukes? NO!

This wasn't shooting blindly at random targets this was shooting precicly (although with cluster bombs) at the individuals places they were using as bases which changed rapidly cause they were getting their asses kicked over the month. Israel didn't accidentially blow up the day care, Hezzbalah was using it as a BASE! and Israel took severe tactical losses by waiting till there was a bare minimum of covilians befor blowing it up.

May I remind you that Hezballah was killing civilians with a 100% ratio befor the war and were trying to start a revolution in lebanon to make the south it's own independent terrorist state.

[mburbank]

OH GOD DAMNIT, PREECH, YOU HAVE TOTALLY RUINED MY DAY!!

Actually, you didn't ruin it, I ruined it. I TOTALY read your whole post as belonging to Alphaboy, the artist formerly known as Abcgdgsdhd. Not that I don't stand by every word I wrote, but I was so geared up for a smackdown with him, and so happy to have a chane to really let loose, I embarassed myself. (KEVIN, PLEASE NOTE: THIS IS WHERE I EMBARASSED MYSELF. KNOW HOW I KNOW? I AM EMBARASSED.)

PLUS; I now owe Alphaboy an actual apology, which completely blows, but I'm sorry, Abcdxxxx, that was completely off base and I apologize.

But I do totally stand by what I said and I think you should be ASHAMED of yourslef for that intellectually honest by SERIOSULY WRONG HEADED POST. Not that I've even read your response yet. I'm still totally reeling from what a Doofus I was last night.

I may need to take te entire day off to eat crow. Then again, maybe not. We'll have to see how much I like crow.

[Abcdxxxx]

Sorry to dissapoint, I'm actually a lot more moderate then you'd like to think I am. Though I do like the nickname, and was a bit envious that one of the other Pro-Israel kids got it instead.

See, Preechr can be as rapid (or alpha) as he wants...he knew about Hama, and has some actual context to justify why he's so rapid. He might even be a bit too rapid for my tastes even, but at least he's educated himself and I know he's talking about the Middle East when he's talking about the Middle East...and not some blueberry cereal utopian idealist world where people eat Hummus.

[mburbank]

Just because I apologized doesn't mean you can't blow me.

[Abcdxxxx]

No, I can't blow you because you're either totally impotent or just completely dickless.

[Preechr]

ROFL

Kinda figured that's what happened. I can't say I haven't done the same thing in the past. Through all that, I knew you still loved me.

I responded to the spirit of your objections, as I knew that you were sincere. I took me about a twelve pack to write all that, so I'll have to read it all too. I'll check back in tonight.

[ziggytrix]

Blowing up a building with civillians and terrorists in it is a bit different than blowing up a whole city because there are terrorists somewhere in it, isn't it?

This is a good example of an American trying to sort out this conflict without any sort of context.

No offense, Zig...

...

These are the rules by which we are playing in the Middle East.

They do not share your values.


None taken, but is a context really necessary for an answer to that rhetorical question? Destroying a city and destroying a building are inarguably on different scales.

I'm quite aware that Al Qeada fighters don't share my values. Then again, I don't share your values and you don't share mine, so that's not saying much, is it?

The question I'm posing is this: should we be willing to adopt the values of our enemy in order to fight them? This is a question that has to be addressed by every soldier in every war ever.

Is there such a thing as going too far, and where is that line drawn? The Geneva Conventions are a modern attempt to draw these lines, but attempts to draw this line go back to the beginnings of recorded history.

Let's take the torture issue. You seem to be OK with us torturing terrorists. So putting aside the questionable usefulness of the practice at discovring credible intelligence, and any current legal rulings, how do we even know who to torture?

Is that something we reserve for fighters we personally capture in combat? Can it be someone who has been accused of terrorist activity by someone we have arguably no reason to disbelieve. Or can it be anyone of whom we have suspicions, including American citizens who have not recieved criminal charges? Is it situationally OK, or generally OK?

Lastly, is this an American value, or a wartime "exceptions must be made" value?

I don't want to change your mind, I just want to dig at it. I'm fascinated by people's concepts of right and wrong (and especially the gray area in-between). This is all subjective opinion stuff, so please feel free to speak frankly, assuming you have any interest in this tangent.

[Abcdxxxx]

The question I'm posing is this: should we be willing to adopt the values of our enemy in order to fight them?

Uh. Israel didn't adopt the values of Hezbollah.

[ziggytrix]

I'm so sick of the Cana thing.


I wasn't talking about Cana. I was talking about cluster bombs, which according to the allegations, have effectively turned parts of Southern Lebanon into a minefield.

Are cluster bombs innaccurate and a bad choice? sure, are they tantamount to nukes? NO!


Spreading landmines over an area equivalent to the fallout zone of a nuke is tantamount to dropping a nuke becuase they both continue to do damage even should every party in the conflict agree to pretend to be best friends and sign treaties. The scale of initial destruction is different, but the lingering effect is equally problematic, by my reckoning.

I don't really understand how these cluster bombs could have such a large rate of delayed explosions, but if it actually is a significant rate, and assuming the allegations are true (they've yet to be denied), then is there any way we aren't treading into 'War Crime' territory. Please note, 'they War Crimed us first' is not internationally recognized as an excuse for committing War Crimes.


This wasn't shooting blindly at random targets this was shooting precicly (although with cluster bombs) at the individuals places they were using as bases which changed rapidly cause they were getting their asses kicked over the month.

What little I could quickly find about these cluster bombs we make says they cover an area approximately equal to two football fields. And that the ones we made for the Gulf War had a dud rate of about 30%. (but I really want a source that isn't as rabidly pacifist as the Mennonites, so help me if you know a better one (http://www.mcc.org/clusterbomb/report/laos_appendix.html))

That doesn't seem so precise to me. Sounds more like a traditional bombing with a landmine dispersal thrown in for bonus.

"unexploded cluster bombs fuel anger and resentment and make security, stabilization, and reconstruction efforts that much harder," - some liberal bitch whom I happen to think makes a good point occasionally.

[ziggytrix]

Uh. Israel didn't adopt the values of Hezbollah.

Everything's always about Israel with you, isn't it?

Didn't I already tell you in very clear words that I'm not interested in your version of "argument"?

But thank you anyway for stating your opinion in the form of incontravertable fact, and in a manner that even almost looked like you were answering the question you quoted. :)

[Preechr]

I'm interested, and I obviously haven't explained my position well enough yet, or you wouldn't be asking for further clarification, right?

Let's try to remedy that.

First, let's examine a snapshot of where we are right now: I think it's safe to say that whether we have any actual data to work with, the vast majority of us do not think real torture is actually being used all that often by Americans right now. The real problem is that we do not know, and nobody is telling us the rules. You are asking me what I think, and I'm telling you, mostly for both of us in order for us to have something to do where that something concerns us. If Rummy published a book on US torture in reality, we'd go read it instead of doing this.

We know the specter of torture is out there, but other than that, we don't know shit. The same exact thing is true of nearly everyone in the world right now, enemy fighter, American soldier or random, uninvolved idiot. If one of our goals is to extract information from anyone that might have it, that's a pretty sweet set-up ain't it?

If another one of our goals is to get valuable information without actually being barbaric dicks, this is also the best method to do so. Let me explain that...

Think about it. One of your questions concerned where I felt this torture line should be drawn... Can you tell me how we're gonna figure out who does and who doesn't have potentially life-saving intel in their heads... maybe even when they don't know it's importance... Maybe we're talking about some random Iraqi father of three, a dentist that's never stood up for or against anything in his life and never will. Maybe he doesn't know that the construction crew he saw the other day was actually a bunch of dickheads rigging up IEDs. Maybe, if he thinks these possibly insane and probably racist Americans that rounded him up in a raid might just pull out his fingernails for fun, he'll give them something else to do... anything else.

Maybe, however, if he's read in the paper that these Americans that rounded him up in that raid are guaranteed to never do anything bad to him, he'll just sit there and raise hell until they let him go.

What if he's not a dentist? What if he's actually just pretending to be a dentist, but in fact he is a bad guy that knows a lot of stuff the good guys would really like to know? Personally, I'd prefer either one of those guys to be scared of having their fingernails pulled out. I want them both to worry about the safety of their families. Is it so bad, considering the situation, to want to see them both pissing their pants with fear? I feel sorry for the hypothetical dentist, but I realize that all he has to do is be completely honest with those possibly insane Americans.

You saying torture is not effective is like me claiming that pepper spray doesn't work because ninjas, yogis and PCP addicts are immune to it. I promise you that if I believe I'm subject to torture by my captors, I'm spilling my guts. Al Quaeda is not the Legion of Doom. Your average terrorist is a garden variety idiot. That's what makes them so dangerous.

You ask if we should be willing to adopt the values of our enemy. As I am expaining this, do you see me doing that? I'm not suggesting firing squads, beheadings or mass graves here. An official ban on torture would take away a very valuable psychological tool. There is a ton of valuable intelligence to be gained from a large number of people that are not actual leaders of terrorist organizations. Most of those people will talk if they think torture is an option for their interrogators. Most of them won't if they know torture is completely off the table. Those that would are probably already talking.

I'm trying to paint you a picture of the vast territory that exists between our troops picking up someone that might know something and the point at which we cross your moral line. There's a lot of good information to get in there, and we can get it with nothing but the fear of what might possibly come next. I told you before that their's is different world from ours, right? Personally, I can think of no better example than that dentist. Many Iraqis and other Middle Easterners are no more connected to this war than most of us are.

You and I can sit over here and discuss the tremendous benefits that lie in store for them once something as simple as basic security is established, but that dentist can go to work every day and sleep all night long, smiling all the time like nothing is wrong, while his blithe disconnectedness to the war all around him might very easily one day destroy the lives of his loved ones or himself. All it takes is the thought of someone causing him a little pain, and all of a sudden he's a team player.

It's a different world.

Do I wish we lived in a world where terror and torture were mere memories of a bygone era? Sure I do. Is this that world? Nope. As long as barbarism exists, no matter how many personal electronics are available to me and no matter how sophisticated and modern my lifestyle is, I still live in a barbaric time in human history.

I want that era to end. There is no evidence that it ever will through only us setting a better example. To zoom in, consider the example of our own economy: Some of us are rich and some poor, right? Until we build a bridge between those disparate stratii, no poor person will ever believe he can ever aquire wealth. The War on Terror is building a bridge between their way of life and ours. The War on Terror is ending their endless war.

We will not win this war between two different worlds by us fighting in our world and them fighting in theirs. That would mean eventually fighting this world on OUR streets, Zig. The reason this war exists is because of problems OVER THERE, and so we will have to fight this war as close to our rules as possible, but well within their territory and thus by their rules. This endless war continues because they do not yet know they have lost it already. We are explaining it to them in their language right now so there can be no doubt.

[ziggytrix]

You saying torture is not effective is like me claiming that pepper spray doesn't work because ninjas, yogis and PCP addicts are immune to it. I promise you that if I believe I'm subject to torture by my captors, I'm spilling my guts. Al Quaeda is not the Legion of Doom. Your average terrorist is a garden variety idiot. That's what makes them so dangerous.

It's not really my claim to make.

Furthermore, in many cases, the intelligence reports on which suspects are detained have been obtained through the use of torture. However, Ogg argued that we have very little reason to believe that intelligence obtained through torture is reliable. In fact, the only published study on the efficacy of torture (a report published by the Algerian police) argues that the value of information received through torture is minimal. In most cases it represents the desperate attempts of the victim to stop the torture and reflects what the torturer wants to hear.

http://www.royalphil.arts.gla.ac.uk/summaries/ogg-just.htm


My concern is that run-of-the-mill combatants or abducted dentists would finger anyone to get the focus off of themselves. Even if that meant exaggerating the roles of fellow prisoners or making up stories about their neighbor being an Al Qaeda operative.

It would be great to know what interrogation methods work and what don't, and just use what works though. A great example could be Ziad Khalaf Raja al-Karbouly, without whose loose tongue we might not have got Zarqawi.

( http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/06/captured_zarqaw.html )

But despite the common assumption, we'll proably never know why he told what he did, since I'm sure that's a Jordanian state secret. I do see your point though, if was Jordanian torture that gave us Zarqawi's location, then hooray for Jordanian torture, right?


You ask if we should be willing to adopt the values of our enemy. As I am expaining this, do you see me doing that? I'm not suggesting firing squads, beheadings or mass graves here. An official ban on torture would take away a very valuable psychological tool.

The entire point of terrorist activity is psychological damage to the enemy, since they can't achieve real damage. I'm not saying we're jsut as bad as them, but if the whole point is just to show them "we can put the fear in you, too" then we're adopting the value of terror as a tactic in the face of tactical disadvantage.

In my opinion, the worst thing we can do is justify the lies our enemies tell about us - that decreases our best advantage. Treating everything with kid gloves decreases our firepower advantage, but I suspect our advantages leave us a large enough margin to allow room for finesse. Moral outrage is a recruiting tool for the enemy.

Is the question, "do we want the quickest results or the longest lasting ones?" a legitimate one?


You and I can sit over here and discuss the tremendous benefits that lie in store for them once something as simple as basic security is established, but that dentist can go to work every day and sleep all night long, smiling all the time like nothing is wrong, while his blithe disconnectedness to the war all around him might very easily one day destroy the lives of his loved ones or himself. All it takes is the thought of someone causing him a little pain, and all of a sudden he's a team player.

Yeah, but whose team is he gonna play for? Whomever scares him the most or happens to be closest at the moment? That's not particularly assuring.


The War on Terror is building a bridge between their way of life and ours. The War on Terror is ending their endless war.

That sounds great, but is it really what's happening? I rather think our War on Terror, as framed by the Pentagon, is about depleteing terrorist resources in an area that is as far the fuck away from our shores as is feasible, but it's taking a very real toll on our resources as well.

In the long run, I just don't see an end to it unless we have a moral highground to bring people to. Do you think the sort of activities that the western world calls war crimes is material for "building a bridge between their way of life and ours"?

To my perception, your opinion regarding wartime standards seems to be more rooted in pragmatism than moral value. You think we aren't really using our claws, and that our overactive conscience is a liabilty. Is that a misunderstanding?

[Abcdxxxx]

Everything's always about Israel with you, isn't it?

The thread title is "IDF commander admits "war crimes"...what do you think it's about ?

Didn't I already tell you in very clear words that I'm not interested in your version of "argument"?

Who gives a fuck. You're a passive aggressive uneducated dope. You know what they say, charity begins at home. Southern Lebanon is at a greater risk of ammunitions planted by Hezbollah themselves. Cluster submutions have a dud rate of between 5% and 15%. The majority of submunitions have a self destruct timing of 4 days or less. A typical load only contains 20 - 220 bomblets, so accounting for 1,800 rounds the min/max + dud/latent total is 1800 - ~59,000 unexploded bomblets of which a certain % detonate spontaneously within 4 days +/- And this ignores that most loads are a mixture of antitank and antipersonnel submutions. Antitank submunitions are much larger and less prone to dud, plus they're fairly impossible not to notice.

[Preechr]

To my perception, your opinion regarding wartime standards seems to be more rooted in pragmatism than moral value. You think we aren't really using our claws, and that our overactive conscience is a liabilty. Is that a misunderstanding?

Yes. That was actually the last thing you said, but I moved to the top of my response because the explanation for my answer follows.

It's not really my claim to make.

Furthermore, in many cases, the intelligence reports on which suspects are detained have been obtained through the use of torture. However, Ogg argued that we have very little reason to believe that intelligence obtained through torture is reliable. In fact, the only published study on the efficacy of torture (a report published by the Algerian police) argues that the value of information received through torture is minimal. In most cases it represents the desperate attempts of the victim to stop the torture and reflects what the torturer wants to hear.

http://www.royalphil.arts.gla.ac.uk/summaries/ogg-just.htm


Please note, I'm not gonna attack your source even though it would be easy in this case. Links just get you in trouble with nit-pickers. It says right there in your quote that there has only been one published study on the efficacy of torture, so read all the opinions of whomever you want and just post what YOU think.

If that's what you believe, make the claim and tell me why you think so. I used myself as an example. I know that's hardly scientific, especially in the larger context of me trying to explain to you how amazingly different Middle Eastern life is from our own... but I believe pain pretty much hurts most people.

Contrarily, I can see where many people might prove highly resistant to torture. If my goal as your abductor was to get you to kill a bunch of people you love in cold blood, I can imagine that you would likely take a lot of abuse before doing so if you ever did at all. You, in this example, would be the torture candidate equivalent to the rare guy that is as connected to terrorism as you are to your loved ones. Can you agree with me that most of the folks we are interrogating are not going to be connected on that level?

Most of these guys are revealed with airstrikes. We see the pictures of their corpses on the news if there's anything identifiable left. Can you infer from this that our military isn't really all that interested in seeing what the actual terrorist leaders have to say?

Again, please acknowledge that I am not just talking about torture. You really aren't addressing that at all. What about the information gained from just the fear of torture, Zig?

My concern is that run-of-the-mill combatants or abducted dentists would finger anyone to get the focus off of themselves. Even if that meant exaggerating the roles of fellow prisoners or making up stories about their neighbor being an Al Qaeda operative.

Ok, let's consider our alternatives. Let's say we ban torture. How many prisons do you want to build in the Middle East? Let's assume for argument's sake that the threat of prison for them is the same as it is for your average American citizen, Ok? If what you just said is true when torture is the threat, the same will be true when prison is the threat. Our cops here have pretty much figured out how to tell who is lying and who is not.

American criminals are just as likely to lie to interrogators... maybe moreso... and we've figured out how to sort it all out.

Using your preferred method, however, we'll have to stop building schools and start building a shitload of prisons. How's that gonna look? Until those prisons get built, we're still gonna have to threaten detainees with something, right? Prison camps? That's a pretty sweet target. Now we're going to have to re-allocate our soldiers to guard them, taking them off the search for terrorists.

The potential threat of torture streamlines all that. It keeps soldiers doing what they are supposed to be doing and interrogators doing what they're supposed to be doing, and it gets the dentist home to his kids a lot quicker while getting us the information we need. Sure, it sounds bad... But is it really worse than the alternative?

I asked Max why torturing someone is so much more barbaric than anything else that happens in a war. The most humane thing we can do in a war is get it over with as quickly as possible. The threat of possible torture at the hands of Americans is alive and well in the Middle East right now. We are believed to be capable of viscous savagery when information is witheld, yet we are also fixing up Iraq and Afghanistan real nice, too. We are doing less harm to the people for better reasons and making our improvements to the cities and towns faster than their previous rulers in both cases. We replaced what hey had with something better on all counts, though not totally alien, and we are also helping them to build a modern government to replace us quicker than anybody expected could be possible.

It would be great to know what interrogation methods work and what don't, and just use what works though. A great example could be Ziad Khalaf Raja al-Karbouly, without whose loose tongue we might not have got Zarqawi.

( http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/06/captured_zarqaw.html )

Sure, that's a fine example. He was picked up by Jordanian Intelligence forces, not Americans. We used the information he provided, for whatever reason, to bomb the shit out of a major terrorist. We didn't try to capture Zarqawi in order to torture him. Whatever information that shitbird might have had died right there with him. Your example helps to prove the American Military policy on torture as it actually exists.

The people most resistant to torture, the terrorist leaders most connected to terrorism, are not considered to be candidates for torture. The threat of torture, however, is still alive and well, as evidenced by the fact that we haven't officially banned it. We are left to assume that the threat of torture is officially only open to those most likely to spill their guts at just the threat of it.

We have established here so far that our people have lots of experience sorting lies from facts, as we do it all the time and have been doing so for centuries here in the land of the free and the most prisons in the world per capita.

We have also established, even from way over here in our armchairs, that some people are more succeptible to the threat of torture than others, and we have loosely catagorized them into two groups: Terrorist leaders that we kill instead torture and generally everyone else suspected to have valuable information. Seems responsible enough, don't it?

I have also presented you with the reality of our alternative to the myth of torture: prisons. I say myth of torture because I think at this point I've sufficiently hammered out the logic behind the concept that MOST detainees, by far, are not terrorist leaders and are thus much more likely to tell our guys what they need to know long before somebody shows up in a hood to hook electrodes up to their nipples. Somewhere in the middle, I'm sure, are high-value detainees we've got that won't divuldge what they know that easy. We've culled them from the vast majority of detainees, and we ship them off to Gitmo or something. No new Iraqi jails. New schools instead. We get what we need the most efficient way possible and nobody actually gets tortured. Sweet, huh?

The official policy seems to be, at least by extrapolation of the evidence, that actual torture is something it's Ok to threaten detainees with, or maybe just let them believe it's being threatened. There is no evedence that anything else is going on, though I will get around to Abu Ghraib in a minute.

But despite the common assumption, we'll proably never know why he told what he did, since I'm sure that's a Jordanian state secret. I do see your point though, if was Jordanian torture that gave us Zarqawi's location, then hooray for Jordanian torture, right?

By now you've figured out that I don't really believe torture is all that common. Do you? You still seem to have a hard time parsing out everything that is possibly happening during detention before torture starts. That's where all the effective stuff is, Ziggy! I'm sure not even the Jordanian government has torture vans roaming the streets, randomly abducting people and torturing them right there for fun.

The entire point of terrorist activity is psychological damage to the enemy, since they can't achieve real damage. I'm not saying we're jsut as bad as them, but if the whole point is just to show them "we can put the fear in you, too" then we're adopting the value of terror as a tactic in the face of tactical disadvantage.

The entire point of war is to stop the enemy from doing bad things as quickly as possible and get back to leading peaceful, productive lives. People are getting shot in face, their arms and legs blown off, some of them innocent civilians and soldiers that are on our side, and you are worried about scaring people?

In my opinion, the worst thing we can do is justify the lies our enemies tell about us - that decreases our best advantage.

There is no proof of torture. It's a highly useful myth. Abu Ghraib was shocking, but what happened there was mostly psychological manipulation... extreme and embarrassing as it was that our people were doing it, some of them gleefully even. We have done SO much more over there to prove that we are not a nation of Lynndie Englands, haven't we?

While we are over there, and even after the war is over, our country will always be in the business of using fear and sometimes violence to keep things civil. All nations do that. All people do that, because some people use fear and violence to the opposite ends.

Treating everything with kid gloves decreases our firepower advantage, but I suspect our advantages leave us a large enough margin to allow room for finesse. Moral outrage is a recruiting tool for the enemy.

This is the crux of your argument, so the only way I could respond is by repeating everything I've said so far. In short, decreasing our advantages on any level extends the war, and we are morally obligated to NOT do that. We ARE morally obligated to do everything we can to make this war as short as possible, though while doing so as morally as possible. You have not made your case that scaring people has no moral place in a warzone.

Is the question, "do we want the quickest results or the longest lasting ones?" a legitimate one?

Did you see how I made this silly question central to my argument? The answer is no. We do this quickly and as morally as possible, because wars are no place for decent people.

You and I can sit over here and discuss the tremendous benefits that lie in store for them once something as simple as basic security is established, but that dentist can go to work every day and sleep all night long, smiling all the time like nothing is wrong, while his blithe disconnectedness to the war all around him might very easily one day destroy the lives of his loved ones or himself. All it takes is the thought of someone causing him a little pain, and all of a sudden he's a team player.

Yeah, but whose team is he gonna play for? Whomever scares him the most or happens to be closest at the moment? That's not particularly assuring.

If he decides to go play for them, he will end up like them. Our goal here is to convince the bad guys to put down their guns and seek more modern means for getting what they want. Most terrorists only want to shoot guns and shout "Allahu Akbar!" They love the fight. They are far less connected to the reasons behind the fighting than they are the fight itself. We are finding and killing those guys. Decent people aren't joining up with those guys. Decent people seek reasons first and violence a distant second, at least they do when not in war or otherwise oppressed by a culture of violence and death. Decent people choose a peaceful, productive life when it is an available option. The myth that we are creating terrorists by fighting them is just stupid.

What would it take for you to join Al Quaeda, Ziggy?

The War on Terror is building a bridge between their way of life and ours. The War on Terror is ending their endless war.

That sounds great, but is it really what's happening? I rather think our War on Terror, as framed by the Pentagon, is about depleteing terrorist resources in an area that is as far the fuck away from our shores as is feasible, but it's taking a very real toll on our resources as well.

Really? How so? Do you realize just how actually unaffected the vast majority of Americans are by this war? We are not fighting and dying while writing our opinions about it. Most of us are sacrificing NOTHING. Compare that to Grandma and Grandpa's involvement in WWII. This war is more like a football game to us. We sit around thinking up smart sounding things to say about it, picking sides and analyzing the plays as if any of that really mattered somehow.

In the long run, I just don't see an end to it unless we have a moral highground to bring people to.

We do. It's called ending their state of persistent warfare and violence. We won't accomplish this with flowers and candy.

Do you think the sort of activities that the western world calls war crimes is material for "building a bridge between their way of life and ours"?

In your response to this, you tell me if that was valid in this discussion.

[ziggytrix]

The thread title is "IDF commander admits "war crimes"...what do you think it's about ?

You were repliing to a general question about the nature of war crimes. Or you were quoting my text and running your mouth with no regard to what you'd just quoted. Either way, I don't really give a fuck what you have to say, as you clearly don't give a fuck what I have to say. Now please stop talking at me, cuz I'm not gonna read it.

[ziggytrix]

You, in this example, would be the torture candidate equivalent to the rare guy that is as connected to terrorism as you are to your loved ones. Can you agree with me that most of the folks we are interrogating are not going to be connected on that level?

Well, no, I really can't agree with that, as there is no basis for an answer other than wild guessing. We don't know how many people are interrogated, or what level their connection is, if any with terrorist organizations.

And I would like to make a semantic point that a person has connections to an organization, and not to the concept of "terrorism" unless that person is a psychopath who is just invovled because he gets to kill people.


Most of these guys are revealed with airstrikes. We see the pictures of their corpses on the news if there's anything identifiable left. Can you infer from this that our military isn't really all that interested in seeing what the actual terrorist leaders have to say?

Not at all. When we took out Zarqawi, we recovered fuckloads of intel in the form of records, laptops, etc. And it's a safe bet those materials weren't casually discarded, either. And it doesn't matter whether anyone thinks their fingernails are gonna get pulled out when you have more effective and reliable ways of gathering intelligence, such as eavesdropping, infiltration, and data raids.


Again, please acknowledge that I am not just talking about torture. You really aren't addressing that at all. What about the information gained from just the fear of torture, Zig?

I thought I had addressed that. At the risk of repeating myself, I'll try again. The fear of torture is not the sort of thing you want hanging over the head of every person who goes to a mosque or has an Arabic name. That gives weight to the our enemies' claims that America is the enemy of all Muslims. I do not want us to go that route. It is not a sane route.


Using your preferred method, however, we'll have to stop building schools and start building a shitload of prisons. How's that gonna look? Until those prisons get built, we're still gonna have to threaten detainees with something, right? Prison camps? That's a pretty sweet target. Now we're going to have to re-allocate our soldiers to guard them, taking them off the search for terrorists.

The potential threat of torture streamlines all that. It keeps soldiers doing what they are supposed to be doing and interrogators doing what they're supposed to be doing, and it gets the dentist home to his kids a lot quicker while getting us the information we need. Sure, it sounds bad... But is it really worse than the alternative?

You have not made the argument that removing torture as an interrogation method is going to increase Al Queada recruitment, increase terrorist activity, or increase the number of people we capture and interrogate.

What makes you think our detainment rate would increase with a declared ban on torture (and how many people over there even believe us when we say "we don't torture" anyway)?


I asked Max why torturing someone is so much more barbaric than anything else that happens in a war. The most humane thing we can do in a war is get it over with as quickly as possible. The threat of possible torture at the hands of Americans is alive and well in the Middle East right now. We are believed to be capable of viscous savagery when information is witheld, yet we are also fixing up Iraq and Afghanistan real nice, too. We are doing less harm to the people for better reasons and making our improvements to the cities and towns faster than their previous rulers in both cases. We replaced what hey had with something better on all counts, though not totally alien, and we are also helping them to build a modern government to replace us quicker than anybody expected could be possible.

And the threat of torture for anyone who gets picked up for whatever reason makes all that possible?


]We didn't try to capture Zarqawi in order to torture him. Whatever information that shitbird might have had died right there with him. Your example helps to prove the American Military policy on torture as it actually exists.

I think it's proof that our military found out where he was, faced the choice of stopping him with an airstrike or taking the time to organize a capture attempt and risk losing him as a target and perhaps losing their method of finding him again, and so they made the sound decision to take him out and see if they could find anything useful in the rubble.


We have established here so far that our people have lots of experience sorting lies from facts

So we can tell when someone is lying when they say they don't know anything. Even without the threat of torture. We learned how to do that over here where all interrogations happen with a lawyer present. Gotcha.


We have also established, even from way over here in our armchairs, that some people are more succeptible to the threat of torture than others, and we have loosely catagorized them into two groups: Terrorist leaders that we kill instead torture and generally everyone else suspected to have valuable information. Seems responsible enough, don't it?

I have also presented you with the reality of our alternative to the myth of torture: prisons. I say myth of torture because I think at this point I've sufficiently hammered out the logic behind the concept that MOST detainees, by far, are not terrorist leaders and are thus much more likely to tell our guys what they need to know long before somebody shows up in a hood to hook electrodes up to their nipples.

So a list that includes "people we're going to kill anyway" and "people we think are hiding something" is your criteria for "responsible torture"? I'm not sure I buy that at all, but I hardly want to even talk about the morality of actual torture if all you're really saying is OK is spreading the fear of the torture boogeyman, as it supposedly speeds up the interrogation process.


Somewhere in the middle, I'm sure, are high-value detainees we've got that won't divuldge what they know that easy. We've culled them from the vast majority of detainees, and we ship them off to Gitmo or something. No new Iraqi jails. New schools instead. We get what we need the most efficient way possible and nobody actually gets tortured. Sweet, huh?

Your'e sure? I rather got the impression that we really don't know who we've got in Gitmo, but a lot of them have names that sound quite like names we got from people that we didn't torture, so we're pretty sure they know something... We don't even keep the high-value detainees there!

I really like this idea of using foreign soil to replace prisons though. Too bad we can't do that in America, since no one ever wants a new jail built in their vicinity.


By now you've figured out that I don't really believe torture is all that common. Do you? You still seem to have a hard time parsing out everything that is possibly happening during detention before torture starts. That's where all the effective stuff is, Ziggy! I'm sure not even the Jordanian government has torture vans roaming the streets, randomly abducting people and torturing them right there for fun.

So let's be clear. When you said "I support cluster bombs. Torture, too... and not just the playing loud music variety, either." you meant, but only if it doesn't happen very often?

My main question (which I still haven't got a clear answer) is where you believe the lines should be drawn between acts of war and war crimes. I don't know where you're getting this "Jordanian torture van" shit, but you're entitled to your strange tangents too, I guess.


People are getting shot in face, their arms and legs blown off, some of them innocent civilians and soldiers that are on our side, and you are worried about scaring people?

No. I'm only concerned about taking a sincere look at the causes of terrorist recruitment, and then doing WHATEVER is neccessary to combat it. If the threat of torture by Americans helps us more than it harms, by all means, waterboarders start your near-asphyxiations!


There is no proof of torture. It's a highly useful myth.

It's an extremely useful myth for those who like to lie about how wicked America is.




Treating everything with kid gloves decreases our firepower advantage, but I suspect our advantages leave us a large enough margin to allow room for finesse. Moral outrage is a recruiting tool for the enemy.

This is the crux of your argument, so the only way I could respond is by repeating everything I've said so far. In short, decreasing our advantages on any level extends the war, and we are morally obligated to NOT do that. We ARE morally obligated to do everything we can to make this war as short as possible, though while doing so as morally as possible. You have not made your case that scaring people has no moral place in a warzone.

The crux of my argument is that there are acts which are considered war crimes. Personally, I think we lose credibility if we constanly flirt with the line, and that what we gain needs to be demonstrably more valueable than building trust and alliance with people who believe in the rule of law.


Is the question, "do we want the quickest results or the longest lasting ones?" a legitimate one?

Did you see how I made this silly question central to my argument? The answer is no. We do this quickly and as morally as possible, because wars are no place for decent people.

"As morally as possible" is really, REALLY vague. Certainly more vague than a ban on "outrages upon human dignity".




Most terrorists only want to shoot guns and shout "Allahu Akbar!" They love the fight. They are far less connected to the reasons behind the fighting than they are the fight itself.

I suspect this is untrue, but I doubt either of us could prove our belief.


What would it take for you to join Al Quaeda, Ziggy?

I would never voluntarily sign up for a religious war.


That sounds great, but is it really what's happening? I rather think our War on Terror, as framed by the Pentagon, is about depleteing terrorist resources in an area that is as far the fuck away from our shores as is feasible, but it's taking a very real toll on our resources as well.

Really? How so?

Our military resources are stretched. Recruitment is not where it needs to be. Public support is not where it needs to be.


Do you realize just how actually unaffected the vast majority of Americans are by this war?

I'm very aware of that problem. See my previous remark.






In the long run, I just don't see an end to it unless we have a moral highground to bring people to.

We do. It's called ending their state of persistent warfare and violence. We won't accomplish this with flowers and candy.

Wow. I didn't expect such a disingenuous response from you. We have the false dichotomy of a war to end war, and flowers and candy. What a lovely waste of time this has been.


Do you think the sort of activities that the western world calls war crimes is material for "building a bridge between their way of life and ours"?
In your response to this, you tell me if that was valid in this discussion.

Ugh, no, it wasn't. When I first replied to this thread my intent was supposed to be more like a quick poll than a long debate, but our discussion has completely diverged from my original intended questions since I apparently have a masochistic love of playing Devil's advocate.

So really, the "crux of my argument" was supposed to be would you be so kind as to give your opinion on "what makes a specific war act a war crime" and "are war crimes sometimes unavoidable when fighting people with no compunctions against war crimes"? Or if you prefer, "when you stare into the abyss, does the abyss really stare back, or is that just Nietzsche trying to sound smart?"



Christ, I don't ever wanna make a post this long on i-mockery ever again.

[Abcdxxxx]

The thread title is "IDF commander admits "war crimes"...what do you think it's about ?

You were repliing to a general question about the nature of war crimes. Or you were quoting my text and running your mouth with no regard to what you'd just quoted. Either way, I don't really give a fuck what you have to say, as you clearly don't give a fuck what I have to say. Now please stop talking at me, cuz I'm not gonna read it.


I was answering the topic you bozo. You've decided to interject your bullshit into this conversation, and Preechr's indulging you.... but wether or not you read what I have to say, I'll be right here riding you fake ass. Spare me the Private Messages whining about what a mesage board bully I am. When you can't speak to the topic at hand, and you need a little attention, you start arguing about scrupples, like this is all a conversation about some alternate reality dreamworld. Yeah we know, violence is bad, and the US and Israel should be held to a higher standard because they walk upright and all. We we're talking about cluster bombs in Israel...and let's not forget you're the same stale cocksucker claiming said cluster bombs can do the same destruction as a nuclear bomb. Any second now and you'll start trying to discuss abortion, and the death sentence.

Here's a hint - if the only people who are able to express their opinions based on a historical education (rather then say, their emotions, and knee jerks) disagree with you...then maybe it's time for you to go to school...STILL.

Back on track to discuss the issue of these clusters (because it IS an important issue) worth addressing now. The clusters are reported to be M-42 Submunition. that actually only have a rate of 2% in failure to explode... does anyone here with military experience know if that sounds accurate?

[derrida]

where are you getting this information? everything i'm reading is saying that there were at least four different kinds of submunition in use. and the 2-4 percent figure is just an officially cited number. in other words, test data. if you believe that figure i'm sure you also believe that our country's anti ballistic missile system actually works.

in fact, when the army tested existing stockpiles of the m42 munition it found dud rates of 14 percent- U.S. Army Defense Ammunition Center, Technical Center for Explosives Safety, “Study of Ammunition Dud and Low Order Detonation Rates,” July 2000, p. 9.

again test conditions, only this time not quite so weighted by whatever contractor was collaborating with the military on the initial tests.

The UN is reporting dud rates may be as high as 50 percent.

As of 29 August, the U.N. MACC SL reported that 2,171 submunition duds had been located and destroyed, in just two weeks of operations. This total did not include submunitions cleared by the Lebanese Army or Hezbollah. It consisted of 820 M77 MLRS submunitions, 715 M42 artillery submunitions, 631 M85 artillery submunitions, and five BLU-63 aerial bomblets.

[Abcdxxxx]

The United Nations IS the biggest dud. They're

The 14% would be in line with the original percentage I gave, and I was asking if anyone here with military experience could confirm this through experience. The numbers I was given could be off but the war peoples stats are probably about as accurate as the "fight the cluster" peoples stats, y'know?

Another thing - I'm told Israel modifies their clusters to trip. Remember, Israel was sending in their OWN TROOPS right after supposedly spraying dud producing ammo across Lebanon. We havepne photo proving a cluster was used...in a banana field, targeting launchers which weren't in population centers. The rest of the claims have yet to be proven. Dan Halutz isn't a popular guy these days though. Nobody will cover for him.

Here's what I can tell you for sure. Southern Lebanon has been littered with land mines for decades. EVERY side of the conflict is guilty of this, not just Israel. In regards to the clusters, I would like to see Israel share their mission fired reports just in case. My biggest concern for these Lebanese communities is ammunition stored by Hezbollah in schools, nurseries and hospitals which are accidents waiting to happen. These cluster accusations are more about chasing Israel's ass then protecting innocent people.

[derrida]

how the hell are two different numbers "in line with each other"?

it is possible to retrofit detonation timers to these munitions (as the us army has done with some of its m42/48 grenades) but, yeah, the demining reports belie the assertion that this was done.

[Abcdxxxx]

Logic belies the "demining reports". The "demining reports" can't be trusted. Remember Qana? The Lebanese President still used one of the infamous "green helmet" photos at the UN today.

I originally said: "Cluster submutions have a dud rate of between 5% and 15%."

Derrida, how do you feel about the 3000 rockets laced with poisoned scrap metal? Where's the moral equivalency now?

The fact is, Israel could have bombed with feather pillows and there would be outrage.

[mburbank]

I wouldn't be outraged though. Knee jerk reaction is another topic entirely. If people get outraged over feather pillows, fuck 'em. I don't think it's probably something you need to worry about though. Overeaction to feather pillow bombing. 'Cause that never happens. Just like terrorists don't rush up and start a pillow fighht at a bus stop. I wonder if people would get outraged if a terrorist did that, started a pillow fight? Wait, is that image kind of offensive in terms of terrorsim? Huh. I wonder if it's offensive in terms of dropping bombs? You know, the whole idea of belittling death and destruction? Maybe it's me.

[Courage the Cowardly Dog]

*hits burbank with suicide pillow strapped to chest*

[KevinTheOmnivore]

STOP BELITTLING!

[Abcdxxxx]

Yeah Burbank, that's pretty much how I feel everytime I hear some hyperbole over the actual damage which was caused..... "back to the stone age", "taking Beirut 25 years back in time" ring any bells? False accusations and doctored photos ring any bells?... ALL OF THAT is what's belittling.

[mburbank]

Yeah, you should probably go hit somebody with a cripple. Are there any one legged children in your neighborhood? You could hit them, see, and then explain ironically that since you were a Jew they should act as if you'd just maimed them. It would be hillarious! And I'm ceratin they'd get that you were just making a really importnat political point, and doing it really, really, well. 'Cause you're really good at that.

[Abcdxxxx]

Hezbollah are said to have 650 million in funding from Iran/Syria, plus another 650 in a monopoly on Lebanese internet, and calling cards, , and then another 350 in drug dealings...making them a billion dollar threat.

So I don't know who plays the roll of cripple or one legged child in your scenario.... but I do know you're "tell them your a Jew" bit reaffirms why I think you're an imbecile who should stick to mumbling like a deelict about RumsyandBushRumsyandBushRumsyandBush.

[mburbank]

Aren't the deelects the robot villians on Dr. Who?

And you're right, no innocent kid ever got their leg blown off by a cluster bomb or a land mine. That shit doesn't happen. Their legs get busted off by pillows. It wasn't a dumbass thing to say at all, and I should have said "Israeli" instead of jew.

And since you've never said what makes you think I'm an imbecile, your reafirming it to yourself alone reaffirms why I think your a solopsist who I think should stick to mumbling to himself. OH WAIT!

[Grislygus]

Aren't the deelects the robot villians on Dr. Who?

No, that's the Daleks.

Wait a second, I've never even seen the show. How the hell did I know that?! Stupid cultural icons.

[Abcdxxxx]

while i learn to type an "r' in the word derelicts, you can go campaign against cluser bombs. Dianne Fienstien's got a petition you can sign....but she does support Israel....and as of now, Israel used their modified clusters legally. Nassrallah just bragged that he has 20,000 more missiles stored indiscriminately through Lebanon's population centers. They're likely to do more harm to the Lebanese people then any Israeli dud-munitions.

[Abcdxxxx]

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/09/shock_and_awe_in_lebanon.html

What struck me about the bombing, in both countries, was that you could see the destruction and completely misread what it meant. In Beirut, the destruction in reality is efficient and impressive. The destruction in Israel, on the other hand, is random and scattered. When Hezbollah rockets were fired on Israel, landing meant success.
So here is the truth: Israel did not do anything close to what it was capable of doing. Hezbollah did all it could....

On the other hand, Lebanon is shocked. It is not just the destruction wrought but the powerlessness of the owners of the country. The Lebanese government complains of the destruction and the cluster bombs and the environmental devastation, exaggerating what happened to IT because it can not bear to say that most of what was destroyed was Hezbollah’s assets, assets that indeed resided and flourished inside their own country under their own noses with their consent....

Only a very short drive from the neighborhoods of southern Beirut though, you are back to bustling boulevards; a few neighborhoods over and there are luxury stores and five star hotels. Beyond the “Hezbollah” neighborhoods, the city is normal. Electricity flows just as it did before the fighting. The Lebanese sophisticates are glued to their cell phones. Even an international airport that was bombed is reopened....

But the fact that one can drive a short distance from Dresden-like south Beirut and return to modern life itself should signal that this is something very different: Israeli bombers did not fly over Beirut and unleash loads of bombs. Each individual building was the quarry; the intent was there, and the technology existed, to spare the rest.

[Preechr]

Sorry, I've been out of town for a few days.

I would just like to note just how freaking topical we are. Wednesday night. this little discussion of ours got blown wide open. I'm frankly shocked nobody has mentioned this yet!

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/20/bombshell-abc-independently-confirms-success-of-cia-torture-tactics/

Does that change your mind at all Ziggy? It surely rebuts much of your argument so far. I've intentionally been using ancient, brutal and inefficient means of torture, deliberately avoiding a discussion of waterboarding... the most extreme measure actually being used by the good guys... in order to focus the conversation on the morality of ANY torture. I've also skipped the same discussion regarding cluster bombs, partly for the same reason and partly to let Max take a moment to get himself together.

Now, however, the nature of this whole debate has taken two big steps in an entirely unexpected and quite decisive direction. Add to that a concensus between McCain and the Bush camp, and it seems you anti-torture folks are becoming rather marginalized with a quickness.

How's that bitter pill tasting, guys?

[Grislygus]

Idiots can claim that torture doesn't work all they want. It fucking does, that's why it's so frightening. I do not have a problem with what we do now. I very much have a problem with what that will become.

[mburbank]

tastes like crap, but not because my 'side' is loosing the 'argument'. It's because I get to live in a time in America where the confress actually debates wether it's okay to torture people, and the Presiddnt of the United Sates refers to torture as a 'program' carried out by 'professionals'. It's mind boggling to me, like something out of a Philip K. Dick novel.

And you have no way of knowing if waterboarding is a bad as it gets. What are 'alternative methods'? Why have ninety some odd prisoners died in custody, and how many of them died during their interrogations?

This is a really basic argument. You think it's okay to torture people under the right circumstances and you seem to have some sort of odd faith that it won't get out of control. I think it's a complete, repulsive, moral wrong. I'm not even concerned that I think it's ineffective (which I do, and so does the military) I think it's onbscene, and as long as this administration remains in office, there's blood on the hands of every tax payer.

It's not really an debatable argument. Either you think torture is justifiable or not, or you draw some line in the sand somewhere in the middle. None of it yields to argument.

I just want to say at least you, Preech, have the balls to say that you support torture, and that you take pleasure in the idea. I think anyone who's pro torture at some level gets off on the idea, mostly on the idea of torturing people you know are guilty and doing it to 'save lives' and for no other reason, but I don't think torture would be such a prevalent theme in history if it wasn't human nature to dig it. That's the main reason I'm against it.

Our president doesn't have those balls. For him, it's a 'program' of 'alternative measures.' That makes me want to puke, as does the idea that he can redefine torture enough to be able to stand up and say "America does not torture". At least when Clinton raped the English language it was about wether a blow job constituted sex.

Mccain and company will one day answer to their concept of God or lack thereof, because they know exactly what they are doing. They know that whatver compromise they make, he'll skirt even that much. When it was time for Nixon to go, it was Republicans who showed him the door. Would that we had, if not profiles in courage, at least profiles in decency. Instead we have profiles in electability.

[kahljorn]

all i know is without torture there's a fairly large chance that 85% of the wars in the past could've had a different outcome. I mean really, when it comes down to getting information about the enemy there's only a few ways. Spies, traitors and torture. I think it's ridiculous to imagine winning a war on "terror", against a group that functions under stealth, without any type of information.

Also let's play the justify game. Let's imagine that bush had tortured a terrorist involved in the planning of 9/11 before it even happened, and managed to prevent 9/11. That's thousands of lives saved, is it then justifiable?
The reason I ask is because information generally "Saves lives". Whether it's from knowing where they will attack, or knowing where and how to attack them, information saves guys.

Just so you guys know torture has always been going on in every war since time immemorial, it's like when your brother stole your favorite toy so you twisted his arm till he told you where it was. i also agree that people who torture other people have the capacity to become something disgusting, but I can't say for sure.

I think preechr started to bring up that the torture techniques they use aren't really that severe. It's not like we're putting them in Iron Maidens or something. I'm willing to bet most of the torture they do is psychological, like sleep deprivation. I could be wrong, though.

[ziggytrix]

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/20/bombshell-abc-independently-confirms-success-of-cia-torture-tactics/

Does that change your mind at all Ziggy? It surely rebuts much of your argument so far.

If the threat of torture by Americans helps us more than it harms, by all means, waterboarders start your near-asphyxiations!

There are two arguements here, and I ask you again to understand, they are not MY arguments, as I believe I'm fairly detached from the whole thing. There is a moral argument, and there is a pragmatic argument. I've been (mostly) arguing the pragmatic argument, because I thought it was youy basis for "supporting torture". I find this bit of news interesting, but let's just say I don't find the CIA a much more neutral source on the issue of torture efficacy than the Algerian police.

So the CIA claims they've found more terrorists and uncovered more plots thanks to waterboarding. We have no idea of knowing how real those plots really were, or how many of the names they got were actual terrorists, but whatever. I'm sure some of them were, but we've not been given any real indication of how much good intel came out and how much bad intel came out. I suppose if we knew for a fact that we prevented one terrorist event that absolutely would have gone thru otherwise, it would be worth thousands of man hours of false lead chasing.

I still maintain that the intel is not as reliable as intercepted communications thru infiltration or eavesdropping. The bad guys are less likely to make up lies when they don't know their enemy is standing right there, and I hope you don't need a CIA leak to tell you that. But maybe you don't agree?

We have other options available to us. Ones that are much lower profile. I suspect those should be the focus of our efforts. That may sound like a bit of moral argument, but again, I'm stressing the pragmatic aspects of it.

[kahljorn]

"I still maintain that the intel is not as reliable as intercepted communications thru infiltration or eavesdropping. The bad guys are less likely to make up lies when they don't know their enemy is standing right there, and I hope you don't need a CIA leak to tell you that"

Well i thought transmissions were generally coded so that nobody else could tell what they say, and I thought the same in general for conversations involving it (plus how dangerous is it to send people to where terrorists talk casually about killing people). Even people who buy pot use slang. I agree though alot of wars in the recent past have had good results from using decoded intercepted information. But then how do they figure out how to decode it? Traitors or torture?

Bad guys lie no matter what that's what the torture is for to make sure they aren't lying. I imagine most people in charge of torture have psychology degrees or something and are smart enough to trick people if they are lying. Generally the best way to figure out if a person is lying is to ask them details about it later and see if they can still remember it after a few days of "torture".

[mburbank]

"Spies, traitors and torture. "

I find that patently absurd. The enigma machine was greatly responsible for winning WWII and is intelligence and interception. But it's more your idea that torture is an integral part of victory in war.

If what you say is true, you should be able to find me dozens of examples of the use of torture leading to victory in war. I challenge you to find me one. Not that I think you can'tg but off the top of my head, I don't recall anything from my admittedly distant college and high school days talking about torture yielding any sort of significant results. Torture is a terror tool. People are afraid of an enemy that tortures. In addition, people like to torture other people. From Vlad the Impaler to Hitler and their respective armies, torture is a popular sport. If you want to argue that terror is an effective weapon in wars arsenal, I'll give you that hands down. But that torture has some sort of practical knowledge gathering function? I await examples.

[kahljorn]

I say, fuck your stupid examples. You completely misunderstood. I never even said torture was the only way to get intelligence, i said it's one of a few different ways.

One of the most important things to winning a war is having information about the enemy. Torture is a way to get information you couldn't get otherwise.
You think the people torturing other people are sitting there thinking, "OH MAN THINK OF HOW SCARED THESE TERRORISTS WILL BE NOW". No. I find that contention absurd. They want INFORMATION because INFORMATION often wins wars. If INFORMATION isn't important than neither would ESPIONAGE and SPIES. They provide the SAME thing just through DIFFERENT AVENUES.

You guys are absolutely right torture doesn't work at all you know i heard the last guy they tortured gave them a BREAD RECIPE.

I didn't mean to say that torture can't be used as a terror tool either, just that it's not the primary purpose

As for the morality I think it was aristotle who was a supporter of torture, although I think it was in a judicial context there's still some relevance. I'll have to see if he had an argument for it or something, But don't you guys think it's immoral to have access to information that could save lives and not use it? Aren't you essentially allowing them to die?

[Preechr]

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/20/bombshell-abc-independently-confirms-success-of-cia-torture-tactics/

Does that change your mind at all Ziggy? It surely rebuts much of your argument so far.

If the threat of torture by Americans helps us more than it harms, by all means, waterboarders start your near-asphyxiations!

I find this bit of news interesting, but let's just say I don't find the CIA a much more neutral source on the issue of torture efficacy than the Algerian police.

So the CIA claims they've found more terrorists and uncovered more plots thanks to waterboarding. We have no idea of knowing how real those plots really were, or how many of the names they got were actual terrorists, but whatever. I'm sure some of them were, but we've not been given any real indication of how much good intel came out and how much bad intel came out. I suppose if we knew for a fact that we prevented one terrorist event that absolutely would have gone thru otherwise, it would be worth thousands of man hours of false lead chasing.

I still maintain that the intel is not as reliable as intercepted communications thru infiltration or eavesdropping. The bad guys are less likely to make up lies when they don't know their enemy is standing right there, and I hope you don't need a CIA leak to tell you that. But maybe you don't agree?

We have other options available to us. Ones that are much lower profile. I suspect those should be the focus of our efforts. That may sound like a bit of moral argument, but again, I'm stressing the pragmatic aspects of it.

So, basically, you don't believe the report, right? You watched the video, right? The report was pretty convincing, and it seem to indicate 14 or so terrorists have been waterboarded effectively... pragmatically, even... most of who we've been hearing about on the news for the last few years ago. Sheik Khalid Muhammed? Ring a Bell?

A network news report confirms this. We are left to assume it has done so responsibly, as it's been a few days and nobody has attacked the report as misleading, much less false. On what grounds do you dispute it? Have you looked into this reporter? Do you have information about his bias? LINKY?

Do you also have a few links regarding the major intel we've produced due to some sort of other method of gathering? I only ask because, despite all the hubub over the so-called "domestic spying program" at the NSA, I've yet to see Mr. Bartlett touring the news stations touting intel we uncovered due to stuff like that. I can't seem to find any articles about that, either. I'm kinda at a loss, and apparently aren't as good as you about surfing the intenets.

There are two arguements here, and I ask you again to understand, they are not MY arguments, as I believe I'm fairly detached from the whole thing. There is a moral argument, and there is a pragmatic argument. I've been (mostly) arguing the pragmatic argument, because I thought it was youy basis for "supporting torture".


Well, I've actually been arguing the moral side. Care to address that, since you are so reluctant to admit that torture actually has now been proven to work?

[Preechr]

MAX! (and now ZIGGY!!) (over)

PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION: (over)

WHAT THE HELL IS THE MORAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TORTURING SOMEONE FOR INFORMATION IN HOPES OF GAINING ADVANTAGE IN A WAR AND SHOOTING A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE FACE IN HOPES OF GAINING ADVANTAGE IN A WAR?

You guys are against war... at least in this case... before you against torture.

[kahljorn]

lol this is probably the first time I've agreed with you, Preechr. Torture is a necessary part of war. You guys act like intel is always spot on and more reliable than torture but i think you guys are just shitting in your beds.
Good intel in a war(whether it's from super spies or torture) can save lives, even if it's just in your army. Of course you guys don't care about that. See preechr, i think what these guys want is information that leads to an absolute victory for our side, they really have no compassion for who the subtleties help. There's ALL TYPES OF INFORMATION that can help in a war. Knowing where bad guys are hiding, or where weapons are stashed, can potentially lessen allied and civilian casualties.
So if you're getting information about troop deployments and saving american soldiers from getting casualties because you are torturing some asshole who wants to kill all he american soldiers and american people, you want to grant him courtesy? What about your obligation towards your own people? Isn't it more immoral to abandon them in favor of some ridiculous ignorant perception of war and "how we should treat peoople"? How are you treating your own people? WITH RECKLESS ABANDON SIR.

Also with a war on TERROR the war against tiny groups that are hard to find and such don't you think intelligence is a little bit important and I don't know this is just an idea but spying on hard to find people might be hard same with getting traitors from a crazy religous group thing. Torturing prisoners is probably one of the best routes to information available ;/
What types of intel do you suggest we get from them? Its not like they keep their terror plans neatly filed in the public library.

[Preechr]

What we should do is locate their FISA court and bribe the receptionist to let us into the file room!

Since you are agreeing with me, I think I will disagree with you. I don't believe Max is going to be in favor of anything having to do with this war. The only event I can remember him being in the least positive about was the initial invasion of Afghanistan, but he has deplored everything that's happened there since. I don't think he's particularly anti-war or, as some on the right might say it: against America, but he sees everything that's going on through his prism of hate for everything stained with Bush.

Let's run down a list, in no particular order, shall we?

Max defended Sandy Berger.

Max carried the flag for Joe Wilsonand his yellowcake and Valerie Plame and her supposed secret identity.

Max believes the very worst rumors in regard to Gitmo, and ignores any positive reports.

Max said Abu Ghraib was inevitable and just one more sign that the best thing we could do for Iraq was leave.

Max said our capture of Saddam was too late for anything good to come of it, and believed the story that he had been deposited there after torture by Kurds.

Max repeatedly falls back on our failure to capture Bin Laden to overshadow any success stories we might hear that he can't otherwise dispute.

Max wonders aloud prior to elections if Republicans might actually already have Bin Laden in custody and are just waiting to pop the news into the press at just the right time so as to influence the elections.

Max apparently believes George Bush has a secret computer in his study that sets gas prices and changes votes on Diebold voting machines.

Max can always be counted on for a calm, non-partisan and overall entirely reasonable explanation for the resignation of any Bush staffer whenever some Democrat talking head mentions it.

Max thinks Halliburton is an evil organization along the lines of COBRA, and that Dick Cheney still has his pudgy little fingers in the pie, manipulating their every evil move.

Max thinks our use of private security forces in the war such as Blackwater is akin to the employing of mercenaries.

Max says the troubles within the VA system back here and the hiccups in danger pay are proof that Bush cares nothing for our troops, and that means we should bring them home.

Max wondered aloud if Bush and Cheney was complicit in the Enron and Worldcom scandals.

Max religiously defaults against any twig connected to the Bush administration tree. If there is a negative or cynical spin to any news that could favor Bush, Max will find it. This is by no means a complete list, and I'm not just picking on Max here, either. Max is the most consistent and most vocal of his kind among you, so it's easy to see the pattern of pessimism.

What you guys fail to see is the pattern behind your pattern. Those that are motivated primarily by hatred are easy to manipulate. Nancy Pelosi has admitted that her leadership of the Democrats in Congress has been founded on opposition to anything the Republicans want to get done, and yet, the Republicans are still walking roughshod over her.

Here's how it works:

1. Something pops up in the media, and certain people start calling it a scandal.

2. Max starts to think THIS might finally be the thing that brings Bush down. The Scandal.

3. The Bush Administration hardly if ever acknowledges whatever it is.

4. The press starts screaming for answers.

5. Max starts posting that the only reasonable solution for such a horrible scandal, if it is in fact proven to be true, is the resignation of one of the Bush Cronies, maybe some investigations into this and all the other Bush scandals, and America's withdrawal from Iraq.

6. The Bush Administration continues to ignore the screaming and the yelling.

7. Democrats from the Congress and Senate start making the rounds, and the pundits weigh in.

8. Max smells blood when he finds some Republican that has questions regarding this latest scandal. God forbid someone previously in the military or the Bush Administration writes an op-ed on the subject! That permits Level 2 frustration, and this moves from a Scandal to an OUTRAGE!

9. The Bush Administration offers no comment on the OUTRAGE!

10. The Scandal that fomented the OUTRAGE! is either proven to have been grossly misrepresented or completely fictional... maybe even based on misconceptions or outright lies... or the OUTRAGE fizzles into investigations that go nowhere and prove nothing other than politicians from both sides of the isle are generally incompetent.

11. Somewhere, a new scandal is born, and we start the process all over again as if the previous Scandal/OUTRAGE never happened... though Max vaguely remembers it as one more page in the Bush dossier of evil.

...

So, instead of focusing your leftist energies on positive leftist policies that might do some good for this country and thus the world, you guys, and Max, have spent the past 6 years wrapped up in this cycle of hate and outrage where the Republicans only have to ignore you and do whatever it is they want to do.

I suppose Bush Hate is a misdirected anger at your party's self imposed political impotence.

I think it's unhealthy. I'm genuinely worried about you guys. You too, Max.

[Abcdxxxx]

Now that post, that post almost deserved it's own thread. well said preechr.

[ziggytrix]

real quick, a quote from some army professionals -

Torture also has been the subject of much domestic political debate in the United States, but this debate has largely been over the legality of interrogation techniques. The debate usually misses the central point illustrated by the negative impact of international reaction to reports of torture on US foreign affairs: in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations, although torture may bring about some short-term tactical and operational advantages, officially or unofficially condoning its use is a major strategic blunder. The disadvantages of sanctioned abuse or torture, or even the perception of torture, at the strategic level dwarf any short-term payoffs, regardless of technical legality. In counterterrorism and counterinsurgency warfare, the moral component of the fight is strategically decisive. Commanders are obligated to maintain both the reality and the perception of impeccable moral conduct within their commands. Senior commanders have the responsibility of ensuring that the tactics of their subordinates reinforce strategic goals and objectives.

History offers no modern examples of the strategic effectiveness of harsh interrogation techniques, but it is replete with examples of the negative strategic effects such techniques have on the counterinsurgency force. The French experience in Algeria from 1954 to 1962 is one of the clearest examples of how ill-conceived interrogation techniques contributed directly to the strategic failure of a counterinsurgency and the success of an insurgency.

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/PARAMETERS/06summer/dimarco.htm


Briefly: I think the moral difference between torturing an unarmed suspect and shooting an armed combatant is obvious, but I also think morals are personal values, so maybe Preech and I just went to different Sunday schools. It's not an objective argument, and there's not much point to going down that route. War as anything other than defense is immoral by my beliefs - and for specific Christians (Jehova's Witnesses, Mennonites, etc) and followers of Dharmic relgions (some Bhuddists and Hindus) even defense is no excuse.


You asked if I believed the report? The report was an anonymous source at the CIA saying we've prevented terrorist attacks becasue of waterboarding. Now without saying the CIA agent was lying, is there the possiblity that he was wrong? We've had this guy in custody, what, 3 years? When was this guy "broken"? when were these attacks supposed to have taken place? Too many unanswered questions for me to weigh the report objectively.

Here's a few examples that have stood the test of time though.


Michael LaBossiere

Number Twenty: Terror and Torture

The terrible threats presented by terrorism have lead to a serious reconsideration of torture as a means of extracting information. While there is considerable debate regarding the legality of torture, this essay is focused on the morality of torture in the context of the fight against terror.

While most people regard torture as evil, there are reasonable moral arguments in its favor. The most common argument is a utilitarian one: the harm prevented by gathering information by torture can outweigh the moral harms inflicted by the practice of torture.

A favorite example used by torture proponents, such as Harvard's Alan Dershowitz, is the 1995 case of Abdul Hakim Murad. After being tortured for over a month by Philippine police, Murad revealed various terrorist plans, including a plot to kill the Pope. Because of cases like this, one might conclude that the evil of torture can be outweighed by its good consequences-such as preventing murder.

If the evil of using torture is outweighed by its potential good consequences, then the matter of its effectiveness needs to be resolved. If torture is not an effective means of gaining reliable information, then there will be no good consequences to outweigh the evil of engaging in torture. If this is the case, then torture cannot be justified in this manner.

While there is significant debate over the general effectiveness of torture, it appears that it is not a particularly effective means of acquiring accurate information.

First, consider the American and European witch trials. During these trials a significant number of people confessed, under brutal torture, to being witches. If torture is an effective means of acquiring truthful information, then these trials provided reasonable evidence for the existence of witches, magic, the Devil and, presumably, God. However, it seems rather odd that such metaphysical matters could be settled by the application of the rack, the iron maiden and the thumb screw. As such, the effectiveness of torture is rather questionable.

Second, extensive studies of torture show that it is largely ineffective as a means of gathering correct information. For example, the Gestapo's use of torture against the French resistance in the 1940s and the French use of torture against the Algerian resistance in the 1950s both proved largely ineffective. As another example, Diederik Lohman, a senior researcher for Human Rights Watch, found that the torture of suspected criminals typically yields information that is not accurate. A final, and rather famous example is that of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. Under torture, al-Libi claimed that Al Qaeda had significant links to Iraq . However, as he himself later admitted, there were no such links. Thus, the historical record seems to count against the effectiveness of torture.

Third, as history and basic human psychology show, most people will say almost anything to end terrible suffering. For example, a former prisoner from Abu Ghraib told the New York Times that, after being tortured, he confessed to being Osama Bin Laden to put and end to his mistreatment. Similar things occur in the context of domestic law enforcement in the United States : suspects subjected to threats and mistreatments have confessed to crimes they did not commit. As such, torture seems to be a rather dubious way of acquiring reliable intelligence.

Given that torture is not effective as a means of gathering reliable information, the utilitarian argument in its favor must be rejected. This is because torturing people is not likely to yield any good consequences.

Despite its ineffectiveness as a means of extracting information directly, torture does seem to be an effective means towards another end, namely that of intimidation. History has shown that authoritarian societies successfully employed torture as a means of political control and as a means of creating informers. Ironically, while actual torture rarely yields reliable information, the culture of fear created by the threat of torture often motivates people to bring information to those in power.

Given its effectiveness as a tool of coercion and intimidation, torture and the threat of torture could be used as weapons against terror. If the threat of torture is both credible and terrible enough, then the likelihood of terrorist activity could be reduced and the number of useful informants could increase significantly.

From a moral standpoint, if torture were to prove effective as a means of reducing terrorist activity then it could be argued that the use of torture is morally acceptable. The gist of the argument is that the moral harms of threatening and utilizing torture are outweighed by the moral consequences-namely a reduction in terrorist activity.

While this argument has a certain appeal, it faces three problems. First, it seems likely that adopting torture and the threat of torture as weapons would be morally harmful to the society in question. To see that this is likely, one needs to merely consider the nature of societies that have already embraced the use of torture. Second, the use of torture as a means of coercion and intimidation certainly seems to be a form of terrorism. As such, the reduction in one type of terrorism would be, ironically, offset by the increase in another. Third, terrorism is denounced as a moral evil and its alleged opponents, such as George Bush, seem to revel in claiming the moral high ground. However, a society that accepts the use of torture cannot claim the moral high ground-they are walking the same ground as the terrorists. Thus, it would seem that the use of torture is not morally acceptable.

Did you know we'd caught Bin Ladin??? :O


Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go play a video game about killing people who loook different than you.

[Preechr]

Thanks. I just hope Max doesn't thinking I'm attacking him personally. I'd love to see both sides of the political spectrum in this country unite in a war we all need to win. The Democrat Party is too caught up in Anti-Bush and Socialism to see the forest for the trees. America can do great things for itself and the world when or if it gets it's head out of it's own ass and does the right things for the right reasons.

The War on Terror SHOULD BE a Liberal cause. The Democrat's War for Political Power has obfuscated any real debate on the more important war... the war we all must win... replacing it with a pathetic bitch-fest that is serving as a very powerful tool for our real enemies, and they are using it to great effect in hopes of continuing to enslave the remaining 1/3 of the world still disconnected from the Western globalized economy.

Stopping violence is not going to happen by nit-picking to death the methods used by those that are striving to do it. If they try some day to turn the war into a profit engine by exploiting oil resources, then let's cross that bridge when we come to it. If this devolves into an imperial quest, then let's curb that arrogance when it shows it's face. The Republicans may be using the sucesses of the war so far to gain political advantage, but I challene anyone here to name ONE single success in the Liberal growth of the world the so-called Liberal Party of this country is so far responsible for.

All the Democrats have done so far is point out boogeymen that have not been proven to exist. Theirs is the culture of fear and mistrust. You guys follow them blindly at your own peril.

Rather than insult and belittle Max, my goal is to show him exactly how he's been misled. I respect the hell out of him, and would love to have him on the right side of this conflict. Well, "left" side, if you want. Let's all spread freedom and Democracy together instead of tearing down the engine of such a cause with partisan in-fighting. We cannot afford to ignore what's really at stake here. Even if the Democrat Party was completely destroyed by the Republicans, the hearts of all the people of America would still be soft and willing to dedicate themselves to great things.

The War on Terror is such a great thing, regardless of which party was in charge on 9/11 and thus had to lead the charge against tyranny and despotism once again. As long as the Democrats are stuck in a political power struggle here in this country, fighting for their own existence, they are missing the opportunity to aid in the struggle for the existence of the values they were supposedly founded upon.

Max, that book I recommended you, "The Pentagons New Map," was written by a Liberal. He favors the war in the end, because it is truly a Liberal cause. Stop attempting to destroy the movement and start helping to make it better. The irony of this war being held in the hands of "conservatives" is striking. Only true Liberals can actaully win a war like this. I believe you have acknowledged this dilemma in your heart if not your mind yet, back when you started calling yourself an independent.

I'm holding out my skeletal claw to you, buddy.

JOIN USSSSSS!!!

[kahljorn]

So because torturing doesn't always work (like most forms of interrogation) we shouldn't use it at all? (do you think all forms of intelligence gathering are always 100% accurate?) Everybody knows people will say anything to get out of torture(or jail or anywhere else they don't want to be), that's why you have trained professionals doing it who can tell who's lying. It's just like with police interrogations. Did you know people lie in police interrogations ALL THE TIME? and yet they still do it. HOW STRANGE IS THAT? Sometimes I wonder how criminals are even sent to jail!
I'm surprised that you guys are surprised that sometimes criminals lie when they get caught and want to protect their fellow men in arms. them lying is WHY you torture them, so they will stop lying!

Espionage doesn't always have the most accurate information, either. That's the nature of information itself. If they don't get any reliable information, why do they continue doing it? SOME reliable information must've came out of it. How much intel has been available over the past few years about iraqs WMDS? How much of it was just plain wrong?

The only thing I agreed with was that moral decensy must be maintained in an insurgency war, but one important thing to consider is that the insurgents DONT HAVE THE SAME MORALS AS US and aren't necessarily going to respond to it in the same way. I still have yet to see a crazy muslim video or shirt that says, "TORTURE IS BAD MMKAY, OF T HE AMERICAS".

[Preechr]

My last response was directed at Abcdxxx's post.

As for Zig's post, I guess I'll defer to kahljorn's retort. It pretty much covers all the bases.