|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Sep 24th, 2006 03:21 PM | |||||
| 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. |
||||
| Sep 24th, 2006 03:04 PM | |||||
| 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". |
||||
| Sep 24th, 2006 02:48 PM | |||||
| 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!!! |
||||
| Sep 24th, 2006 02:18 PM | |||||
| ziggytrix |
real quick, a quote from some army professionals - Quote:
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. Quote:
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go play a video game about killing people who loook different than you. |
||||
| Sep 24th, 2006 12:40 PM | |||||
| Abcdxxxx | Now that post, that post almost deserved it's own thread. well said preechr. | ||||
| Sep 24th, 2006 11:51 AM | |||||
| 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. |
||||
| Sep 24th, 2006 03:42 AM | |||||
| 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. |
||||
| Sep 23rd, 2006 08:51 PM | |||||
| 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. |
||||
| Sep 23rd, 2006 08:43 PM | |||||
| Preechr |
Quote:
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. Quote:
|
||||
| Sep 23rd, 2006 03:20 PM | |||||
| 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? |
||||
| Sep 23rd, 2006 02:43 PM | |||||
| 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. |
||||
| Sep 23rd, 2006 02:37 PM | |||||
| 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". |
||||
| Sep 23rd, 2006 02:11 PM | |||||
| ziggytrix |
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
||||
| Sep 23rd, 2006 01:00 PM | |||||
| 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. |
||||
| Sep 23rd, 2006 12:35 PM | |||||
| 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. |
||||
| Sep 22nd, 2006 11:32 PM | |||||
| 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. | ||||
| Sep 22nd, 2006 11:11 PM | |||||
| 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/2006/09/2...rture-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? |
||||
| Sep 22nd, 2006 07:12 PM | |||||
| Abcdxxxx |
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/early...n_lebanon.html Quote:
|
||||
| Sep 22nd, 2006 06:24 PM | |||||
| 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. | ||||
| Sep 22nd, 2006 04:19 PM | |||||
| Grislygus |
Quote:
Wait a second, I've never even seen the show. How the hell did I know that?! Stupid cultural icons. |
||||
| Sep 22nd, 2006 04:04 PM | |||||
| 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! |
||||
| Sep 22nd, 2006 02:41 PM | |||||
| 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. |
||||
| Sep 22nd, 2006 02:21 PM | |||||
| 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. | ||||
| Sep 22nd, 2006 02:18 PM | |||||
| 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. | ||||
| Sep 22nd, 2006 11:50 AM | |||||
| KevinTheOmnivore | STOP BELITTLING! | ||||
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | |||||
