Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Sep 18th, 2006, 09:12 PM       
I can die happy now
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Sep 18th, 2006, 09:22 PM       
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...
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Courage the Cowardly Dog Courage the Cowardly Dog is offline
Unmedicated genius
Courage the Cowardly Dog's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Nowhere, Missouri
Courage the Cowardly Dog is probably a spambot
Old Sep 18th, 2006, 10:12 PM       
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #29  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
ziggytrix is probably a spambot
Old Sep 18th, 2006, 11:04 PM       
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?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Sep 19th, 2006, 12:22 AM       
...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.co...-accurate.html

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Sep 19th, 2006, 01:37 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
Preech, get a grip.
Ok... I'm back now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
I'm in favor of trying the Hezbollah fighters Israel caught, as they are suggesting they will.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
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...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
I believe I finally begin to understand some of your position. Not agree, mind you, just understand it.
Well, that's a good start.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
"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...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
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...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
"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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
"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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
"We are fighting brutal, inhuman barbarians. We will not win by fighting like modern, intelligent and sensitive people."
-Alphatollah
Good one...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
" 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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
"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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
"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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
"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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
"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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
"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.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Sep 19th, 2006, 02:23 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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...

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.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Courage the Cowardly Dog Courage the Cowardly Dog is offline
Unmedicated genius
Courage the Cowardly Dog's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Nowhere, Missouri
Courage the Cowardly Dog is probably a spambot
Old Sep 19th, 2006, 06:51 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #34  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Sep 19th, 2006, 09:09 AM       
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.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Sep 19th, 2006, 01:46 PM       
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.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Sep 19th, 2006, 02:09 PM       
Just because I apologized doesn't mean you can't blow me.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Sep 19th, 2006, 03:23 PM       
No, I can't blow you because you're either totally impotent or just completely dickless.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Sep 19th, 2006, 04:28 PM       
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.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #39  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
ziggytrix is probably a spambot
Old Sep 19th, 2006, 08:50 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preechr
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Sep 19th, 2006, 09:00 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
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.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
ziggytrix is probably a spambot
Old Sep 19th, 2006, 09:25 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Courage the Cowardly Dog
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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)

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.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
ziggytrix is probably a spambot
Old Sep 19th, 2006, 09:32 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx
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.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Sep 19th, 2006, 10:17 PM       
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.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #44  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
ziggytrix is probably a spambot
Old Sep 19th, 2006, 11:58 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preechr
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.

Quote:
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/...s/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/...ed_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?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Preechr
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?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Preechr
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Preechr
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?
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Sep 20th, 2006, 01:26 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
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 ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
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.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Sep 20th, 2006, 07:11 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
It's not really my claim to make.

Quote:
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/...s/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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
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/...ed_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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preechr
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preechr
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
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.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #47  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
ziggytrix is probably a spambot
Old Sep 20th, 2006, 07:37 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
ziggytrix is probably a spambot
Old Sep 20th, 2006, 10:06 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preechr
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.


Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Preechr
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)?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Preechr
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?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Preechr
]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.


Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
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!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Preechr
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.




Quote:
Originally Posted by preechr
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
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.


Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
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".




Quote:
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.


Quote:
What would it take for you to join Al Quaeda, Ziggy?
I would never voluntarily sign up for a religious war.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Preechr
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
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.


Quote:
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.






Quote:
Originally Posted by Preechr
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
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.


Quote:
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Sep 20th, 2006, 11:04 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
Reply With Quote
  #50  
derrida derrida is offline
Member
derrida's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2003
derrida is probably a spambot
Old Sep 21st, 2006, 12:09 PM       
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:23 PM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.