What? Stop breathing?

You have no idea why they hate us, do you?

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

They want us totally and completely out of the Arabian Peninsula, they want Israel gone, they want all of their land back surrounding the Mediterranean -- including Spain, is that a good enough start? Please tell me more.

And why is this a bad thing? If we stopped meddling in the affairs of other sovereign nations except at their explicit request, terrorists wouldn't want to attack us, would they??

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

You're naive if you think that anything we do, at this point, will stop them from hating us. All we can do is stop fanning the flames. Demagogues and extremists have found a villain and no matter what, will always demonize the US and other countries because it helps them cement their power.

It won't stop them now, it won't stop them three generations from now, but eventually, yes, it will stop.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

Through what? Magic?

how long do you think their rhetoric will stand up to basic human logic without evidence or action on our part to lend even a small bit of credibility to it?

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

They are not animals.

You're talking about people living in some of the poorest, most violent areas of the world. Somehow, I don't see the vast majority bettering themselves with tons of research on teh interwebs.

It's worked good enough for them for nearly three centuries. Why the shit would they just have a change of heart?

Woops. Three millennium

yeah, they were just killing each other and repressing their women. Oh wait, they still do that.

Hmmm.

The middle east operated just fine until europeans got involved, last time I checked.

Sure, there were periods of war, but no society is clean on that.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

the only thing that unifies them is their hatred of Israel and by proxy us.

You mean the part where they were just calling each other the bad guys and terrorizing each other for not believing their version of Allah had a club foot? Europe just gave them a white devil that everybody could hate equally while still hating each other.

Human logic at work. You want that solution to work? Figure out a way to stop all people from killing each other because their imaginary friend told them to.

give it another couple hundred years of evolution and education, and I think we'll be good on that.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

We could call ourselves the Federation, and wear colored jumpsuits all over the place!

Pretty much. It is not like Christians weren't killing each other a few hundred years ago...

And I should learn how to quote, that was in agreement with Van.

Are you suggesting that since Christians did it a few hundred years ago we should just suck it up and let them kill us now?

Did Hitler need our involvement to start WWII? It is not hard to make people believe rhetoric when religion is involved. Check out how many people believe the holocaust was a fabrication because religeous leaders have preached it. Vanamar is painting us as the bad guy, which is common in terrorist type campaigns. Be so evil that eventually people will blame the victim for instigating the evil. That is their goal, to have the civilized world turn against itself and blame each other.

The only reason YOU are alive right now, right this very second, is that they haven't figured out how to kill you yet. Not your neighbor, not just random people in the USA, but YOU. They want every single one of us dead.

If there was a magic 8 ball that could produce a list of all the people that would be dead right now if this happened, if it could personalize each one of those people and give you a story about them and their families...then would it still be a gold nugget worth discarding? If you and your family were on that list, would it still be a lucky coincedence that shouldn't be considered a victory? Would we be better off with 1 fewer terrorist waterboarded and 10000 more americans dead?

I do understand things can go too far and there needs to be rules that are followed. I am not in favor of things like the Japanese camps during WW2, that was a horrible affront to personal liberties. I don't have the time or inclination to describe exactly how I would draw the line between them, so I'll just stay with the blatantly easy scenerio of a terrorist caught in the act or convicted of plotting terror. That is who I want to use any means needed to extract information from.

Eh, he ain't the only one. I've met very, very few people who would describe themselves as Christian that didn't turn out to be raging hypocrites. It's the reason I left the faith I grew up with: I couldn't stand the idea of being one of those hypocrites, and I had no real desire to even try to follow most of the basic precepts of Christianity.

You cannot profess to ascribe to a set of religious beliefs and then make no effort to stick to them.

_________________

I didn't realize I suggested anything!

I was just agreeing with Van's comments about it actually not being that impossible for the Muslim vs. Muslim conflicts to fix themselves out with time. Heh.

jesus waterboarded doubting thomas till he didnt doubt no more

_________________

You know what fine, no waterboarding, no other extreme forms of interrogation, let's throw it all out.

Now we stop taking prisoners, just start killing them. Then we won't have to worry about prosecuting terrorists.

And I don't know what Christianity you want to portray, but when battles were fought, battles were won. Love thy neighbor, be a good person, and crush your enemies. You don't get peace by half assing and fucking around, you get peace by kicking the shit out of them until they stop fighting back.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

I'm more comfortable with the take no prisoner's policy than I am with the "capture them and torture them" -- there's a difference between war and inhumanity.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

It's not done humanely because by definition it's not a humane act. As an aside, as a SERE/PoW grad myself I'd probably put sleep dep in the box at the top my list of "enhanced interrogation" and it's most definitely torture, along with waterboarding.



What are they, the fucking Romulans? The EXTREMISTS want us dead, dummy, not the entire region. Those who aren't fanatics want us dead because we round them up en masse, torture them for the info, and if we're lucky get 1 shred of useful information for each 500 we process and then bomb the shit out of their neighborhoods to gank the one guy with an RPG who likely wouldn't have the resources to bother us to start with if weren't there. The OMGTHEY'RECOMINGTOKILLUS argument is tired and WRONG.

9/11 was a tragedy, but in the grand scale of things, it was a very minor event. I don't want to trivialize those deaths, but stop regurgitating the fear mongering. I worked Intel for years before it became overly politicized (both NSA and field) so I'm speaking from experience, not from a fear-mongering check list.

In closing, please shut the fuck up already. You're more likely to die skydiving while strapped to a toilet taking a shit than you are from a terrorist attack. Are those odds REALLY worth bombing the fuck out of everyone? Tactical strikes on training camps in Pakistan? No issues there, make it so. Torturing half of a Fallujah to find a cache of weapons hidden by civilians scared shitless of both sides? Not so much.

Terrorist, quick Randy...get the portable waterboarding kit!

_________________

Ellesar wrote (replying to me):


I previously wrote:


I don't know how else to say I don't condone torturing the general populace. I am being very specific to actual terrorists, or the EXTREMISTS as you put it. Please read what I wrote again and see if you see the disconnect.

Ellesar wrote:


I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you really don't mean to trivialize the loss of so many civillian lives. It is not fear mongering to be concerned about something on an even larger scale than 9/11. The technology exists to do far worse, and the motivation is obviously there. Dirty bombs or a massive biological attack are possibilities that should be taken seriously. That doesn't mean we need to live in a shell and never go to a stadium again (how attractive of a traget is a 60,000 seat stadium?), but it also doesn't mean we need to say such things could never happen and not do our best to avert such disasters.

Ellesar wrote:


Again, I think you may be reading someone elses posts and replying to me? I have not discussed bombing at all. I have only talked about waterboarding convicted terrorists. I don't see the connection or the leap of logic. I would not (and have not) endorse the example you gave of torturing civillians to find a weapons cache.

As for the low odds of dieing to a terrorist attack, I would say the odds of it are much higher today than 10 years ago, and I would not like to see that trend continue. There are also very low odds of getting struck by lightning, but that doesn't mean I'm going to play golf in a thunderstorm.

You realize the people we've been waterboarding haven't been convicted of anything, don't you?

_________________

ok i need some water and a board

_________________

You will soon see

I can see it now, a conference with all the chief interrogation leaders from all over the world are having a conference. China, Israel, Iraq, Syria, Russia, North Korea, Germany, and a host of others are greeting the US representative to the meeting.

Group: Hey! Welcome to the club (gives US secret handshake and membership kit)

US: great thanks

Syria: so tell us your techniques

US: Sure, they are so horrible I know you will love them. First we let them have their religious artifacts and let them adhere to their prayer schedule and meet all their dietary needs.

Group: (slowly) o k

US: then when we have one that we want information from we keep him away for a couple days.

Group: (waiting for an answer) OK, what else?

US: oh this is where it gets really tough, on the select one or two hostiles we will strap them to a table and drip water on them! It makes them think they are drowning but does no physical damage to them! <snort> isn't that is best!

Group: Yeah, you are one tough guy (running away quickly)

China (to US): uh, can we have the packet back, and forget the handshake.

Group (to each other): man we thought that guy was a tough interrogator, boy were we wrong.

hur hur hur hur hur

Ok, and yet any information gained will be mostly useless after the process to convict has been followed. I got your point, and it changes absolutely nothing.



You don't need to give me the benefit of the doubt because it's a quantifiable fact. More people die to drunk driving than die to terrorists. Put this into perspective please. It's VERY much fear mongering that the terrorists are going to get you. I'm getting very tired of hearing about dirty bombs and "massive" biological attack. The logistics involved here are pretty insane. Not to say making a bomb isn't easy. McVeigh proved that an Avis rental + fertilizer + trigger = much destruction. But a dirty bomb is another matter. Radioactive material isn't uncommon, but transporting it is an entirely different matter. And we saw in Japan the effects of a biological attack, but in a confined space, using sarin (albeit impure sarin). Once again, you see logistics come into play. In this case, extremely limited shelf-life, deployment method, etc.

I'm not saying the world can't be a scary place full of dangers. But terrorism, for your average citizen, isn't even in your top 50. I'm not saying we shouldn't be doing anything about it. I'm saying we're not so desperate as to be forced to compromise our entire system of belief in order to counter it. Not even remotely close.



And this is the problem, because we ARE torturing civilians. Field interrogations are very common, especially during joint engagements with foreign governments who don't have the restrictions we do (or did ). You missed the point because I'm not telling you that you're saying we should be bombing them. I'm telling you that's the reason their less fanatical want to bomb us. See the connection now? If we allow torture of ANYONE, I don't care how evil, do you think it will be limited to just those people? The government does nothing a limited fashion with near limitless authority. There's no room for middle ground here chief. We either do it, or we don't do it all.



Interesting analogy. Maybe we should stop contributing to the thunderstorm in the first place. We might see less lightning.

The reporter in the video (the chick) is terrible.

To expand on that analogy, are you going to torture your local meterologist so he'll tell you when the next thunderstorm is?

Clever, but the point of the analogy is that you don't ignore a risk just because it has a low chance of occuring. You can't gamble with what you can't afford to lose, and this country cannot afford another 9/11 (or worse).

I once lost a girlfriend to a TV meterologist. Can we use him?

People ignore risk all the time. You drive in a car? You walk down a city street? You fly in an airplane? You're taking (and presumably, ignoring) risk.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

What Van said.

Also:



We can't? Really? What will happen if another building falls down?

Way to fall right into the fearmongering trap, sir. The US isn't going to suddenly collapse on itself.

You want to label prudence as fear mongering just to make it sounds absurd and right wing fanatical. I guess since we all drive cars we shouldn't bother even having a national defense...someone call the President, it's time to disband the armed forces since we take risks every day anyway. That logic flows nicely. I don't think I really need to explain the difference in preventative measures versus terrorist attacks and driving a car. Either way I lose, case 1, you already understand it and are just exaggerating to make a point, or case 2, you really don't understand it and I might as well be talking to a brick wall.

Get back to the interesting discussion, how far is it appropriate to go in order to achieve this goal. There have been some interesting points:

Elessar wrote:


Tyral wrote:


I find those two points to be the best counter arguments, as a government with power and no checks is a dangerous entity and this does look like something that would be abused (and evidently already is). I then say how do we enforce a system that allows due process and limits techniques such as water boarding to convicted terrorists? That would be the solution I would like to see. I would even be open to allowing representatives of the UN to sit as the jury for such trials. It is possible that the time frame to do this would make the information garnered less useful, but in this case, any beneficial knowledge is worth the act if it stays within these boundaries imo.

People ignore risk, but when the event occurs they look for someone to blame and want them bbq. The methods aren't pleasant, but they do yield results. After the lambasting the intel agencies received after 9/11 I'm not at all surprised they pulled everything they could out of their toolbox to avoid another incident.

No, I label it as fearmongering because you use statements like, "We cannot afford another 9/11." as if the nation is on the verge of total collapse at the hands of these barbarians.

I say we cannot afford it because every life is precious and it is this government’s job to do everything in its power to protect those lives. I don't mean the country will collapse or that it will in any way inconvenience YOU, but all the dead people might not be so keen on it.

I saw a great short story years ago, I think it was Tales from the Darkside, but I’m not 100% sure. The quick version is a man is poor and complaining that he needs some luck in his life to make it big. He wants some money. A stranger knocks at his door and gives him a box with the following instructions. If you open this box, you will be granted wealth beyond your wildest dreams, but someone will die. The man immediately thinks he is on to the stranger, and asks who will die, thinking it will either be himself or a loved one. The stranger assures him the person who will die will be someone he does not know, is not related to and has never interacted with. The man ponders this for several weeks, worrying about the burden of taking someone’s life just to make his own easier. Eventually he gives in and opens the box. Immediately he receives word that he is inheriting a large fortune and quickly is rolling in money. His life is fantastic and he quickly forgets the cost of his joy. Some time later, the stranger arrives and retrieves the box. The man thanks the stranger profusely for his good fortune and asks him what he is going to do with the box now. The stranger replies “I will give it to someone who needs good fortune. That person will not know you, is not related to you and has never interacted with you.” It was eerie to watch, and I think the lesson is still served today…it is much too easy to cast aside the safety of others when you don’t think it will ever directly affect you. If I had that magic 8 ball I described earlier and it said the next terror attack on US soil would only kill 5 people, not 5,000, but all 5 of those people would be you and your immediate family, I think there would be a very different outlook on “acceptable losses” and fear mongering. The difference between us is I care about those 5 lives even though I don’t know who they will be, and I certainly care about 5,000+, so no, I still hold that we cannot afford that as a country.

Damn it, you got me to explain what didn't need to be explained anyway. I lose.

I don't think you really mean that. Taken to the "everything in its power" extreme, you're talking about a police state, for lack of a better description.

Bingo.

I mean it exactly as it is stated. A police state is not within it's granted power. It should utilize everything that is within it's boundries though, and the job of the people is to set those boundries. That is the crux of the discussion, what should those boundries be.

That's not exactly true. Using that argument as a basis for defending torture undermines everything you hope to attain.

Yes, in February 2002, arrests were made that prevented an attack on LA from moving forward.

Yes, after waterboarding, KSM gave the CIA information about the LA attack.

What's missing -- and is absolutely vital -- is the fact that KSM wasn't arrested until 2003. Any information he gave about that LA attack was useless, because the plan had already crumbled.

If that incident is the basis of your argument, you're saying nothing about prevention, and if anything, you're making the case that people who are being tortured are more likely to give up garbage and waste the time of our intelligence community who could be focused on looking for future attacks, not uncovering unnecessary information about the past.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/2 ... 90869.html



Ahahaha PUOSU

_________________

Also, Christopher Hitchens took the challenge himself awhile back...here's his results. How long do you think he lasted (before watching the video...guess).

_________________

And yet, no matter how much that sucks, they know those guys really don't want to kill him. He knows it will end.

The only torture in that video is what sounds like Enya playing in the background.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feat ... hens200808

I STRONGLY recommend reading his write up about it, both pages. It's excellent and addresses many points raised on this issue.

_________________

It is a trick. You are tricking the subconscious into thinking that you are about to die. That triggers your subconscious's fight or flight response. The interrogators controlling the situation don't give you the ability to fight back so your only options are to consciously endure your subconscious freaking out (which would be extremely difficult even with training) or flight through giving the interrogators what they want. Of course it is unpleasant as hell to think you are about to die, that's the trick you aren't. It might be the most unpleasant form of interrogation short of real torture but it is not torture.

Torture is causing physically damage to someone to scare them into cooperating to avoid more physical damage. Waterboarding is effective because it is scarier then physical damage without causing any permanent damage.

We train our own military with it. I would equate it to police academies spraying officers with mace before they are allowed to use it in the field. Unpleasant but since it wont cause them any permanent harm and they will get tagged with it just about everytime someone sprays it better for them to be used to it. We don't make new police officers get shot while wearing a bullet proof vest before they are allowed to use a gun because that would actually be dangerous and though it might happen in the field it wouldn't be worth the risk.

You can't just throw a civilian into a situation they are in no way prepared for and use it as evidence. A civilian by their very nature wouldn't be a candidate for this type of interrogation because they would crack to much lesser forms of interrogation before this came up. That is why it is saved for people that might have very valuable information and might be trained to endure lesser forms of interrogation.


http://cajunhuguenot1.blogspot.com/2006 ... nd_06.html

I think that this thread should be sticked because it has some of the most ignorant and stupid generalizations I think I've ever seen on this board.

The total lack of some people to actually think for themselves is laughable. OMG my party told me to think this or that so it must be the pure truth.

"I don't care what you believe just believe in SOMETHING" (Serenity quote)

*yawns and goes to play on facebook*

_________________
"My doctor says that I have a malformed public-duty gland and a natural deficiency in moral fibre and that I am therefore excused from saving universes."

How pleasantly pedantic. Of course, pedantry only works if you're right.



Care to retract your stunning dissertation on the issue?