News Bush's Support of Torture: Global Impact and Un-American Reputation

[loseyourname]

In a two party system like yours maybe...

Okay, under what systems does the party that identifies itself as "liberal" advocate the hands-off governing approach of classical libertarianism?

Is your congress the goverment?

Congress constitutes the legislative branch. The president, cabinet, and associated bureaucracies constitute the executive branch. The court system constitutes the judiciary branch. Together, they are the government. In their legal functions, the legislative branch makes the laws, the executive branch executes the laws, and the judiciary branch enforces the laws. (It's a little more complicated with the checks and balances, but you get the idea.)

I'm not aware of a system in which any of these legal functions are carried out by agents that are not part of the government.* If there is such a system that you know of, I'd be happy if you'd tell me about it.

*Note: Excepting the ability of PIs and private security firms to enforce laws where the government-run police force is not enough.

 

[Anttech]

So the democrates who have been elected into congress, have no say in the legislation process? Thats what you are implying isn't it?

In the UK the Goverment is the Labour party as they have the most seats in the house of commons. But all Bills, to become law have to pass through the above mention house. This is to say that the government does not MAKE laws, they propose Bills, then EVERYONE in the house votes on wheather they believe in the Bill or dont, Yah or Nah!

So to say that the Goverment "imposed" Laws is not true...

The very concept that government should be pursuing something as ethereal, vague, and ill-defined as "social justice" is anathema to the very principles of personal freedom (and responsibility) that the US stands for.

Social Justice not ethereal, its quite apartent if don't choose to ignore it... If the USA doesn't believe in "Social Justise" (Which to be honest I think the majorty of people in the US do) then does your nation believe in? Freedom to exploit at will?

In Europe you operate basically under the opposite premise, thinking that the government can (and should) remedy every problem (real or imagined), and thus should be given ample authority to play around with citizens' lives as they see fit. A short name for that arrangement is authoritarianism (however democratic it may be).

This is just B.S.

I don't see any EU country unilaterally making desisons that effects everyone on the planet. I however do see this authoriterian behavour from the US administration...

 

[Anttech]

Of course Europe is nothing but a long history of such projects, from pogroms, to state religions, to socialism, but America was founded by men fleeing from a government that would trample them for the pursuit of a "higher good".

And what "Higher good" was that... Your nationalism is blinding you from what your government is doing currently

 

[Ivan Seeking]

McClellan makes it sound like Bush will actually veto this thing. OMG.

[In order to secure basic human rights], Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security --

I think it's time to start talking about impeachment. Conspiracy to commit torture is a high crime by any standard. I hope that most Americans would still agree.

 

[loseyourname]

So the democrates who have been elected into congress, have no say in the legislation process? Thats what you are implying isn't it?

Every member of the legislature has a say.

In the UK the Goverment is the Labour party as they have the most seats in the house of commons. But all Bills, to become law have to pass through the above mention house. This is to say that the government does not MAKE laws, they propose Bills, then EVERYONE in the house votes on wheather they believe in the Bill or dont, Yah or Nah!

It works the same way here. Every member of both the House and Senate vote on laws. But the entire Congress is the government, not just the majority party. One subcommittee proposes a bill, then both houses of Congress vote on it. If it passes, it becomes law. In what sense is this not the government making laws? If the members of Congress are not the government, then what is?

So to say that the Goverment "imposed" Laws is not true...

Sure it is. I've never written a single bill, nor been given a single vote on whether or not a bill passes. Nonetheless, I must follow the laws, because if I do not, the police will arrest me and throw me in prison.

This is the way a system of government has to work. Unless every single citizen in a given nation agrees as to how they should behave, the standards of the majority (and possibly whoever first drafted the Constitution of that nation) are going to be imposed on those who do not think they should have to abide by them.

 

[ron damon]

I think it's time to start talking about impeachment. Conspiracy to commit torture is a high crime by any standard. I hope that most Americans would still agree.

would you have impeached Roosevelt for bombing Dresden?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

would you have impeached Roosevelt for bombing Dresden?

I would have impeached Roosevelt or any President for instituting or refusing to deny torture as a policy of the US.

 

[ron damon]

I would have impeached Roosevelt or any President for instituting or refusing to deny torture as a policy of the US.

You know, if torture is ever used, it's not because someone in the pentagon or the CIA thinks it is really cool, but because, believe it or not, there are people who want to kill you and your loved ones, along with thousands of others, are hard at work figuring ways to do so, do not mind dying themselves, and, if not opposed with the utmost force, will bring the modern world to its knees in an orgy of blood and destruction.

Many terrible plots, targeting both Europe and America (and Asia), have been prevented by using information obtained by intensive interrogation techniques performed on the rats in Guantanamo and elsewhere.

Would you rather have thousands of civilians die than subject some terrorist rat to torture?

 

[arildno]

You know, if torture is ever used, it's not because someone in the pentagon or the CIA thinks it is really cool, but because, believe it or not, there are people who want to kill you and your loved ones, along with thousands of others, are hard at work figuring ways to do so, do not mind dying themselves, and, if not opposed with the utmost force, will bring the modern world to its knees in an orgy of blood and destruction.

Many terrible plots, targeting both Europe and America (and Asia), have been prevented by using information obtained by intensive interrogation techniques performed on the rats in Guantanamo and elsewhere.

Would you rather have thousands of civilians die than subject some terrorist rat to torture?

Worthless nonsense, besides being rather dishonest of your own attitude to torture.
In fact, you find it rather heartening that we now may start to inflict torture on the "bad guys", don't you? Or, should we perhaps, change that to hardening?

 

[ron damon]

Worthless nonsense, besides being rather dishonest of your own attitude to torture.
In fact, you find it rather heartening that we now may start to inflict torture on the "bad guys", don't you? Or, should we perhaps, change that to hardening?

The world is what it is (and the terrorists are what they are); fleeing from reality won't make things any better. Rather the opposite.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You know, if torture is ever used, it's not because someone in the pentagon or the CIA thinks it is really cool, but because, believe it or not, there are people who want to kill you and your loved ones, along with thousands of others, are hard at work figuring ways to do so, do not mind dying themselves, and, if not opposed with the utmost force, will bring the modern world to its knees in an orgy of blood and destruction.

So what's new?

Many terrible plots, targeting both Europe and America (and Asia), have been prevented by using information obtained by intensive interrogation techniques performed on the rats in Guantanamo and elsewhere.

Would you rather have thousands of civilians die than subject some terrorist rat to torture?

So, following your logic, first of all, how many lives must be at stake in order to justify torture; 1, 10, 100...millions? Next, who says who does it, to whom, and when? Do we do this to anyone who might have information or do we have to be reasonably sure? How do we determine sufficient cause? If we turn out to be wrong and torture an innocent person, do we give him a free balloon? And why not let the police do this? If for example we have a bomber who has hidden a bomb, shouldn't he be tortured for an answer? And if we're going to allow this, why not just do it in the courts of law? If for example we can torture a serial killer into confessing, wouldn't the potential for lives saved be worth it? Or if this only applies to non-citizens, does it apply to all races and countries, or just people from certain countries or groups? Finally, how much torture is okay? Can we torture people to death, or to the point of permanent physical damage, or just until they scream to a certain volume? If we don't get results, when do we stop? Does this go on for days, or weeks, or years? And what do we do with the people who are now a danger to society as a result of all of this; say for example the torturers? Should we just kill them when we're done, or should we wait until they turn on the neighbor's kids?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

U.S. Military Law

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C > § 2340
As used in this chapter—
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) “United States” includes all areas under the jurisdiction of the United States including any of the places described in sections 5 and 7 of this title and section 46501 (2) of title 49.

...TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C > § 2340A
§ 2340A. Torture
Release date: 2005-08-03
(a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.
(c) Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_113C.html

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Lawfulness of Interrogation Techniques under the Geneva Conventions

Prisoners of War
The ill-treatment of prisoners of war, even for the purpose of eliciting information deemed vital to self-defense, has long been considered a violation of the law of war, albeit one that is frequently honored in the breach.4 The practice was understood to be banned prior to the American Civil War. The Lieber Code,5 adopted by the Union Army to codify the law of war as it then existed, explained: “Honorable men, when captured, will abstain from giving to the enemy, information concerning their own army, and the modern law of war permits no longer the use of any violence against prisoners in order to extort the desired information or to punish them for having given false information” (Art. 80).

The Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (GPW)6 Article 17, paragraph 4 provides the general rule for interrogation of prisoners of war: No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind. This language replaced a provision in the 1929 Geneva Convention that stated “[n]o pressure shall be exerted on prisoners to obtain information regarding the situation in their armed forces or their country.”7 According to the ICRC Commentary,8 the many violations that occurred during World War II led drafters of the 1949 Convention to expand the provision to cover “information of any kind whatever,” and by “prohibiting not only ‘coercion’ but also ‘physical or mental torture.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl32567.pdf

 

[deckart]

So what's new?



So, following your logic, first of all, how many lives must be at stake in order to justify torture; 1, 10, 100...millions? Next, who says who does it, to whom, and when? Do we do this to anyone who might have information or do we have to be reasonably sure? How do we determine sufficient cause? If we turn out to be wrong and torture an innocent person, do we give him a free balloon? And why not let the police do this? If for example we have a bomber who has hidden a bomb, shouldn't he be tortured for an answer? And if we're going to allow this, why not just do it in the courts of law? If for example we can torture a serial killer into confessing, wouldn't the potential for lives saved be worth it? Or if this only applies to non-citizens, does it apply to all races and countries, or just people from certain countries or groups? Finally, how much torture is okay? Can we torture people to death, or to the point of permanent physical damage, or just until they scream to a certain volume? If we don't get results, when do we stop? Does this go on for days, or weeks, or years? And what do we do with the people who are now a danger to society as a result of all of this; say for example the torturers? Should we just kill them when we're done, or should we wait until they turn on the neighbor's kids?

Nah, we should just smile, hand them a cigarette and ask them, "So, why did you kill all those women, children and folks just going about their lives?"... and wait for logical answer. And if we don't hear one, just try them, aquit them, and let them go.

That's the way to peace in the world...



Quit whining and give us some solutions, man! People are killing innocent people just because they are living life! GET REAL. Watch some of the footage of these guys cutting off heads of unarmed civilians, non-combatants, people who want to help them! They (the combatants) don't value human life like you do. Get it through your freakin head!

I'm just amazed at how naive some you guys are here in "forum land". Grow up and look around.

 

[Anttech]

You know, if torture is ever used, it's not because someone in the pentagon or the CIA thinks it is really cool, but because, believe it or not, there are people who want to kill you and your loved ones, along with thousands of others, are hard at work figuring ways to do so, do not mind dying themselves, and, if not opposed with the utmost force, will bring the modern world to its knees in an orgy of blood and destruction.

If that's not a fascist statement, I don't know what is...

And this is coming from the same person who claims:

...snip.. to the very principles of personal freedom (and responsibility) that the US stands for.

personal freedom, but tortue is ok...

Many terrible plots, targeting both Europe and America (and Asia), have been prevented by using information obtained by intensive interrogation techniques performed on the rats in Guantanamo and elsewhere.

Your blind nationalism, and bigotry are what feeds the current US administrations authoritarian behavior... At least all is able to see a mirror between the Ruler and his followers...

I really sympathies with the Rest of the States having to put up with this Fascism, hidden inside of Nationalism... What was it that George Orwell said about Nationalism..
Ohh I remember:

Nationalism is power hunger tempered by self-deception.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm just amazed at how naive some you guys are here in "forum land". Grow up and look around.

How old are you, 18?

It is not only naive but dangerous to think that anything is different now than before. The dangers are no more real now than when the Soviet had 20,000 nuclear warheads pointed at us, or when Hitler threatened to dominate world. Do you really think that 911 was worse than Pearl Harbor? Do you think that terrorist threats are more threatening than the Japanese subs that shelled the west coast in WWII.

 

[Anttech]

How old are you, 18?

I think younger... Never heard such a load of Fascist drivel

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Anyone insisting that torture as a means of gathering intelligence is in any way profitable is admitting that such techniques are employed. Since no-one is admitting them, they cannot be shown to be profitable. If they cannot be shown to be profitable, there is no justification for using them.

And of course I'm sure anyone defending the use of torture on the basis that it may save innocent lives will grant the enemy the same courtesy - that is, should any Iraqi militant group have tortured American soldiers in an effort to obtain intelligence about, say, planned bombing campaigns that also kill thousands of innocent civilians, the pro-torture contingent is happy about this.

Or is torture only good if it serves American interests? Those that defend the use of the torture of foreign nationals do so under the belief that all non-American life is less important than American life. Dehumanising the enemy may make rationalising coalition brutality a whole lot easier, but as an argument it is not worth responding to, so fundamentally foul is its premise.

 

[pattylou]

People are killing innocent people just because they are living life!

That's right. We are. I am sure you can find some of the images of the horrors that we're reaping in Iraq, by googling appropriate terms. A real solution? ... might be to leave Iraq.

We've had a number of offensives on "insurgent strongholds" such as the attack on Fallujah last November. The idea is to "break the insurgency." Some people seem to argue that this is a sound way to go.

Look at this:




I'd also suggest that another possible solution is to try something more in line like the handling of the IRA.

 

[deckart]

I think younger... Never heard such a load of Fascist drivel

I'm 35.

Fascism
a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.

I'm not a fascist.

 

[arildno]

Get real:
Terrorism is a trivial threat to the Western world.
There have always been murderous loonys, and always will be. Normal life will go on.

Systematic deprivations of personal freedoms by power hungry polticians are in the long run a far greater threat to Western culture.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

I'm not a fascist.

No, you are not a fascist, nor is your love of torture inherently fascistic. In fact, it has more in common with theocracies. However, since your suggested alternative to torture (cigars, etc) was an unreasonable attempt to undermine a perfectly valid argument and position, you can hardly expect a reasonable response.

 

[Skyhunter]

Many terrible plots, targeting both Europe and America (and Asia), have been prevented by using information obtained by intensive interrogation techniques performed on the rats in Guantanamo and elsewhere.

Could you site three examples af the many?

 

[Skyhunter]

Nah, we should just smile, hand them a cigarette and ask them, "So, why did you kill all those women, children and folks just going about their lives?"... and wait for logical answer. And if we don't hear one, just try them, aquit them, and let them go.

That's the way to peace in the world...

Pure hyperbole.

Quit whining and give us some solutions, man! People are killing innocent people just because they are living life! GET REAL. Watch some of the footage of these guys cutting off heads of unarmed civilians, non-combatants, people who want to help them! They (the combatants) don't value human life like you do. Get it through your freakin head!

Except the guys cuting off heads are not the ones being tortured.

I'm just amazed at how naive some you guys are here in "forum land". Grow up and look around.

I am surprised at how ignorant some of you guys are to believe that the terrorists want to kill us for living. Or that the guy who stole some plywood to patch the hole that was blown into the side of his house during Shock and Awe should be tortured to obtain information he never had!

I think you might be a terrorist, so I will torture you until you admit it.

Talk about naive.

 

[Astronuc]

Many terrible plots, targeting both Europe and America (and Asia), have been prevented by using information obtained by intensive interrogation techniques performed on the rats in Guantanamo and elsewhere.

I believe that might be an exaggeration. Most people released from Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo have apparently been innocent. Some were turned in for money or retaliation.

Unfortunately, the US government does not appear to be too concerned with ensuring basic human rights, especially when it comes to non-US citizens. So the US government commits inhuman acts for which it condemns terrorists and despotic governments. Well on the other hand, apparently the Egyptian and Saudi Arabian governments also use torture, but that's apparently OK because they are allies in the war on terror.

Or perhaps they are allies in terror. It's hard to tell sometimes.

Anyway, Americans are more likely to be killed by other Americans, than by foreign terrorists. http://www.madd.org/stats/0,1056,1298,00.html And that's just traffic fatalities - between 40,000 - 48,000 per year.

And then there is homicides, which are holding steady at about 5-6 per 100,000 - http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/homtrnd.htm#contents

Hmmm. Perhaps we need to establish tight control on all Americans - curfews, national identity card, transit cards, etc.

 

[arildno]

Many terrible plots, targeting both Europe and America (and Asia), have been prevented by using information obtained by intensive interrogation techniques performed on the rats in Guantanamo and elsewhere.

Not a single plot of any serious magnitude has been uncovered by this practice that would have come to fruition if these individuals hadn't beem tortured.
Prove otherwise if you can.

 

[Skyhunter]

Hmmm. Perhaps we need to establish tight control on all Americans - curfews, national identity card, transit cards, etc.

Just give Bushco a little more time, they are working on it. See http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/patriot2draft.html

 

[deckart]

Just give Bushco a little more time, they are working on it. See http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/patriot2draft.html

BTW, thanks for the link, this is interesting. Though, I don't see anything referring to curfews, national id cards, or transit cards. Are there governments that use such cards?

 

[Astronuc]

BTW, thanks for the link, this is interesting. Though, I don't see anything referring to curfews, national id cards, or transit cards. Are there governments that use such cards?

The Soviet Union and and perhaps China have used national IDs. Citizens needed permission to travel within the countries.

I don't know the current status. Russia may not do that anymore, but the many are so poor they probably don't travel much, and perhaps China has relaxed a little. However, we need the story from people in those countries.

I am not certain about other countries.

 

[deckart]

I'm going to Shanghai in December. I'll inquire about that.

 

[ron damon]

How old are you, 18?

It is not only naive but dangerous to think that anything is different now than before. The dangers are no more real now than when the Soviet had 20,000 nuclear warheads pointed at us, or when Hitler threatened to dominate world. Do you really think that 911 was worse than Pearl Harbor? Do you think that terrorist threats are more threatening than the Japanese subs that shelled the west coast in WWII.

The Russians, with 20,000 nuclear warheads to back them up, never launched an attack on the US. Al Qaeda did, armed with only a couple of planes. Care to take a guess on what a Muslim terrorist would do with just one nuclear weapon? Can you comprehend the implications of that?

All your questions from your previous post are very valid, common-sense, ones. And no, I don't have answers for them. But I know this, that if you try to confront Muslim terrorists with the tools and methods designed to fight conventional war or crime, you'll end up in a holocaust of innocent civilians, and the world retreating into a new dark age.

The nature of the threat they represent is extreme, and thus requires extreme (and innovative) measures to counteract it.

 

[ron damon]

If that's not a fascist statement, I don't know what is...

And this is coming from the same person who claims:


personal freedom, but tortue is ok...


Your blind nationalism, and bigotry are what feeds the current US administrations authoritarian behavior... At least all is able to see a mirror between the Ruler and his followers...

I really sympathies with the Rest of the States having to put up with this Fascism, hidden inside of Nationalism... What was it that George Orwell said about Nationalism..
Ohh I remember:

Yeah, just wait until your neighbor's kid is blown to pieces while riding the bus to school. You'll understand then.

Plus, I'd recommend you answer argument with argument, instead of just throwing around meaningless adjectives.

 

[ron damon]

And of course I'm sure anyone defending the use of torture on the basis that it may save innocent lives will grant the enemy the same courtesy

... have you missed all of the beheadings? Or the suicide bombings targeting children?

I've got news for you buddy: the enemy doesn't follow any rules.

 

[ron damon]

That's right. We are. I am sure you can find some of the images of the horrors that we're reaping in Iraq.

So the US is the one sending in all of those suicide bombers? Interesting interpretation...

 

[ron damon]

Not a single plot of any serious magnitude has been uncovered by this practice that would have come to fruition if these individuals hadn't beem tortured.
Prove otherwise if you can.

I saw that in news site not long ago, and I think the statement was made by an European, maybe Blair himself. I *hate* search engines (since I can never find what I'm looking for ), so you go ahead and try to dig that info up.

I didn't invent it. Trust me.

 

[Burnsys]

Anyway, Americans are more likely to be killed by other Americans, than by foreign terrorists. http://www.madd.org/stats/0,1056,1298,00.html And that's just traffic fatalities - between 40,000 - 48,000 per year.

And then there is homicides, which are holding steady at about 5-6 per 100,000 - http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/homtrnd.htm#contents

Hmmm. Perhaps we need to establish tight control on all Americans - curfews, national identity card, transit cards, etc.

And torture also? yo never know when your neighbor is going to kill you! Torture all neighbors they mabye traying to kill you becouse you live!

 

[Anttech]

Plus, I'd recommend you answer argument with argument, instead of just throwing around meaningless adjectives

how does it go.. oh yeh pot calls the kettle black...


You didnt come here with an argument you came here stating nonsense

Yeah, just wait until your neighbor's kid is blown to pieces while riding the bus to school. You'll understand then.

Is that a threat? Maybe he knows something we don't know... Anyone got some equiptment of torture so we can extract information from him

 

[TRCSF]

So the US is the one sending in all of those suicide bombers? Interesting interpretation...

Naw.

The U.S. is using homicide bombers.

 

[Anttech]

All your questions from your previous post are very valid, common-sense, ones. And no, I don't have answers for them. But I know this, that if you try to confront Muslim terrorists with the tools and methods designed to fight conventional war or crime, you'll end up in a holocaust of innocent civilians, and the world retreating into a new dark age.

Is there an end to this moronic slander...

 

[TRCSF]

70% to 90% of Iraqi prisoners arrested by mistake.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0511-04.htm

So basically, we're torturing people who never did anything. Then we go and arrest people that they name under torture, who also never did anything, then we torture them.

Anonymous informants. Midnight raids. Torture.

That's the sort of thing we used to hate the communists for doing.

 

[pattylou]

Yeah, just wait until your neighbor's kid is blown to pieces while riding the bus to school. You'll understand then.

Has this happened to you?

Ron, I have another question for you.

Do you recognize that you are using a fear-based argument?

Do you see any problems with that approach?

(Guess that's two more questions, three in all.)

 

[pattylou]

So the US is the one sending in all of those suicide bombers? Interesting interpretation...

Do you understand the connections between our invasion of iraq and the presence of the insurgency in Iraq?

I'd appreciate an answer to this, as well as the questions in my immediately preceding post. Here, a "yes" or "no" is sufficient, and preferred to vague responses about "novel methods of fighting" or something equally hand-wavy.

 

[ron damon]

Has this happened to you?

Ron, I have another question for you.

Do you recognize that you are using a fear-based argument?

Do you see any problems with that approach?

(Guess that's two more questions, three in all.)

Well, for most of my life I've experienced living under a terrorist regime (Leftist terrorists in my case), and no, I wouldn't recommend it.

If sometimes you make use of a fear-based approach, it's because you have to feel it in order to realize what it means.

 

[TRCSF]

Well, for most of my life I've experienced living under a terrorist regime (Leftist terrorists in my case), and no, I wouldn't recommend it.

If sometimes you make use of a fear-based approach, it's because you have to feel it in order to realize what it means.

And where was this?

 

[ron damon]

Do you understand the connections between our invasion of iraq and the presence of the insurgency in Iraq?

I'd appreciate an answer to this, as well as the questions in my immediately preceding post. Here, a "yes" or "no" is sufficient, and preferred to vague responses about "novel methods of fighting" or something equally hand-wavy.

*~.. yes ..~*

 

[Anttech]

If sometimes you make use of a fear-based approach, it's because you have to feel it in order to realize what it means.

Could that argument be used with disillusionment also, you have to 'feel' the hallucinations in order to relies what it means?

 

[pattylou]

Well, for most of my life I've experienced living under a terrorist regime (Leftist terrorists in my case), and no, I wouldn't recommend it.

If sometimes you make use of a fear-based approach, it's because you have to feel it in order to realize what it means.

I *do* know what it means to watch my kid die. I haven't found fear-based approaches to be very effective in my efforts to help others avoid this sort of situation. Instead, I have found that reaching for mutual compassion has been more effective.

So, leftist terrorists blew up your neighbor's kid? I'm still not clear on this. Can you give an answer? Thank you!

(It's possible you have a very unique perspective, frmo living in a violent coutry rocked by bomb blasts and the like. Such a perspective is valuable, and I think most of us are assuming you're American, and have lived here your whole life. Hence, my request for clarification.)

 

[ron damon]

I *do* know what it means to watch my kid die. I haven't found fear-based approaches to be very effective in my efforts to help others avoid this sort of situation. Instead, I have found that reaching for mutual compassion has been more effective.

So, leftist terrorists blew up your neighbor's kid? I'm still not clear on this. Can you give an answer? Thank you!

(It's possible you have a very unique perspective, frmo living in a violent coutry rocked by bomb blasts and the like. Such a perspective is valuable, and I think most of us are assuming you're American, and have lived here your whole life. Hence, my request for clarification.)

Look, I'd rather we don't go into the personal level. Suffice it to say that, even though I haven't been directly hit (thank god), I've seen and known of enough bestiality, barbarity and sheer inhumanity committed by Left-wing terrorists to be scarred for life. I know what evil is, and thus shiver at the thought of slacking up and retreating from a battle that is beyond our choosing. I don't think anyone who opposes the Bush administration's war policy really comprehends what the alternative entails...

 

[TRCSF]

Look, I'd rather we don't go into the personal level. Suffice it to say that, even though I haven't been directly hit (thank god), I've seen and known of enough bestiality, barbarity and sheer inhumanity committed by Left-wing terrorists to be scarred for life. I know what evil is, and thus shiver at the thought of slacking up and retreating from a battle that is beyond our choosing. I don't think anyone who opposes the Bush administration's war policy really comprehends what the alternative entails...

left-wing terrrorists committing bestiality?

My goodness.

That sounds worse that the time my great aunt was run over by green fundamentalist gorillas.

Yes, gorillas.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The Russians, with 20,000 nuclear warheads to back them up, never launched an attack on the US. Al Qaeda did, armed with only a couple of planes. Care to take a guess on what a Muslim terrorist would do with just one nuclear weapon? Can you comprehend the implications of that?

Believe me, I understand the threat. Also, as is China today, the Russians were more of a threat than Al Qaeda could ever be. I grew up expecting the world to end in one big mushroom cloud. To lose a city is chicken feed by comparison. And just because it didn't happen, the threat was in fact greater than that of any terrorist, and we knew it. We all knew that the world might end at any moment and all because of them evil Ruskies. But we still didn't legalize torture in order to solve the problem.

All your questions from your previous post are very valid, common-sense, ones. And no, I don't have answers for them. But I know this, that if you try to confront Muslim terrorists with the tools and methods designed to fight conventional war or crime, you'll end up in a holocaust of innocent civilians, and the world retreating into a new dark age.
The nature of the threat they represent is extreme, and thus requires extreme (and innovative) measures to counteract it.

This has been true in any war, and I understand your fear and concern, but nothing in this sense has changed since the rules of the Geneva Convention were written. Every war puts homes, families, and even entire cultures at risk. However, to allow base instincts to dominate our humanity is certain doom for all of us, and it would certainly represent an end to the American dream. To accept torture is in effect a surrender; a surrender of everything we believe as right and just, and what this country tries to be. Also, consider that at first the terrorist just wanted us out of the Middle East; this since they kept watching US built planes drop US built bombs on their land and people. But now we have given them many more reasons to hate us. And tactics such as those that you support would only help to guarantee yet another generation of terrorist will be made ready to die fighting the great Satan; and in that event, for good reason. At that point, I too would consider the US the bad guy; in fact I already do under this illegal administration.

Do you understand what I'm saying? Years ago you would have been hard pressed to find anyone more patriotic than me, but Bush and his criminal court are making enemies of American citizens. How far do you think this will get the US? If you want the terrorists to win, that's the way to do it.