Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Mon 10/08/2007 View Sun 10/07/2007 View Sat 10/06/2007 View Fri 10/05/2007 View Thu 10/04/2007 View Wed 10/03/2007 View Tue 10/02/2007
1
2007-10-08 Home Front: Politix
US appears guilty of torture: Pelosi
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Fred 2007-10-08 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11137 views ]  Top
 File under: Global Jihad 

#1 Yeah, Right. Pelosi says that bondage, whippings and nudity in front of a Catholic church as an assault on Christianity in San Fransicko is free speech and then seeks to protect terrorists from far less, even if it saves American lives...

Houston we have a problem (regarding a very sick Congress).
Posted by Woozle Ulish3488 2007-10-08 00:29||   2007-10-08 00:29|| Front Page Top

#2 This coming from the representative of Soddom and Gomorah. http://www.zombietime.com/folsom_sf_2007_part_1/
Posted by newc">newc  2007-10-08 00:29||   2007-10-08 00:29|| Front Page Top

#3 Procedures such as subjecting prisoners to freezing temperatures or depriving them of sleep for extended periods should be codified as legal under specified circumstances. The public is far more tolerant of these pressure techniques in emergency circumstances than liberals would care to admit.

If our government is too queasy to officially sanction these actions, then they must be forbidden absolutely with severe penalties attached. But keeping the grey zone of what is or is not legally considered to be "torture" gives liberals a free opportunity to both condemn and undermine their nation at a time when we need clarity and unity.
Posted by Thrusort Speaking for Boskone9814 2007-10-08 04:25||   2007-10-08 04:25|| Front Page Top

#4 nancy hopes to get most US troops out of Iraq by the end of 2008, but Petreaus may beat that.
Posted by Bobby 2007-10-08 06:34||   2007-10-08 06:34|| Front Page Top

#5 You will never clarify what is permissible and what is not, because once you've defined that, you'll have automatically defined a set of rules to be judged by, and you will be bound by the rule of law that you have yourself set.

And the rule of law is anathema to all seekers of power, and all lackeys thereof -- no matter what that law is, no matter if it was you yourselves that wrote it.

So you'll keep on using "enhanced interrogation" (a vast category that contains everything from "bright lights" to "being anally sodomized with a broomstick") but never "torture", and everything will be fine, because after all your government always knows best, and it will never never ever use these techniques against innocents. At least not against innocent white Christians, and that's what matters, no?

On a sidenote, here's some words spoken by a dirty liberal scumbug in order to undermine his nation:

"Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner] ... I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause... for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country,"
-George Washington
Posted by Aris Katsaris">Aris Katsaris  2007-10-08 06:46|| http://katsaris.livejournal.com]">[http://katsaris.livejournal.com]  2007-10-08 06:46|| Front Page Top

#6 newc : I'm speechless.
Posted by anonymous5089 2007-10-08 06:56||   2007-10-08 06:56|| Front Page Top

#7 Lackeys, Aris? And clearly it's escaped your notice that the war thus far has more lawyers involved than ever in history. Until General Petraus took command in Iraq, the soldiers had to get approval from the unit JAG before firing in either offence or defence. Never before have illegal combatants (historically referred to as spies) had outside lawyers insisting they be given the same legal rights in civilian courts as the legal residents of the nation -- instead of a drumhead court martial and a firing squad.

Perhaps you are recalling Abu Ghraib. But then in fairness you must recall the nasty idiots were knowingly sneaking off during the night against the rules, that they had all of two or three nights before being turned in by the first of their fellow soldiers that they showed the photos to, that they were immediately hauled before a court martial, and that their commanding officer was fired for dereliction of duty for allowing an atmosphere to develop in which such a thing could happen. All before the newspapers chose to trumpet the partial truth.

Or perhaps you are thinking about the behaviour of the police and army and politicians of Greece, whose shortcomings are such that the protections of the EU are preferable. A pity, as my husband so enjoyed the time he spent working there, despite several just-missed-by-the-angel-of-death experiences that he didn't mention to me until many, many years later. (Involving bombs and machine guns in 1987 or so -- he rather enjoyed the insouciant skill of the taxi drivers, after experiencing the ones of Egypt.)
Posted by trailing wife 2007-10-08 07:17||   2007-10-08 07:17|| Front Page Top

#8 The democrat leadership, itself an oxymoron, is despirate for an issue to remain appear relevant. Why not pick up the fallen banner of patriotism and seal the southern border and stop the NAFTA highway ?
Posted by wxjames 2007-10-08 07:49||   2007-10-08 07:49|| Front Page Top

#9 "Perhaps you are recalling Abu Ghraib."

No, thankfully my memory is less influenced by photographs than yours is. I'm mostly recalling cases like the torturous death of Mr Dilawar by your torturers (aka interrogators) in Bagram e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/international/asia/20abuse.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

But you will never remember him or any of your other innocent victims. It's all "panties on heads" for you.
Posted by Aris Katsaris">Aris Katsaris  2007-10-08 08:16|| http://katsaris.livejournal.com]">[http://katsaris.livejournal.com]  2007-10-08 08:16|| Front Page Top

#10 Call me when USAF start making decapitation videos, Mrs Pelosi.
Posted by gromgoru 2007-10-08 08:23||   2007-10-08 08:23|| Front Page Top

#11 Hey Aris, ever heard about reciprocity? How about, intellectual integrity?
Posted by gromgoru 2007-10-08 08:26||   2007-10-08 08:26|| Front Page Top

#12 Now I remember why Aris was so ... controversial.
Posted by Bobby 2007-10-08 08:26||   2007-10-08 08:26|| Front Page Top

#13 When was Aris allowed back, jeesh gone for awhile and everything changes :)
Posted by djohn66 2007-10-08 08:31||   2007-10-08 08:31|| Front Page Top

#14 Bobby, it was because I had a knack for mentioning the facts you would like to ignore and smashing the fantasies you hold dear.

You keep on wanting to pretend that it is only the guilty that get tortured by you, or that end up dead in your "interrogation rooms". This is a pretty fantasy that eases your consciences, but it's nothing more than a pretty lie.
Posted by Aris Katsaris">Aris Katsaris  2007-10-08 08:33|| http://katsaris.livejournal.com]">[http://katsaris.livejournal.com]  2007-10-08 08:33|| Front Page Top

#15 Question. Has Queen Nancy every, in her entire career, denounced the beheadings, rapes, and real torture committed by the terrorists?
Posted by CrazyFool 2007-10-08 08:38||   2007-10-08 08:38|| Front Page Top

#16 Looks bad. Looks as bad as Whoopi Goldberg wanting to have a three way with you and your husband. Now that's torture.
Palamino...
Posted by tu3031 2007-10-08 08:41||   2007-10-08 08:41|| Front Page Top

#17 CrazyFool, neither Pelosi nor Aris bother themselves with disturbing realities like that.
Posted by lotp 2007-10-08 08:57||   2007-10-08 08:57|| Front Page Top

#18 BTW, Pelosi is being disingenuous when she says she only got limited briefings and never saw the Justice memo.

As House Speaker she has access to all of those. She has, in fact, deliberately ducked briefings offered to her and refused to read the memo. It's a form of massive cowardice designed to further her prejudices without confusing herself with facts she would then bear responsibility for knowing.
Posted by lotp 2007-10-08 09:00||   2007-10-08 09:00|| Front Page Top

#19 As for western Europe, it's so very much EASIER to hate the US mindlessly than to take sober stock of the challenges we all face.

From hating the US mindlessly (and this is a particular pathology on the left) it's an easy step to Islamic fundamentalism. I am in my mid 50s. I expect to see mass conversions among the young Left in Europe in my lifetime.

None of which justifies torture - but then, as TW has noted, that's a red herring anyway. Simply an excuse to keep on hating the US for being big, successful in many ways, unsucessful in some and above all for just being.
Posted by lotp 2007-10-08 09:13||   2007-10-08 09:13|| Front Page Top

#20 

Pelosi appears infected with herpes.
Posted by Chunky Thrinens5401 2007-10-08 09:29||   2007-10-08 09:29|| Front Page Top

#21 During this brief period while a broader range of opinions about torture is being allowed into Rantburg's discussion for a while, I would like to point out frankly that Nancy Pelosi is right when she says:

Interviewed on Fox News, Pelosi said reported interrogation tactics such as simulated drowning, head slapping and exposure to extreme temperatures would amount to banned torture. “There is a legal definition of torture that I believe this would fit. The president says it is not,” she said.

And I believe that most Americans would agree that she is right.

Frankly, President Bush's argument that waterboarding is not torture is a lame, losing argument. It's stupid semantics.

The Bush Administration (and the Republican Party) should grab the bull by the horns and explain why the use of waterboarding, albeit a torture, was a reasonable decision in the perceived circumstances following 9/11. The Bush Administration believed that Al Qaeda could and would use anthrax and radioactive materials imminently in follow-up attacks inside the USA. Explain to the public the reasons why the Bush Administration believed so, and you might have a really winning argument instead of the current, stupid semantic argument.

We are heading for a Democratic victory in 2008 unless the Republicans wise up fast.

By the way, has Rantburg lifted its ban on Gentle too?
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2007-10-08 09:33||   2007-10-08 09:33|| Front Page Top

#22  "Bobby, it was because I had a knack for mentioning the facts you would like to ignore and smashing the fantasies you hold dear."

Aris is projecting his reactions to JFM again.
How pathetic indeed!
Posted by E. Brown 2007-10-08 09:42|| saturninretrograde.blogspot.com]">[saturninretrograde.blogspot.com]  2007-10-08 09:42|| Front Page Top

#23 Mr Katsaris

Washington was speaking about honorable opponents, not about spies and not about people who wouldn'yt hesitate a second into, say, blowing a maternity.

For your information teh Genava conventions stipulate that you lose all rights when you don't respect a number of dispositions aimed at protecting civilians, wounded and prisoners. Like wearing an uniform, not taking posituions in or observing for airstrikes/artillery from certain kinds of byuildings (eg hospitals), not using ambulances for transporting troops, weapons or ammo, not using human shields. If you do it, ennemy is free to have you executed. I don't know if according to Genava Conventions torture is allowed for poeple who violate the rules but it should: it happens I would be possibly have been killed before I was four if some people hadn't extracted confessions from an ennemy who had no qualms in bombing schoolbusses or impaling babies so you will have a hard time making me cry over the pooooooor terrorists.
Posted by JFM">JFM  2007-10-08 09:48||   2007-10-08 09:48|| Front Page Top

#24 Sadly there are few Republicans out there now who know how to explain anything to the public.
Posted by eLarson 2007-10-08 09:49|| http://larsonian.blogspot.com]">[http://larsonian.blogspot.com]  2007-10-08 09:49|| Front Page Top

#25 I don't three shits whether terrorists are tortured and killed personally. The Geneva accords don't grant them any protection. If you are caught out of uniform, not being represented by a recognized nation and having a symbol of that nation (which is why troops where the flag on their uniform), legally we can do anything we fucking feel like.

Now, I would like to be able to take the moral high ground and not do said things. I would like to show the world that there are higher morals you can fight for. However, when your opponent is lower than whale shit and will do anything to kill, maim, torture you (up too and including hiding amongst civilians so it looks like we killed them), then all fucking concerns go out the window in my view.

And any group which bakes a boy and feeds it to their family to get them to shut up and play along deserves whatever it gets.
Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader  2007-10-08 09:54||   2007-10-08 09:54|| Front Page Top

#26 "For your information teh Genava conventions stipulate that you lose all rights when you don't respect a number of dispositions aimed at protecting civilians, wounded and prisoners. Like wearing an uniform, not taking posituions in or observing for airstrikes/artillery from certain kinds of byuildings (eg hospitals), not using ambulances for transporting troops, weapons or ammo, not using human shields. If you do it, ennemy is free to have you executed."


Aris Velouchiotis loves to see innocents murdered and fascists escape punishment. That's just his style, being the gutless moral coward that he is.
Posted by E. Brown 2007-10-08 10:03|| saturninretrograde.blogspot.com]">[saturninretrograde.blogspot.com]  2007-10-08 10:03|| Front Page Top

#27 
Posted by Mizzou Mafia 2007-10-08 10:05||   2007-10-08 10:05|| Front Page Top

#28 
"And any group which bakes a boy and feeds it to their family to get them to shut up and play along deserves whatever it gets."

You un-nuanced Yankee pig, you!

/fascism-loving scumbag off
Posted by E. Brown 2007-10-08 10:55|| saturninretrograde.blogspot.com]">[saturninretrograde.blogspot.com]  2007-10-08 10:55|| Front Page Top

#29 LOCK UP THE GOATS --->
Posted by Hupong Platypus1311 2007-10-08 11:06||   2007-10-08 11:06|| Front Page Top

#30 didn't the goat lover state that he WOULD NEVER COMMENT ON RANTBURG AGAIN -- 2 YEARS AGO
Posted by Hupong Platypus1311 2007-10-08 11:07||   2007-10-08 11:07|| Front Page Top

#31 By the way, has Rantburg lifted its ban on Gentle too?

Feeling like donning the burqa again, eh? Don't expect the results to be any better this time, hussy.
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2007-10-08 11:12||   2007-10-08 11:12|| Front Page Top

#32 "Washington was speaking about honorable opponents, not about spies and not about people who wouldn't hesitate a second into, say, blowing a maternity."

And I'm talking about complete innocents that happened to be in the wrong place in the wrong time (and the wrong religion).

Got that? I'm not arguing about how you deal with terrorists, though with better people I would debate the moralities of *that* as well.

But right now, with *you*, and in this thread, I'm only discussing how you deal with complete innocents that happened to be in the wrong place in the wrong time. Baby steps, JFM.

Do you have the remaining shreds of morality, humanity (let alone Tao) that you can atleast call the torture of *innocents* a crime?

DarthVader, the same question applies to you. You keep on trying to switch the argument to how you should deal with *terrorists*, and the question preserving a moral high ground.

It's a worthwhile question, but *my* question was about the way you deal with innocents. And fact remains is that (if they happen to be Muslim) you, oh so honorable citizens of Rantburg, don't give a damn about them.

E.Brown> "loves to see innocents murdered "

Speak the name of Dilawar. It was not I who murdered him. It was you. It's not you who remember him and want no more Dilawars to exist. It's me.
Posted by Aris Katsaris">Aris Katsaris  2007-10-08 11:22|| http://katsaris.livejournal.com]">[http://katsaris.livejournal.com]  2007-10-08 11:22|| Front Page Top

#33 Missou Mafia: I think this is where the thread eventually ends up.
Posted by Abdominal Snowman 2007-10-08 11:25||   2007-10-08 11:25|| Front Page Top

#34 Note that Aris sidesteps the question of how one determines innocence, except in retrospect.

Again, I'm not in favor of torture. Nor am I sure that the interrogation techniques used fall into that category, although the line is thin.

But assuming a clear line that is somewhere beyond serving tea and cookies to the nice gentlemen one unfortunately detained, just how does one go about determining who is who and who has done what when by definition terror network members tend to lie about such things?
Posted by lotp 2007-10-08 11:33||   2007-10-08 11:33|| Front Page Top

#35 You may not be talking about how we deal with terrorists - but I'm sure Queen Nancy is. I doubt that our policy is to waste the time and effort torturing some poor Afghan farmer or other cannon-fodder who obviously doesn't know anything.

Didn't she take it upon herself to meet with the terrorist-enabling head of Syria and interfere with US (and Israeli) foreign policy?
Posted by CrazyFool 2007-10-08 11:37||   2007-10-08 11:37|| Front Page Top

#36 Aris,
I would only preserve the moral high ground with states and people that try to follow it.

Now with the slime that refuse to follow it. There are no morals with them. I recommend that you live with their ilk for a while and see how long you keep your head.

And I am not condoning the slaughter of the innocents as you are trying to pin on me. Terrorist, death.
Civilian, left alone.

See? simple. If civie tries to help said terrorist, prison. If civie takes up arms with terrorists, civie now is terrorist and see above for disposal.

So, if you can't figure that out on where my position is on this or try to moral equivalent my position to anything that doesn't resemble the above, go fuck yourself with cacti and enjoy the coming collapse of Europe.
Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader  2007-10-08 11:57||   2007-10-08 11:57|| Front Page Top

#37 "Note that Aris sidesteps the question of how one determines innocence, except in retrospect."


That's just how Velouchiotis operates. One death is a tragedy, 2,000 murdered in the Peloponeses is a case for unbridled joy.
Posted by E. Brown 2007-10-08 11:59|| saturninretrograde.blogspot.com]">[saturninretrograde.blogspot.com]  2007-10-08 11:59|| Front Page Top

#38 "It's not you who remember him and want no more Dilawars to exist. It's me."

I see that the totalitarian-loving filthbag Velouchiotis not only lies, but likes spreading crocodile tears around as well.

His Euro-chauvinism and self-degraded anti-Enlightenment humanism and liberalism are obvious from the historical record.

Sod off and die, troll.
Posted by E. Brown 2007-10-08 12:04|| saturninretrograde.blogspot.com]">[saturninretrograde.blogspot.com]  2007-10-08 12:04|| Front Page Top

#39 Ease off on Aris. He's pissed that the fires he set didn't bring the Socialists back into power like he thought they would.
Posted by Mitch H.">Mitch H.  2007-10-08 12:13|| http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/]">[http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/]  2007-10-08 12:13|| Front Page Top

#40 "And I am not condoning the slaughter of the innocents as you are trying to pin on me. "

Good for you Darthvader. Now please explain to me your utter lack of outrage at what happened in Bagram against innocents by soldiers of your own country, supposedly acting out to protect you and yours.

Then explain to me what conditions and laws you support in order to ensure no civilians are ever tortured, and what should happen to those that do end up torturing civilians against those laws.

E. Brown> I'm still not quite why you find it clever in any way to google up my first name and try to pin the crimes of others from more than half a century ago on me. To me it just reminds me of the Obama/Osama comparisons and simply exemplifies your kindergarten mentality.

In short, the name is "Katsaris", not "Velouchiotis". (It's not "Onasis" either for that matter.)

"His Euro-chauvinism and self-degraded anti-Enlightenment humanism and liberalism are obvious from the historical record."

Oh, my horrible humanism and love of liberty. Crimes I tell you, crimes. I pin racism and torture on you instead, not "humanism" and "liberalism".
Posted by Aris Katsaris">Aris Katsaris  2007-10-08 12:17|| http://katsaris.livejournal.com]">[http://katsaris.livejournal.com]  2007-10-08 12:17|| Front Page Top

#41 I think this thread is headed here.

This will happen if the West doesn't awaken from its own fantasy ideologies of Political Correctness and Multiculturalism.
Posted by SR-71 2007-10-08 12:18||   2007-10-08 12:18|| Front Page Top

#42 "Ease off on Aris. He's pissed that the fires he set didn't bring the Socialists back into power like he thought they would."

The Rallisian collabo is always upset when totalitarians of any stripe don't get to kill more people.
Posted by E. Brown 2007-10-08 12:19|| saturninretrograde.blogspot.com]">[saturninretrograde.blogspot.com]  2007-10-08 12:19|| Front Page Top

#43 Mitch, I wonder if you realize that in Greek forums, I'm bashed for an American lackey and tool, because of the way that I defend you in comparison to the the other *more* horrid imperialisms and brutalities out there -- like Russia or Iran or China.

Basically, I'm among the best friends you have in Greece. Chew on that.
Posted by Aris Katsaris">Aris Katsaris  2007-10-08 12:21|| http://katsaris.livejournal.com]">[http://katsaris.livejournal.com]  2007-10-08 12:21|| Front Page Top

#44 I do it because you are a gutless felching moral coward who would grovel and urinate in your pants if we were actually 1/10th as oppressive as you Eurofilth make us out to be.

You are NOT in favor of liberty, freedom or anything resembling human dignity, if it could possibly issue from this country. Your EUro-chauvinism and pathetic love for bureau-fascism is duly noted and despised.
Posted by E. Brown 2007-10-08 12:23|| saturninretrograde.blogspot.com]">[saturninretrograde.blogspot.com]  2007-10-08 12:23|| Front Page Top

#45 "This will happen if the West doesn't awaken from its own fantasy ideologies of Political Correctness and Multiculturalism."

Political correctness is what you do when you claim that it's the illegality of the Mexican immigrants that you oppose to, not their brown skins.

It's also what you do when you still decline to legitimize torture, and pretend to be still giving a damn about the Geneva conventions.

Be true to yourselves for once, and call a spade a spade.
Posted by Aris Katsaris">Aris Katsaris  2007-10-08 12:23|| http://katsaris.livejournal.com]">[http://katsaris.livejournal.com]  2007-10-08 12:23|| Front Page Top

#46 You certainly know how to construct an irrefutable argument, E.Brown.
Posted by Aris Katsaris">Aris Katsaris  2007-10-08 12:24|| http://katsaris.livejournal.com]">[http://katsaris.livejournal.com]  2007-10-08 12:24|| Front Page Top

#47 "Oh, my horrible humanism and love of liberty. Crimes I tell you, crimes. I pin racism and torture on you instead, not "humanism" and "liberalism"."

Don't worry, Aris, I'd never accuse you of supporting those things, just the opposite.
Posted by E. Brown 2007-10-08 12:26|| saturninretrograde.blogspot.com]">[saturninretrograde.blogspot.com]  2007-10-08 12:26|| Front Page Top

#48 
"Basically, I'm among the best friends you have in Greece."


"Some of my best friends are Ameriswine..."
Posted by E. Brown 2007-10-08 12:28|| saturninretrograde.blogspot.com]">[saturninretrograde.blogspot.com]  2007-10-08 12:28|| Front Page Top

#49 Same ol' shit--full of itself. It'll never grow up. Sigh.

Don't feed it.
Posted by twobyfour 2007-10-08 12:42|| http://www.twobyfour.info]">[http://www.twobyfour.info]  2007-10-08 12:42|| Front Page Top

#50 Dont feed the Ameri-Imposter. You'll just make it mad.
Posted by mcsegeek1 2007-10-08 12:48||   2007-10-08 12:48|| Front Page Top

#51 And a really big hello to Mrs. Davis. Haven't seen you post in ages!

You keep on wanting to pretend that it is only the guilty that get tortured by you, or that end up dead in your "interrogation rooms". This is a pretty fantasy that eases your consciences, but it's nothing more than a pretty lie.

Aris, you neglect to note that even so-called "innocents" amongst the vast majority of this world's Muslim population remain conspicuously silent about terrorism to the point of tacit approval or covert support. So long as Islam does NOTHING to fight terrorism, they are fair game. At some point silence is no longer just mere consent, silence becomes a LIE.

Now, I would like to be able to take the moral high ground and not do said things. I would like to show the world that there are higher morals you can fight for. However, when your opponent is lower than whale shit and will do anything to kill, maim, torture you (up too and including hiding amongst civilians so it looks like we killed them), then all fucking concerns go out the window in my view.

Which is a pretty good summary. However, all of this "torture" nonsense was put in far better perspective by another eloquent Rantburger. To wit:

Some of the arguments being used here are pure BS: CIA agents waterboarding a terrorist MASTERMIND with innocent blood on his hand for 2 minutes makes them morally equivalent to Stalinist torturers who went after citizens SUSPECTED of POLITICAL disloyalty? Morally equivalent to North Vietnamese torturers who broke bones, teeth, and skin of legitimate Prisoners of War contrary to the Geneva conventions? THOSE guys KEPT TORTURING, while the CIA guys stopped right then and there. THEIR torture was politically motivated. The CIA had every expectation that this Terrorist MASTERMIND HAD SOMETHING BAD ON THE FRONT BURNER, and that being taken down would cause the others involved to SPEED UP the operation. What life-or-death issues motivated the Stalinists and North Vietnamese to do WORSE THINGS to those under THEIR hands?

Yes, apples ARE equal to oranges, but ONLY if you IGNORE DIFFERENCES. What aspects of one's morality allows them to overlook MITIGATING information? I don't call THAT sort of behavior MORAL.

Pure BS I say: a moral compass that states that such things are equivalent IS BROKEN. It serves no purpose but to be ignored and thrown away.

This is not the same as seeing a speck in the CIA's eye and ignoring the boulders in others: it's seeing the speck and saying its a boulder while justifying such a whopper of a misrepresentation by saying they're both made of the same material.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-10-08 13:06||   2007-10-08 13:06|| Front Page Top

#52 You know, Aris .... I support having a wide variety of viewpoints at Rantburg. But there's serious discussion and then there's showing up first and foremost to lob off-topic bombs like #45.

It would be pathetic if it weren't such a pain in the ass to be assumed to be racist by someone who lives in a country that's far far less diverse than the US.

Stay on topic in the threads here or go masterbate on some other site.
Posted by lotp 2007-10-08 13:09||   2007-10-08 13:09|| Front Page Top

#53 by definition terror network members tend to lie about such things

Not just "tend to", but are RELIGIOUSLY SANCTIONED to lie, cheat, steal, torture, kill innocents and commit—not only genocide—but any atrocity, any crime against humanity and any abomination (think Beslan) in pursuit of their Islamic agenda. It's called TAQIYYA and it represents one of the ultimate moral and ethical crimes there is on earth.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-10-08 13:15||   2007-10-08 13:15|| Front Page Top

#54 Why should we object to tanned Mexican skins when there are so many successful, equally tanned American skins, a goodly proportion of whose ancestors originated in Mexico? For perspective, Aris, Mexicans are about as dark as Greeks and Italians. In this country brown skins belong to African-Americans... at least for a bit longer. There is so much intermarriage these days that Tiger Woods, with his mixed Thai, African-American, Native American, and Caucasian ancestry is normal rather than otherwise.

You are the best friend of an Platonic ideal of America, Aris. And a worthy ideal it is, too. But you don't know nearly as much as you think about the real one, no matter how many of our books you've read and our films you've watched... much like I felt about Europe before living there for half a decade.

This country was set upon a foundation of rocky realism, not a Platonic ideal. That's why it was established as a democratic republic, not an Athenian-style democracy. That's why our elections are winner take all, not proportional representation. And that's why those who comply with the Geneva Conventions get treated in accordance with those self-same conventions, while those who choose not to... take the risk of meeting up with American pragmatism or individual excesses instead of American generosity.

Finally, while you are attacking us, do try to remember the difference between unsanctioned individual excess (no matter how the uninvolved may approve) and institutionalized. Two minutes of simulated drowning, causing no damage and with at no actual risk of harm, is not at all the same as using an electric drill to painfully destroy joints and bones before killing the victim with no other purpose than the sheer joy of inflicting pain and terror, sawing off heads with unsharpened swords and, yes, baking a boy into a casserole to serve to the unsuspecting relatives to their coerce cooperation are not at all in the same set of behaviours. To claim otherwise is disingenuous in the extreme.
Posted by trailing wife 2007-10-08 13:20||   2007-10-08 13:20|| Front Page Top

#55 pretend to be still giving a damn about the Geneva conventions

What if we are entirely mistaken to allot Geneva protections to our enemy? How about an answer, Aris? Islamic terorists have no protection under the Geneva Conventions. In no way do the Conventions apply to them, NOT AT ALL. We have every right to torture, maim and kill them on sight. You can argue about the morality of torture all you want (and I'll merely refer you to post #51), but DO NOT try to confuse the issue by injecting our complete and total error in showing any humanity to these Islamic savages solely because we are so civilized and they are not.

I'll not even stoop to your "Mexican immigrants" comment. That one is so far beyond the pale that you have pretty much eliminated any respect I might have once had for your views.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-10-08 13:23||   2007-10-08 13:23|| Front Page Top

#56 "This country was set upon a foundation of rocky realism, not a Platonic ideal. That's why it was established as a democratic republic, not an Athenian-style democracy. That's why our elections are winner take all, not proportional representation. And that's why those who comply with the Geneva Conventions get treated in accordance with those self-same conventions, while those who choose not to... take the risk of meeting up with American pragmatism or individual excesses instead of American generosity."

Thank you, Trailing Wife, for your usual eloquence in treating Velouchiotis better than he deserves. I grow tired of these moral equivalence morons ignoring a genuine need for nuance when it comes to this country.
Posted by E. Brown 2007-10-08 13:27|| saturninretrograde.blogspot.com]">[saturninretrograde.blogspot.com]  2007-10-08 13:27|| Front Page Top

#57 And that's why those who comply with the Geneva Conventions get treated in accordance with those self-same conventions, while those who choose not to... take the risk of meeting up with American pragmatism or individual excesses instead of American generosity.

Superb post, trailing wife. Especially your last paragraph.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-10-08 13:28||   2007-10-08 13:28|| Front Page Top

#58 "Islamic terorists have no protection under the Geneva Conventions."

Aris knows this about franc tireurs and terrorists, he's just willfully lobotomized himself to eliminate this fact in the interest of bashing Americans.

With reference to #7, none of us here have any problems with prosecuting murderers and even giving them death sentences, even if they happen to wear American uniforms. For a EUro-pig like Aris to whinge on about light treatment of killers is ironic in the extreme.
Posted by E. Brown 2007-10-08 13:35|| saturninretrograde.blogspot.com]">[saturninretrograde.blogspot.com]  2007-10-08 13:35|| Front Page Top

#59 You flatter me inordinately, gentlemen. I think lotp, who's been quite pithy lately, summarized beautifully in post #52. And one can never go wrong quoting Ptah Aegyptos.
Posted by trailing wife 2007-10-08 13:44||   2007-10-08 13:44|| Front Page Top

#60 Re #45 I support having a wide variety of viewpoints at Rantburg. But there's serious discussion and then there's showing up first and foremost to lob off-topic bombs .... Stay on topic in the threads here or go masterbate on some other site.
--------

Thanks for moderating, the Rantburg way.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2007-10-08 14:00||   2007-10-08 14:00|| Front Page Top

#61 "And fact remains is that (if they happen to be Muslim) you, oh so honorable citizens of Rantburg, don't give a damn about them." Airhead)

EXACTLY

The Koran demands that don't give a damn to Jews and Christians, and along the way to Sunni Muslims if they are Shia, and Shia Muslims if they are Sunni, nor Shia or Sunni if they are Wahhabbi... And death to anyone who leaves any of the above...

Islam is demands totalitarian 7th century politics dominant over and above the "infidels" and a sick religious aspect requiring big fat black sheet over any woman in public.

"Don't give a damn about Muslims" is an understatement, chump.
Posted by Pheager the Imposter4942 2007-10-08 14:12||   2007-10-08 14:12|| Front Page Top

#62 LGF warning.
Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore  2007-10-08 14:19||   2007-10-08 14:19|| Front Page Top

#63 Over and above the complete and total "death cult" mentality of the Muslim on the social level that Pelosi should be addressing, the religious aspect of Islam is totally without merit.

All the old and new testiment prophets throughout the 1600 years of the writing of the book of Christianity (Bible) claimed without hesitation the message came to them straight from God while the murderous, pedophile Mohammed claimed to recieve his halucinations from an angel (Gabriel). Since I recogn God will be seated on the throne of judgement and not Gabriel, I'd rather read the God's Word and not Gabriel's word...
Posted by Pheager the Imposter4942 2007-10-08 14:21||   2007-10-08 14:21|| Front Page Top

#64 Why should I give a candy-coated crap what Aris thinks?
Posted by Deacon Blues">Deacon Blues  2007-10-08 14:33||   2007-10-08 14:33|| Front Page Top

#65 It's nice you approve, Mike S. After all, Rantburg is Fred Pruitt's private property, and we are all his guests.

In the meantime, Fred is still between jobs, and needs help paying the bills to keep this site running. Aris, you've been gainfully employed for a year, now. It's time you pitched in for the bandwidth you've been using. I know Zenster has been doing his share, so this is for the rest who haven't -- there are Paypal and Amazon buttons in the right margin.
Posted by trailing wife 2007-10-08 14:35||   2007-10-08 14:35|| Front Page Top

#66 Re #54 (Trailing Wife) Two minutes of simulated drowning, causing no damage and with at no actual risk of harm, is not at all the same as using an electric drill to painfully destroy joints and bones before killing the victim with no other purpose than the sheer joy of inflicting pain and terror

I appreciate that you, Trailing Wife, are addressing the issue thoughtfully, but I think that most people right here in the USA will agree that waterboarding is torture. It might be last damaging torture than your other examples, but it still is torture.

When President Bush and others in his Administration say that the USA does not torture prisoners, then most Americans (and practically all foreigners) think the denial is ludicrous.

When someone says it is ludicrous here in Rantburg, then that person will be shouted down and probably will be banned after a few months. Nevertheless, I think that is the opinion of most Americans: Waterboarding = torture.

I am against torturing captives as a rule, but I am willing to allow reasonable exceptions in extreme cases. Instead of arguing that the USA indeed did torture some captives as an exception because the situation was extreme, however, the Bush Administration persists with its lame, losing, stupid, semanitic argument that waterboarding is not torture.

Here I must agree with Nanci Pelosi that the Bush Administration is making a ludicrous claim. And I think that most Americans agree with Pelosi on that specific issue that waterboarding is torture.

I wish the Bush Administration and the Republicans would argue this issue in a smart manner.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2007-10-08 15:06||   2007-10-08 15:06|| Front Page Top

#67 I meant to say: It might be less damaging torture
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2007-10-08 15:07||   2007-10-08 15:07|| Front Page Top

#68 Re #18 (lotp): Pelosi is being disingenuous when she says she only got limited briefings and never saw the Justice memo.

I assume that she did learn authoritatively in her briefings and readings that the USA has used "interrogation tactics such as simulated drowning, head slapping and exposure to extreme temperatures."

Her opinion that the drownings and extreme temperatures are "torture" is a reasonable opinion, and I think most most people agree with that opinion.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2007-10-08 15:18||   2007-10-08 15:18|| Front Page Top

#69 Indeed, you would assume that she was so briefed.

But that is not what she is admitting. She is, in fact, making allegations that are carefully unattached to specific information about specific interrogations, in most cases. It's a deeply, deeply cynical move born out of political calculus.

I could respect a thoughtful argument that we should leave ourselves significantly open to major casualty attacks in a principled avoidance of tough interrogation. I probably would not agree, but I could respect it.

The Democratic party of which I continue to be a registered member has not made such an argument and won't, because their goals are short-term political advantage. The deeper well being of the country is, along with other pressing challenges, not apparently a major concern of theirs.
Posted by lotp 2007-10-08 15:33||   2007-10-08 15:33|| Front Page Top

#70 When President Bush and others in his Administration say that the USA does not torture prisoners, then most Americans (and practically all foreigners) think the denial is ludicrous.

Mike S, the Bush administration has been so legalistic on other issues that I'm inclined to believe they are using the term as historically defined. Just as the use of the term Geneva Conventions has been stretched far beyond the original definition in attempt to require the U.S. to apply it to those the Conventions were deliberately devised to not apply (see above posts in this thread for an example), so to is the term torture being redefined in an attempt to prevent the U.S. from being able to act effectively in time of need.

Just because a great many people who have not thought much about the issue share an opinion does not make that opinion valid. A great many people think Jews are intrinsically evil, and that America deserved to have the Twin Towers toppled on their heads by a bunch of angry Arabs. I know you wouldn't argue that sheer numbers mean those beliefs are true.
Posted by trailing wife 2007-10-08 15:37||   2007-10-08 15:37|| Front Page Top

#71 Mr Katsaris answered

"Washington was speaking about honorable opponents, not about spies and not about people who wouldn't hesitate a second into, say, blowing a maternity."

with

And I'm talking about complete innocents that happened to be in the wrong place in the wrong time (and the wrong religion).


Don't try this BS on me. Religion is not race something you are born with and you cannot change. Being a secular guy you should be putting religion into exactly the same place as othezr forms of ideology. Be it Nazis or Muslims people who choose to believe they are herrnsvolk entitled to conquer and enslave other people shouldn't come complaining if the prospective dhimmis retaliate. And peoplme who even while not taking arms pêrsonally aid them financially or ideologically are not innocents and are not entitled to complain.



I'm not arguing about how you deal with terrorists, though with better people I would debate the moralities of *that* as well.


I have heard of some of this morally superior guys who agitpropped against use of torture by the French in Algeria (aimed at preventing FLN atrocities) but who themselves had hemlped the Vietminnh in torturing its captives in Indochina.


But right now, with *you*, and in this thread, I'm only discussing how you deal with complete innocents that happened to be in the wrong place in the wrong time. Baby steps, JFM.


I have never advocated torturing suspects in order to establish if they are guilty. But I have no qualms about people whose guiltiness is established when allowing them to remain silent would translate into dozens of dead.


Do you have the remaining shreds of morality, humanity (let alone Tao) that you can atleast call the torture of *innocents* a crime?


I am no friend with people who torture inocents. Neither with people who wear T-shirst with the image of sadistic torturer Ernesto Guevara de la Serna.

I am no friend with people who would stretch hands with one of our first world rich white kids a la Rachel Corrie who have sympathy with people who try to blow maternities.


DarthVader, the same question applies to you. You keep on trying to switch the argument to how you should deal with *terrorists*, and the question preserving a moral high ground.


It's a worthwhile question, but *my* question was about the way you deal with innocents. And fact remains is that (if they happen to be Muslim) you, oh so honorable citizens of Rantburg, don't give a damn about them.


100 thousand people were blown at Nagasaki. Nagasaki was largely a Christioan city, the place in Japan were people were the least enthousiast with the impeerialistic dreams of teh Shintoists. But it saved about a million Americans, at least thirty of fourty millions Japanese and last but not least every month it shortened the war meant saving three hundred thousand Chinese and a number of Filipino, Indonesians, Burmese... I would have nightmares if I had ordered the bombing but I would have had worse nightamres if I had failed to take it. 100,000 < 30,000,000

Now, returning to the main thread the people who made the Geneva Conventions knew dar too well that they if enforcing them would gave an advantage to the enemy the end result would be that nobody would enforce them. And here they had a stroke of genius: if you don't comply with the the rules you free the enemy of any constraint so you gain nothing and you can be sent to the firesquad for war crimes. So no incentive to cheat, everybody complies and no civilians get shot because they were mistaken for people fighting out of uniform, civilians don't die due to lack of hospitals (after one side used them militarily and other side retaliated). But for this to work it is essential to deliver the message "cheat and you will regret it". If you don't more people will die that if you do.
Posted by JFM">JFM  2007-10-08 16:24||   2007-10-08 16:24|| Front Page Top

#72 Re #70 (Trailing Wife) I'm inclined to believe they are using the term as historically defined. .... ... the term torture being redefined in an attempt to prevent the U.S. from being able to act effectively in time of need.

I don't agree with you that for most people the term is being redefined with an intent to inhibit effective action.

Very simply, when most people hear about waterboarding, they reflexively define it as torture. And then when they hear President Bush basically deny that this method is torture, they think the denial is ludicrous. He can say it a million times with a straight face, and most people just won't buy it. They think he must be plain lying or else playing some wierd word game -- something like Clinton's "it depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

This denial is not intellectually respectable for most people. Republicans will have enough trouble this next election without aping Bush's stupid position on this issue.

I do agree with you, Trailing Wife, that most Ameicans will cut through the semantics and accept such techniques exceptionally for extreme situations -- such as certain knowledge of an imminent attack on the USA with weapons of mass destruction -- no matter what the Geneva Convention says.

Unfortunatelty, though, Bush doesn't have enough sense to make that argument. He keeps trying to convince the public that waterboarding and nakedness in extreme cold are not torture.

It seems to me that Giuliani is making the argument sensibly. His problem, though, is that he is not able to speak authoritatively about the circumstances of the decisions to use those techniques. He can speak only hypothetically, and he gets in a lot of trouble when he answers hypothetically, saying straight out that he would authorized such techniques in such hypothetical situations.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2007-10-08 16:45||   2007-10-08 16:45|| Front Page Top

#73 Re #69 (lotp) But that is not what she is admitting. She is, in fact, making allegations that are carefully unattached to specific information about specific interrogations, in most cases. It's a deeply, deeply cynical move born out of political calculus.

I'm sorry, but I simply don't understand your point here. I am interested, so please restate it in other words.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2007-10-08 16:47||   2007-10-08 16:47|| Front Page Top

#74 Pelosi has refused to attend briefings about specific terror threats and about specific interrogation activities.

By doing so, she can throw mud at the Administration in ways that make it hard to hold her to account. She can, for instance, saying in a superficially factual way that the US 'appears to be' 'illegally' torturing detainees.

And that there is 'a' (unspecified) legal definition that she 'believes' would 'fit' 'reported' tactics.

Note that by refusing briefings and not reading the Justice Dept memo, she allows herself to remain usefully uncertain as to whether or not those tactics are in fact being used - and if so, under what circumstances.

All in all, why let statesmanship and the challenges of truly leading the country in a difficult time get in the way of destructive politicization of national security issues? Much easier for her to avoid any of that and continue to seek short-term political gain.
Posted by lotp 2007-10-08 16:58||   2007-10-08 16:58|| Front Page Top

#75 I hear Aris saying he's worried about torturing innocents. Me too. Are we waterboarding everyone we detain?

Like so much of which passes for discussion of late, the problems of the few are extrapolated to the millions.

If Aris equates waterboarding with using electric drills on people's knees, perhaps we need some new definitions - and I think Bush has tried this, distinguishing torture from extreme interrogation techniques (or something like that)

Maybe the words should be 'abuse' and 'torture'. Waterboading and cold cells are abusive, but result in no permanent damage. Bamboo splints under the fingernails, breaking bones, and shooting folks in the back of the knee (remember "kneecapping"?) result in permanent damage.

On the other hand, sawing off someone's head is not the equivalent of torture, (even if waterboarding is torture,) it is murder, and doing it with the video camera running to terrify one's opponents is a new low in human existence. Which of course is exceeded by the reported baking of Iraqi children by al Qaeda. At least the savages didn't videotape it.

So we have at least four categories, ranging from bad (abuse,) through torture and murder, to the pinnacle of evil - the terrorist.

That about sums it up for me. What do you think, Aris?
Posted by Bobby 2007-10-08 16:59||   2007-10-08 16:59|| Front Page Top

#76 Speaker Pelosi has carefully avoided being briefed precisely so that she can make accusations she knows from information received previously as a House committee member are not true, without it being exactly lying about specific cases.

Mike S., I agree President Bush isn't doing a good job making the arguments to the American people and the world. But at least part of the fault lies with journalists and politicians -- here and abroad -- cynically shouting, "Liar, liar!" no matter what he says, and no matter that they know better. That those who take their understanding from such have a Pavlovian response to trigger phrases only speaks to the effectiveness of such Goebellesque tactics.

Fortunately, Mr. Bush is not running in the coming election, and those better able to articulate key points are: Mr. Guiliani and Mr. Thompson, and Senator McCain, who provides a helpful rear guard from his impossible position.
Posted by trailing wife 2007-10-08 17:10||   2007-10-08 17:10|| Front Page Top

#77 US appears guilty of torture: Pelosi

Pelosi appears to be the Cryptkeeper: Mike N.

Could Mike or Aris please explain to me why someone can give his kid brother a swirly, yet waterboarding is defined as torure?

Is it possible that we've gotten so deep into the PC hole that we now consider simple childs play to be torure?

Posted by Mike N. 2007-10-08 17:15||   2007-10-08 17:15|| Front Page Top

#78 I think that most people right here in the USA will agree that waterboarding is torture.

That statement is disingenuous at best and just as easily outright misleading. Considering that the vast majority of Americans have little to no knowledge about Islam, their consequent opinions on how to define torture are rendered irrelevant.

We are confronted with an enemy so heinous that it forces the recalibration of nearly every single previously established war-fighting fundamental. The mere existence of taqiyya demands that we ignore in Islam everything that should be of substance in a more worthy foe.

This subsequently erodes all ability to rely upon conventional warfare in dealing with Muslims. Not just Muslim hostiles—since terrorists can so easily submerge into a largely supportive community of co-religionists—but Muslims in general because their professed and voluntarily adopted religion permits them a degree of deceit and treachery that makes every one of them a potentially great danger.

They do not approach battle in uniform and it makes their operations so difficult to detect that unconventional interrogation techniques are required to uncover them. Far more vile is that these un-uniformed Muslims do not blanch at committing the very worst atrocities known to man. Preventing such crimes against humanity preordains a singnificantly greater degree of harshness in how any captured enemy is interrogated. Considering how terrorists can be, literally, of nearly any age, nationality or gender, it makes ALL Muslims into possible enemies.

Islam's own choice of self-absolving doctrine makes it into a gigantic opponent whose every action must interpreted in the very worst light. That Muslims are willing to advance their political ideology by all means available makes it vital that we fight them by any means necessary. To do otherwise gives the enemy an irreversible advantage. The most cruel and disgusting element of this is that Islam—through its barbarous savagery and indiscriminate slaughter—DEMANDS that we foresake our own sense of well-established humanity. Muslims intentionally lever every best notion we have of fair play, justice, freedom and legality both against us and wholly in their own favor. They have ZERO right to decry any brutality demonstrated by those who remain determined to defeat Islam. Those in the West who assert that Islam must be treated humanely effectively collaborate with the enemy. They are free to implore others that they retain a sense of humanity, but in no way do they have the right to condemn those who are determined to defeat Islam.

One extremely simple question: If Islam possessed the West's nuclear arsenal and we did not, would we even be having this discussion? End of story.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-10-08 17:26||   2007-10-08 17:26|| Front Page Top

#79 Swirly?
Posted by trailing wife 2007-10-08 17:27||   2007-10-08 17:27|| Front Page Top

#80 Yes, swirly. That's when you stick someones head in the toilet bowl and hit the flush button.
Posted by Mike N. 2007-10-08 17:30||   2007-10-08 17:30|| Front Page Top

#81 All in all, why let statesmanship and the challenges of truly leading the country in a difficult time get in the way of destructive politicization of national security issues?

This is a question that most democrats will have to take with them to their graves. It is borderline criminal and represents nothing short of outright treason.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-10-08 17:32||   2007-10-08 17:32|| Front Page Top

#82 Ab Snowman - heh
Pelosi said reported interrogation tactics such as simulated drowning, head slapping and exposure to extreme temperatures would amount to banned torture.
Feel that way any time I read/hear an interview with members of the The 110th Congress.
Posted by swksvolFF 2007-10-08 17:39||   2007-10-08 17:39|| Front Page Top

#83 Spike and Aris in a single thread, and Gentle is added in? Three strikes!
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2007-10-08 18:07||   2007-10-08 18:07|| Front Page Top

#84 Re #74 (lotp) Pelosi has refused to attend briefings about specific terror threats and about specific interrogation activities.

I did some of my research about this, and I found that she occasionally decided to not attend particular events. I did not find that she has refused to attend briefings on threats or interrogation activities as a rule or on principle or that she has avoided becoming informed about these subjects.

If you can correct me, then please link me to some article showing that she is avoiding such information. Thanks in advance for any link proving your point.

I don't think you prove much, however, by pointing out her absence at particular events. She is a busy person, and she has many opportunities to receive information at other events.

I am not interested in a link showing she missed a particular event. I want a link showing that she is systematically avoiding briefing opportunities on these subjects.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2007-10-08 19:27||   2007-10-08 19:27|| Front Page Top

#85 Re #76 (Trailing Wife) at least part of the fault lies with journalists and politicians -- here and abroad -- cynically shouting, "Liar, liar!" no matter what he says, and no matter that they know better.

I don't think so on this particular question of whether waterboarding or exposure to extremely cold temperatures are fairly included in the category of "torture."

I suppose some people don't consider these techniques to be torture, but I think they're a small minority.

Let's do a thought experiment. Let's imagine that the Democrat ticket will be Al Sharpton and Dennis Kunich, and the Republican ticket will be Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani. Let's imagine further that each voter must vote honestly on a single issue: Is waterboarding torture? All yes votes go to the Democratic ticket, and all no votes go to the Republican tickets.

Not only would the Democrats win in a landslide, they would win in a landslide among registered Republicans.

Why, then, should any sensible Republicans support the Bush Administration's implicit denials that waterboarding is torture. It's a stupid, losing argument.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2007-10-08 19:39||   2007-10-08 19:39|| Front Page Top

#86 Re #77 (Mike N) Could Mike or Aris please explain to me why someone can give his kid brother a swirly, yet waterboarding is defined as torure?

No, I don't think I can explain it to you, and I doubt that Aris can explain it either to you. I think you are impervious to any explanation.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2007-10-08 19:42||   2007-10-08 19:42|| Front Page Top

#87 I suppose some people don't consider these techniques to be torture, but I think they're a small minority.

Please reconcile your assertion with the following: (Post #78)

the vast majority of Americans have little to no knowledge about Islam, [therefore] their consequent opinions on how to define torture are rendered irrelevant
Or do you argue that Islamic terrorism can be defeated using current conventional warfare and without any use of harsh interrogation techniques?
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-10-08 19:53||   2007-10-08 19:53|| Front Page Top

#88 Re #78 (Zenster) Considering that the vast majority of Americans have little to no knowledge about Islam, their consequent opinions on how to define torture are rendered irrelevant.

Our country's future policies will depend on the results of the next Presidential election. Some people will vote with the opinion that "the Moslem threat is so terrible that we should use torture a lot." Other people will vote with the opinion that we never should use torture, and some people will have an intermediate or no opinion.

This is only one issue of many, but it is a significant and emotional issue.

I think that you, Zenster, are in that first group, and I think you should recognize that it's a minority opinion.

Insulting the US voters with accusations that they are ignorant and that their opinions are irrelvant is not going to help you develop a majority between now and November 2008.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2007-10-08 19:55||   2007-10-08 19:55|| Front Page Top

#89 Her opinion that the drownings and extreme temperatures are "torture" is a reasonable opinion, and I think most most people agree with that opinion.
Posted by Mike Sylwester

Spit.

In Minnesota we call those an early Spring dip in the lake.
Posted by Icerigger 2007-10-08 19:59||   2007-10-08 19:59|| Front Page Top

#90 Pelosi and the rest of the dingbats are pure torture. They should do the rest of us a favor and resign so we don't have their plastic surgery smiles staring at us from the TV all the time.

Pure torture.
Posted by 3dc 2007-10-08 19:59||   2007-10-08 19:59|| Front Page Top

#91 Oh and as to the Mid East
We need a policy of creating "Good Muslims" just like we did for ....
Posted by 3dc 2007-10-08 20:02||   2007-10-08 20:02|| Front Page Top

#92 I'd disagre with your assertions. When faced with teh risk to American lives/cities/society, and teh ongoing violations of ALL tenets of the GC by our enemies and opponents. I bet I can rally a LARGE majority to not only approve rough treatment of our enemies, but a general applying of societal noogies to both you and Aris. Your simpering effete appeals matter nought when lives are at stake, especially since I don't see either of you condemning the kidnapping and murder of western soldiers/civilians. When have you spent the time to condemn bombing of girls' schools in Afghanistan? A quick search shows NOTHING. That's why I despise your mealy-mouthed nothingness

/rant
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2007-10-08 20:10||   2007-10-08 20:10|| Front Page Top

#93 Re #87 (Zenster) do you argue that Islamic terrorism can be defeated using current conventional warfare and without any use of harsh interrogation techniques?

The selection of interrogation techniques is a minor and ambiguous consideration in the much larger questions of whether or how we will defeat Islamic terrorism.

I can imagine extraordinary situations in which the selection of interrogation techniques might be crucial. If we captured a Moslem terrorist who was about to dump a ton of anthrax over Manhattan, then it might turn out that historians might say that our defeat of Islamic terrorism required harsh interrogation techniques.

However, most situations are not crucial, and the factors are ambiguous.

When our country determines its policies about interrogation techniques, we have to balance many considerations -- legal opinions, popular opinions, military opinions, allied opinions, reliability, policy clarity, possibilities of retaliation, the willingness of enemy soldiers to surrender, and the effects on the population in the combat theater.

When weighing all these many and important considerations, few people conclude that we should use torture as a normal interrogation technique.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2007-10-08 20:18||   2007-10-08 20:18|| Front Page Top

#94 #92 (Frank G) I don't see either of you condemning the kidnapping and murder of western soldiers/civilians. When have you spent the time to condemn bombing of girls' schools in Afghanistan? A quick search shows NOTHING.

Aris and I have been banned from Rantburg for the past two years. We weren't allowed to comment on anything at all.

Personally, I am in favor of bombing girls' schools, but I don't know whether Aris shares my opinion.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2007-10-08 20:22||   2007-10-08 20:22|| Front Page Top

#95 Hey Mikey...
How-about some asteroids for Mecca and Qom.
I would vote for that!

In a second!
Posted by 3dc 2007-10-08 20:24||   2007-10-08 20:24|| Front Page Top

#96 Once more Aris has managed to hijack a thread and use it to spread his stupidity for all to see. What a shame.

A friend of mine graduated from the Air Force interrogation school back in the late 1960's. He told me quite a bit about it. NOTHING HE SAID HE DID could be considered "torture" unless you make the definition of "torture" so broad that it covers everything. This seems to be what Aris and Nancy Peelotsi are attempting to do. There is no doubt that it will lead to more dead Americans, but that, too, seems to be what both Aris and Nancy want. Such people should be cursed by every thinking human being, both publically and privately. We are fighting people who behave worse than the demons of NAZI Germany or Tojo's Japan combined. Aris, you disgust me more than Hillary Clinton, and that takes some doing. Blessed are the idiots, because they're too stupid to know how childish and immoral they sound. Lots of idiots on the Left, both in our Congress and in Europe.
Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot  2007-10-08 20:25|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]  2007-10-08 20:25|| Front Page Top

#97 It would be an Act of Allen!
Posted by 3dc 2007-10-08 20:26||   2007-10-08 20:26|| Front Page Top

#98 Aris and I have been banned from Rantburg for the past two years. We weren't allowed to comment on anything at all.

Has it been that long? It's been so peaceful around here, it seems like only yesterday.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-10-08 20:26||   2007-10-08 20:26|| Front Page Top

#99 Nice bunch of strawmen there, Mike,

Where did I say that "we should use torture a lot"?

I think that you, Zenster, are in that first group

Fine, that's your opinion, now back it up with some cites and direct quotations or retract it.

Insulting the US voters with accusations that they are ignorant

Again, where did I accuse the US voters of being "ignorant". That's another strawman.

I said, "the vast majority of Americans have little to no knowledge about Islam". That is a matter of being under-informed or mis-informed but not necessarily "ignorant" overall. That is your own assertion and not mine.

Do you argue that the majority of American voters are well-informed or even moderately informed about Islam in general and Islamic terrorism in particular? Do you honestly think this is the case with morons like Rosie O'Donnell being given airtime to spew her truther bullshit? For that matter, even Bush continues to spout his Kool-Aid about Islam being the Religion of Peace. [spit]

Do you deny that all of this helps militate away from a full and proper understanding of Islam's severe character flaws, or do you deny that Islam is in dire need of reformation or suppression?

Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-10-08 20:32||   2007-10-08 20:32|| Front Page Top

#100 few people conclude that we should use torture as a normal interrogation technique.

Keep slipping in those strawmen, Mike. Where did I say "that we should use torture as a normal interrogation technique"? Cites and direct quotations, please. Otherwise I invite you to retract your continued lies.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-10-08 20:38||   2007-10-08 20:38|| Front Page Top

#101 Re #99 (Zenster) Nice bunch of strawmen there

I stand corrected. I am glad that you agree with me that we should not use torture a lot.

I also misinterpreted your statement:

Considering that the vast majority of Americans have little to no knowledge about Islam, their consequent opinions on how to define torture are rendered irrelevant.

I misunderstood that to mean that the vast majority of Americans are ignorant about Islam and that their consequent opinions on how to define torure are rendered irrelevant.

I was inaccurate to use the word "ignorant" in paraphrasing your opinion. I stand corrected on that point too.

Nevertheless, despite those two misinterpretations, I still expect you will have difficulties attracting a majority of the voters into your opinion between now and November 2008.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2007-10-08 20:47||   2007-10-08 20:47|| Front Page Top

#102 Mike Sylwester,

Any chance you'll tell us if, in your opinion, a swirly is torture?
Posted by Mike N. 2007-10-08 20:47||   2007-10-08 20:47|| Front Page Top

#103 I meant to say "use torture as a normal interrogation technique."
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2007-10-08 20:48||   2007-10-08 20:48|| Front Page Top

#104 Re #102 (Mike N) Any chance you'll tell us if, in your opinion, a swirly is torture?

In my opinion, it is not. I am not interested in your opinion. Don't bother to share it with me, if you do not wish to do so.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2007-10-08 20:50||   2007-10-08 20:50|| Front Page Top

#105 So if the U.S. substituted waterboarding with a swirly, would you then stand up and defend the practice?
Posted by Mike N. 2007-10-08 20:54||   2007-10-08 20:54|| Front Page Top

#106 Sylwester, Katsaris & Zenster -- it's not a law firm, it's a bandwidth beast.
Posted by Darrell 2007-10-08 20:57||   2007-10-08 20:57|| Front Page Top

#107 After all, Rantburg is Fred Pruitt's private property, and we are all his guests.

LMAO! It's his private property on a (de facto)public network. Get over yourself, lady.

And it's masturbate, not masterbate, oh wise one.
Posted by Butch Sneatle7489 2007-10-08 21:00||   2007-10-08 21:00|| Front Page Top

#108 I'm sure Aris & Spike responded to Fred's Paypal/Amazon plea, though.... right?
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2007-10-08 21:01||   2007-10-08 21:01|| Front Page Top

#109 Aris & Mike: you can't just waltz back in here and talk sense and logic, you'll make their heads explode!
Posted by Butch Sneatle7489 2007-10-08 21:02||   2007-10-08 21:02|| Front Page Top

#110 nice anon troll....
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2007-10-08 21:02||   2007-10-08 21:02|| Front Page Top

#111 I'm sure Aris & Spike responded to Fred's Paypal/Amazon plea, though.... right?

..and you did too presumably.
Posted by Butch Sneatle7489 2007-10-08 21:03||   2007-10-08 21:03|| Front Page Top

#112 So if the U.S. substituted waterboarding with a swirly, would you then stand up and defend the practice?

Is this a question for me or for Zenster?

Zenster, I trust you to respond to this question first for both of us. If you don't cover everything, then I might add a comment or two.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2007-10-08 21:04||   2007-10-08 21:04|| Front Page Top

#113 "nice anon troll....", said Frank G. LOL.
Posted by Butch Sneatle7489 2007-10-08 21:05||   2007-10-08 21:05|| Front Page Top

#114 I still expect you will have difficulties attracting a majority of the voters into your opinion between now and November 2008.

...like that matters to these people.
Posted by Butch Sneatle7489 2007-10-08 21:07||   2007-10-08 21:07|| Front Page Top

#115 Why would I need to ask Zen that question?

Anyone who has read his posts already knows his position. If stopping a U.S. city from catching a nuke meant we had to stuff a Muslim in a toaster, he'd be all for it.

You, I'm not so sure.

Mike, I'll ask you again. If the U.S. dumped waterboarding in favor of the good old fashioned swirly, would you support it?

Posted by Mike N. 2007-10-08 21:12||   2007-10-08 21:12|| Front Page Top

#116 Butch,

Do you have anything to say about this topic?
Posted by Mike N. 2007-10-08 21:13||   2007-10-08 21:13|| Front Page Top

#117 Butch comes to us from Canada, so factor that into your evaluation of his response.
Posted by lotp 2007-10-08 21:19||   2007-10-08 21:19|| Front Page Top

#118 Re 107 (Butch Sneatle7489) And it's "masturbate", not "masterbate", oh wise one.

I noticed that too, but I was too proper to point it out. I wasn't the only one who looked away.

I'm glad we do have a spelling teacher in this thread, Butch, but remember the saying that those who cannot do -- teach. And those who cannot teach -- teach teaching.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2007-10-08 21:20||   2007-10-08 21:20|| Front Page Top

#119 So, Mike S., you're in the camp of 'better that thousands are killed rather than losing the high moral ground'? That seems a bit stupid if you are one of the 'thousands dead', and that Ramsey Clark do-gooder barrister wouldn't allow you to raise your voice to his client to prevent the carnage, which revalidates the saying "Nice guys finish Last". This is the reletivist thinking the aclu uses, habeus corpus for all, and does not apply to islamic terrorists in the least, nada, zip, ever.
Posted by Phinater Thraviger 2007-10-08 21:20||   2007-10-08 21:20|| Front Page Top

#120 Re #109 (Butch Sneatle7489) Aris & Mike: you can't just waltz back in here and talk sense and logic, you'll make their heads explode!

We'll all be banned by the end of the year. You too. Mizzou Mafia too.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2007-10-08 21:24||   2007-10-08 21:24|| Front Page Top

#121 I still expect you will have difficulties attracting a majority of the voters into your opinion between now and November 2008.

So, now that you're starting to stick to facts, one more question. If the American public were fully aware of Islam's routine war crimes, constant human rights abuses, Abject Gender Apartheid, use of taqiyya and total disqualification from any protections by the Geneva Conventions, do you think that they would still remain—presuming you are right, which I personally doubt—adamantly opposed to harsh interrogation techniques? Especially if they truly understood what life in America would be like under shari'a law?

Furthermore, do you deny that fully informing the public regarding these serious threats to our nation's security in time for the 2008 election cycle has only been made more difficult due to intentional media obsfucation and disinformation smear campaigns by the democrats?
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-10-08 21:25||   2007-10-08 21:25|| Front Page Top

#122 Re #108 (Frank G) I'm sure Aris & Spike responded to Fred's Paypal/Amazon plea, though.... right?

Maybe that's why he removed the ban. Every time I tried to donate money through this page's Paypal during the last two years, I got transfered right to a See American website.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2007-10-08 21:28||   2007-10-08 21:28|| Front Page Top

#123 Mikey! I'm hurt, you skipped my question.
Posted by Mike N. 2007-10-08 21:29||   2007-10-08 21:29|| Front Page Top

#124 ..and you did too presumably.

From what I'm led to understand, Frank G. has set up a dedicated PayPal account to make regular contributions to Rantburg, Butch. I'll rely upon Frank to correct me if I'm wrong. It's something that I admire and wish I had the financial latitude to do myself. So, for now, unless you contribute to this site at all, I'll suggest that you go piss up a rope.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-10-08 21:32||   2007-10-08 21:32|| Front Page Top

#125 Would you still think waterboarding is torture if we had a Democrat President?
Posted by Mike N. 2007-10-08 21:33||   2007-10-08 21:33|| Front Page Top

#126 Re #115 (Mike N) I'll ask you again. If the U.S. dumped waterboarding in favor of the good old fashioned swirly, would you support it?

Gee, I unexpectedly find myself in an uncomfortable situation. I kind of promised Zenster that he could answer first for both of us.

I do promise, however, that if Zenster does not cover the issue fully, then I will add any tiny, itty-bitty comment that might still be needed to ensure absolute completeness of Zenster's and my mutual response.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2007-10-08 21:34||   2007-10-08 21:34|| Front Page Top

#127 So, Mike S., you're in the camp of 'better that thousands are killed rather than losing the high moral ground'?

An important question and one that I hope you'll address, Mike. I gotta walk my mutt and will be back in a short while. As to swirlies, waterboarding is far more hygienic.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-10-08 21:36||   2007-10-08 21:36|| Front Page Top

#128 Re #125 (Mike N) Would you still think waterboarding is torture if we had a Democrat President?

Yes, in my opinion.

I am not interested in your opinion. Do not bother to share yours with me if you do not wish to do so.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2007-10-08 21:38||   2007-10-08 21:38|| Front Page Top

#129 Re #127 (Zenster) As to swirlies, waterboarding is far more hygienic.

I agree completely.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2007-10-08 21:39||   2007-10-08 21:39|| Front Page Top

#130 Why would you make Zen answer a question directed toward you?

Teacher: What's 2+2?

Spike: Do you mean me or Zen? I'll answer after Zen answers, but only if his answer isn't thourough enough.

Teacher: I want you to answer, Spike.

Spike: I'll answer after Zen answers, but only if his answer isn't complete enough.

Sound childish to anyone else?
Posted by Mike N. 2007-10-08 21:42||   2007-10-08 21:42|| Front Page Top

#131 yep - Paypal it is....for Master Fred and Michael Totten
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2007-10-08 21:46||   2007-10-08 21:46|| Front Page Top

#132 In case anyone is wonder what that smell is...

It's chickenshit.
Posted by Mike N. 2007-10-08 21:50||   2007-10-08 21:50|| Front Page Top

#133 We'll all be banned by the end of the year. You too. Mizzou Mafia too.

Yeah well reality is harsh, logic is hard, and karma is a ****.
Posted by Butch Sneatle7489 2007-10-08 22:08||   2007-10-08 22:08|| Front Page Top

#134 Re #121 (Zenster)

If the American public were fully aware of Islam's routine war crimes .... do you think that they would still remain ... adamantly opposed to harsh interrogation techniques?

I assume that by "harsh interrogation techniques" you mean methods like stress positions, white noise, nakedness, sleeplessness, yelling, ridicule, etc.

I think that most people who support "harsh interrogation techniques" would support them no matter whom we were fighting against.

In general, I myself think that using such methods is silly. And I think that getting outraged about such methods is silly too. If some US interrogation unit wants to waste its time and energy in this way, then I don't approve or protest. I just shrug my shoulders. Let them do their job as they see fit.

A unit interrogating in that manner is spending a lot of time on resistant captives, and using those "harsh" techniques is not going to break much resistence in many of them.

Most interrogation units will have only a few interrogators who speak the language well and who write thorough, accurate reports. You don't want to waste their time yelling at mules. But if you want to assign your low-ranking, inexperienced interrogators to spend a lot of time yelling at mules, then I think there is little harm. It's either that or assign them to paint rocks.

I do agree with you, Zenster, that if the American public were more aware of the danger that the USA faces from anthrax attacks and dirty bomb attacks here in the USA, then I think there would be more public support for accepting the possibility that the US might have to resort to torture in some extraordinary cases.

I myself understand that this was the situation in a very few cases, such as Sheikh Khalid Mohammed. I suspect also that the justification was inadequate in most other cases.

But I don't know. Instead of addressing my concerns and opinions, President Bush just says that the USA never has tortured any captives. His denial is ludicrous, in my opinion. I have to conclude that he is rather thoughtless on this issue.

I hope the Republicans' candidate for president will argue this issue a lot smarter. Otherwise this is a losing issue for the Republicans.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2007-10-08 22:13||   2007-10-08 22:13|| Front Page Top

#135 Re 121 (Zenster): do you deny that fully informing the public regarding these serious threats to our nation's security in time for the 2008 election cycle has only been made more difficult due to intentional media obsfucation and disinformation smear campaigns by the democrats?

Is this a question for me or for Mike N?

Mike N, I trust you to answer this first for both of us. If you miss any points, then I'll add an appropriate comment of my own.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2007-10-08 22:15||   2007-10-08 22:15|| Front Page Top

#136 Let them do their job as they see fit.

Curiously enough, I feel the exact same way. I trust America's military to do the right thing. Our politicians are another matter entirely. Far too many of them belong in the category of "traitor elite".

do you deny that fully informing the public regarding these serious threats to our nation's security in time for the 2008 election cycle has only been made more difficult due to intentional media obsfucation and disinformation smear campaigns by the democrats?

That one was directed specifically at you, Mike S. It represents a tipping point where the media and democrats have long had their thumb on the scale.

PS: If you're truly serious about contributing at Rantburg, just click on the main page's "E-Mail Me" link to ask Fred where a personal check or money order can be sent. Rantburg is the only Internet site I've ever donated to and never have I seen one more deserving. Totten and Yon are next on my list.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-10-08 22:33||   2007-10-08 22:33|| Front Page Top

#137 RE: 134 My two cents. Americans will not give a rat's a$$ what kind of interrogation is used after the Muslims nuke a city or Beslan a school in America. Just how far away do you think we are from the Marines of WW II who willingly burned the Japanese from their holes with flame throwers, up close and personal? How far from the mass fire bombing of Japanese cities? As the Japanese ratcheted up the brutality, our forces matched them.

Americans are less ignorant than they were. The more they know, the less patience they have. The moral high ground will not last long if Muslim atrocities continue. The holiday from history is ending, and even the Left knows this.
Posted by SR-71">SR-71  2007-10-08 22:56||   2007-10-08 22:56|| Front Page Top

#138 The moral high ground will not last long if Muslim atrocities continue.

Can you name any city nuked by Muslims or schools Beslaned in the US? So stfu.
Posted by Butch Sneatle7489 2007-10-08 23:06||   2007-10-08 23:06|| Front Page Top

#139 Spike, it still smells like chickenshit.

Now pony up some green for that bandwith or go waste someone elses, Swyrlester.
Posted by Mike N. 2007-10-08 23:08||   2007-10-08 23:08|| Front Page Top

#140 Re #137 (SR-71): Americans will not give a rat's a$$ what kind of interrogation is used after the Muslims nuke a city or Beslan a school in America.

If nothing like that happens before November 2008, however, there will be a strong desire to clarify our country's position on this issue.

The election might be decided by a narrow margin, as the most recent several elections will be decided. The decisive voters in the middle, who could go either way, might be affected by issues such as this.

The Democratic candidate will argue that the Bush Administration made too many rash decisions that turned out to be counter-productive. For example, our invasion of Iraq.

And for another example, that candidate will claim, the Bush Administration apparently tortured a hundred or so captives, got only a lot of useless misinformation in the process, and disgraced the USA in front of the entire world.

If the Republican candidate apes President Bush and says, oh, waterboarding is not torture, so we never tortured anyone, then guess what?

Guess this: Most of those central, swing voters will say, these Republicans think we are idiots who will swallow mindlessly whatever gruel we are fed. Those Republicans are crying wolf about terrorists all the time, and they are arrogant and reckless, and we think we will teach them a lesson by voting for the Democrat this time.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2007-10-08 23:18||   2007-10-08 23:18|| Front Page Top

#141 So, Butch, when a Beslan shows up here, are you blaming it on Bush, or are you just saying it won't happen here and wring your hands? Dipshit.
Posted by Phinater Thraviger 2007-10-08 23:21||   2007-10-08 23:21|| Front Page Top

#142 Most of those central, swing voters will say, these Republicans think we are idiots who will swallow mindlessly whatever gruel we are fed.

So what does that imply about Rantburg? LOL
Posted by Butch Sneatle7489 2007-10-08 23:25||   2007-10-08 23:25|| Front Page Top

#143 Word, SR-71. If a nuked city or an American Beslan is required, we will only have the media and this nation's democrats—with then, perhaps, our own selves—to blame. In my entire life, never have I seen such a committed effort upon America's own shores to cloud and discourage this nation's resolve in a time of war.

Can you name any city nuked by Muslims or schools Beslaned in the US? So stfu.

Butch, it is obvious that you are painfully unaware of how terrorists have already been apprehended with floor plans for multiple American schools, not to mention specific drills oriented towards managing media coverage of how to slaughter preadolescent students with minimal blowback and public outrage. I'll ask that someone please provide a link to the "American Beslan" thread.

I'll also take this opportunity to ask you, Butch, about what sort of methods and measures should be used in fighting Islamic terrorism. Mind that if you cannot postulate any sort of viable strategy, then you are both morally and intellectually bankrupt with respect to your objections and criticisms at this site.

You've already ignored the way your challenge of Frank G. was disputed and disproved by both myself—whom (to put it politely) Frank is less than fond of—and himself. More importantly—as noted—you have not proposed even the least alternative sort of solutions to defeating Islam's declared goal of subverting America's constitutional law and defying the general concept of human rights.

Any refusal or neglect to adequately address these questions will be interpreted as both voluntary and dedicated support for Islam's desire towards establishing a global caliphate.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-10-08 23:32||   2007-10-08 23:32|| Front Page Top

#144 By the way Mike, that bridge was crossed a long time ago in the "stay the course" days. Anyone with 1/2 of a brain could recognize the BS coming out of the Casa Blanca for what it was, and the Republicans paid dearly. Here's hoping for a repeat in '08, because at this point, the Democrats can only do less damage.
Posted by Butch Sneatle7489 2007-10-08 23:33||   2007-10-08 23:33|| Front Page Top

#145 The donk candidate would be stupid to say that all we got was bad information. There are several good examples to disprove a moronic statement such as that one.

KSM is one. Feel free to look into the facts for yourself. Chickenshit.

Caution: It will take more effort than answering that yes or no question you haven't answered yet, so you might not be up for it.
Posted by Mike N. 2007-10-08 23:34||   2007-10-08 23:34|| Front Page Top

#146 you have not proposed even the least alternative sort of solutions to defeating Islam's declared goal of subverting America's constitutional law and defying the general concept of human rights.

to adhere to your own basic tenets upon which your nation was built would be a first step. Otherwise you could just as easily be lumped in with the other (bad) side, tempting many to say "same shit, different pile". Realizing that you're not infallible is also a good step forward.
Posted by Butch Sneatle7489 2007-10-08 23:46||   2007-10-08 23:46|| Front Page Top

#147 I think we got to Butch - They're cute when they start yelling "stfu" and waving their little fists about.

I guess that about sums up debate on the Left.
Posted by SR-71">SR-71  2007-10-08 23:47||   2007-10-08 23:47|| Front Page Top

#148 And for another example, that candidate will claim, the Bush Administration apparently tortured a hundred or so captives, got only a lot of useless misinformation in the process, and disgraced the USA in front of the entire world.

Do you deny that the interests of national security most likely occludes any possible perception of what has, or has not, been garnered from harsh interrogation or even outright torture? You are being most disingenuous, Mike S.

If the Republican candidate apes President Bush and says, oh, waterboarding is not torture, so we never tortured anyone, then guess what?

Again, you rely upon the fundamentally biased platform cobbled together by media lies and the misrepresentations of so many democrats. You've already conceded how lack of timely information has likely and inappropriately swayed the opinion of America's electorate.

How in Hell are you able to continue doubting the way that public perception of "harsh interrogation" or even "torture" is almost entirely disconnected from reality by media distortion?

Need I remind you—yes, you Mike S.—of how the so-called "tortured" inmates of Iraq's ever-so-horrid al Ghraib prison literally BEGGED their American captors to come back, once they learned of how Iraqi officials were to take control of the institution?

Please explain that one away, especially so in the context of our deplorable "torture" and persistent violations of human rights.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-10-08 23:48||   2007-10-08 23:48|| Front Page Top

#149 I guess that about sums up debate on the Left.

At least there is some debate on the Left.
Posted by Butch Sneatle7489 2007-10-08 23:51||   2007-10-08 23:51|| Front Page Top

#150 because at this point, the Democrats can only do less damage

Speaking as a lifelong democratic voter who will NEVER vote democrat again—quite possibly likely in my entire lifetime—this is more than less than hilarious.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-10-08 23:53||   2007-10-08 23:53|| Front Page Top

#151 Mods, please consider rolling this thread over into tomorrow so that assholes like Aris, Butch and Darrell can post more substantial truthful replies.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-10-08 23:56||   2007-10-08 23:56|| Front Page Top

23:56 Zenster
23:53 Zenster
23:51 Butch Sneatle7489
23:48 Zenster
23:47 SR-71
23:46 Butch Sneatle7489
23:44 JosephMendiola
23:34 Mike N.
23:33 Butch Sneatle7489
23:32 Zenster
23:31 JosephMendiola
23:28 JosephMendiola
23:26 JosephMendiola
23:25 Butch Sneatle7489
23:21 Phinater Thraviger
23:18 Mike Sylwester
23:17 JosephMendiola
23:08 trailing wife
23:08 Mike N.
23:06 Butch Sneatle7489
23:02 Zenster
22:56 SR-71
22:54 Zenster
22:43 Zenster









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com