WAR: Powerful scenes in cinematography

[TheNoNamedOne]

I would imagine that a lot of the realism of atrocities and dilemmas of war have been caught by film makers in recent years. I wonder how much of this same stuff is repeated over and over with just the actors and backgrounds changing.

Oh, yeah, every war has it rape crimes.

YouTube - casualties of war

[swindland]

Yeah I do notice that there is always a rape scene in most of the war movies I've seen. Just the difference is actors and actress. And a lot of war movies have the same plot and scripts. Casualites of war is one of my favorite Michael J. Fox movies out there.

[socalheart]

I have difficulty watching war movies about Vietnam. I saw Platoon, Apocalypse Now (which isn't technically a war movie I guess) and Casualties of War. I always liked Fox, but that movie made me sick. I stopped watching them at that point. I have little problem with other war movies though. I especially enjoy WWII, Roman and Civil War era movies.

[Bones]

Yeah, there were a lot of movies dedicated to the Vietnam war back in the 70's & 80's. Only one movie was shot while the war actually took place. Name that movie, and the star.:cool:

NBTP

[socalheart]

the green berets with john wayne. never actually saw that whole thing, but saw parts of it many times.

[Bones]

I knew this one was too easy.:D

Unless you're older than you look.

NBTP

[TheLastDon]

That's what that "google thing" is for NBTP.:)

[socalheart]

heh. i'm a john wayne fan as my father before me. i also like war movies, even though i can't watch all the vn ones.
i also like george takei. he's in star trek, you know. :D

[socalheart]

That's what that "google thing" is for NBTP.:)

I did NOT Google it :mad: thank you very much. :p

[TheLastDon]

Sorry socal, I wasn't messing with you, I was messing with NBTP.:p:p:p

[TheLastDon]

heh. i'm a john wayne fan as my father before me. i also like war movies, even though i can't watch all the vn ones.
i also like george takei. he's in star trek, you know. :D

George is also in Heros. :)

[socalheart]

no worries. i don't apologise for being a geek. ;)

[Bones]

Heh, messing with me. You??? With the parking Problem?

NBTP

[TheLastDon]

I know I don't know how to park but what's that go to do with google.:cool:

[TheNoNamedOne]

"Kill the bitch!"

Translation: Get rid of the evidence of our war crime.

Still being played out today in Iraq? Just different faces and different names in a different time.

Another powerful scene of war cinematography from "Casualties of War."

YouTube - Casualties of War

[Bones]

As posted by TP:

"Kill the bitch!"

Translation: Get rid of the evidence of our war crime.

Still being played out today in Iraq? Just different faces and different names in a different time.

Another powerful scene of war cinematography from "Casualties of War."

Need to rely on Hollywood these days to get your point across?:thumbdown:

NBTP

[TheNoNamedOne]

Here is the famous scene from Platoon of another war crime depicted rather realistically, showing frustration, fear, and murder on the part of soldiers:

YouTube - Village Scene From The Movie "Platoon"

[Tony Stacks]

I think the whole concept of war crimes is stupid. How can you even have rules on something like war? The geneve convention has never made sense to me.

[Bones]

As posted by Tony Stacks:

I think the whole concept of war crimes is stupid. How can you even have rules on something like war? The geneve convention has never made sense to me.

So, going by your line of reasoning, you probably think that the two Marines that were taken into custody, should be set free?:rolleyes:

Just because you happen to wear a uniform, does not mean that you are above the law.

NBTP

[TheNoNamedOne]

I think the whole concept of war crimes is stupid. How can you even have rules on something like war? The geneve convention has never made sense to me.

I think the GC made sense to many U.S. prisoners of war in WW2 in the European theater.

IN addition, soldiers who have found themselves on the battlefield with an enemy who shared ideas about limits in behaviour that are not to be crossed have benefited as well. Sure, those limits are not shared uniformily and not perfectly applied, but that they exist and offer as an ideal to sort of aim for keeps war from being even more barbaric than it is at any given point in time -- more so since the mid 20th century.

Failure to perfectly apply laws of war or the GC at all times should be no reason to not keep striving to respect them.

[Tony Stacks]

I think the GC made sense to many U.S. prisoners of war in WW2 in the European theater.

IN addition, soldiers who have found themselves on the battlefield with an enemy who shared ideas about limits in behaviour that are not to be crossed have benefited as well. Sure, those limits are not shared uniformily and not perfectly applied, but that they exist and offer as an ideal to sort of aim for keeps war from being even more barbaric than it is at any given point in time -- more so since the mid 20th century.

Failure to perfectly apply laws of war or the GC at all times should be no reason to not keep striving to respect them.


You are actually right. I am speaking about this war on terror. These terrorists are not like any other enemy, they are not a military so it's kind of hard to follow rules that your enemy does'nt. I guess I should have elaborated, I apologize for the confusion.

[Tony Stacks]

As posted by Tony Stacks:



So, going by your line of reasoning, you probably think that the two Marines that were taken into custody, should be set free?:rolleyes:

Just because you happen to wear a uniform, does not mean that you are above the law.

NBTP


No and i never said that. I think those 2 Marines should be in jail for a long time and upon their release face court-martial.

I was actually referring to the war on terrorism. I apologize for not explaining myself better.

[Crazysix]

I think the whole concept of war crimes is stupid. How can you even have rules on something like war? The geneve convention has never made sense to me.
I do agree, in a time when countires did follow the convention, it was good to go, but these days it seems we are the only ones that follow it. A few innocent(or not so much)people get killed in a combat zone, we cruxifiy our troops....they behead a innocent and they are heros throught the muslim world.....just dont make sense to me

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

I do agree, in a time when countires did follow the convention, it was good to go, but these days it seems we are the only ones that follow it...
Exsqueeze me?! Waterboarding anyone? And...

http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrime.htm
http://www.counterpunch.org/stephens05132005.html
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3450.htm
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=3&art_id=qw1023894901416B265&set_id=1
http://www.mediamonitors.net/gowans22.html

Not even scratching the surface:thumbdown:

[Crazysix]

Im sorry, I dont think anyone has been water boarded on this forum if , they have they have they will know the word SERE. Im am so sick of this, we get information the best way we can, be it waterboarding, sleep deprivation, or hunger, but at the end of the day these worthless bastards are still alive. I am a firm believer in the fact that he US public should not be privy to everything the govt does to protect them especially when comes to foreign nationals, threatening the republic. I know that is a scary thought, but think, the war on terrorism would damn near be over, with a lot less bad people in the world. You want my vote for waterboarding the wide gambit it encompasses, you got it. I dont see the Muslim world up in arms about a few tortured or beheaded foriegners.

[Crazysix]

I only a few of the links, you posted.....WHAT KINDA OF HIPPIE BULLSHIT do you believe in. War Crimes???? OMG
So 9/11 was an oopsie, my bad people. Funny the people that were responsible were not tried as war criminals, as they should have been......USS Cole bombing, another my bad by your local terrorist network, OH yeah I forgot Beruit, terrorist pwned us again. Jesus man, these people died becuase one nation or a group that represents a multitude of nations, refuses to obide by the Geneva Convention, or are to dirt dumb to read it. How can you say the highway of death was a war crime?????? Those asses were in a freefire zone, without any signs of surrender as their comrads did. They were targets. So speak to me about war crimes, when YOU go out and catch bin Laden, or leaders of HAMAS, Abu Saayf or restore order in Somalia, or even better when those responsible for the thousands of deaths after hostilies ended in Iraq, are sat down before the international war tribuneral or military court, w/o representation, cause of the Americans, Brits, Aussies, French,and Canucks, that died didnt have the right to representation. Then we can talk about war crimes!!!!!

What the hell we have a few kilo tonnes of nuclear rusting away You want war crimes, **** it, lets send a few to bagdad and lets glass Iran.......then call me a War criminal

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

...Jesus man, these people died becuase one nation or a group that represents a multitude of nations, refuses to obide by the Geneva Convention, or are to dirt dumb to read it...
Speaking of dirt dumb, how's your free time reading coming along?


Tainted by Torture

How evidence obtained through coercion is undermining the legal war on terrorism.

By Phillip Carter


There are plenty of good reasons to avoid using torture in interrogations. It's an immoral and barbaric practice condemned by most Western nations and theological traditions, for starters. International human rights law (http://www.hri.ca/uninfo/treaties/39.shtml) and U.S. criminal law (http://www.slate.com/id/2100460/) both outlaw it. And as if that's not enough, there is serious doubt as to whether torture even produces reliable intelligence, as Mark Bowden explains (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/10/bowden.htm) in the October 2003 issue of the Atlantic Monthly.

Add this additional reason to the list: Any information gained through torture will almost certainly be excluded from court in any criminal prosecution of the tortured defendant. And, to make matters worse for federal prosecutors, the use of torture to obtain statements may make those statements (and any evidence gathered as a result of those statements) inadmissible in the trials of other defendants as well. Thus, the net effect of torture is to undermine the entire federal law enforcement effort to put terrorists behind bars. With each alleged terrorist we torture, we most likely preclude the possibility of a criminal trial for him, and for any of the confederates he may incriminate.


http://www.slate.com/id/2100543/

For a little further exploration of the topic...

Eight Lessons of Torture:
http://www.cvt.org/main.php/Advocacy/TheCampaigntoStopTorture/WhatCVTknowsaboutTorture

Eight more:
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/primetime/safe.asp

[Crazysix]

Wow you call me dumb...Jackass all you pointed out was conspiracy theorist websites......so I guess its ok if they kill and mutilate our service people as long as we adhere to an outdated law/document? Please do me a favor and join the people you wish so hard to protect. I will keep my views on point. Until then go back to your bomb shelter and avoid the fact. the GC is outdated and should not be applied to just one side. I mean if somebody came in your house raped your wife and children then burned the house down.....would you uphold the law? Or would you hunt the fecker down,and send him/her to the next life in yor own special way?

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Yes, anarchy/mob rule is the way to go. Oh wait, that's what the terrorists want...but it's so cool, cause then I don't have to read or think...wait, who would Jesus bomb?

[Crazysix]

I fully support any method used to bring these Animals to Justice.
"You sleep under the very blanket of protection that I provide then question the way I provide it........"
Col. Nathan R. Jessep..A Few Good Men

[Crazysix]

WWJB, I like that, good catch phrase. Anyway why should we not wage the total war concept in this War on Terrorism

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

So speak to me about war crimes, when YOU go out and catch bin Laden...
You C6!

El Presidente has spoken regarding Usama Bin Laden:

Bush said, “I truly am not that concerned about him (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html).”

Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes appeared on Fox to discuss his recent meeting with President Bush in the Oval Office. The key takeaway for Barnes was that “bin Laden doesn’t fit with the administration’s strategy for combating terrorism (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/696wnfcp.asp).” Barnes said that Bush told him capturing bin Laden is “not a top priority use of American resources.”

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

I fully support any method used to bring these Animals to Justice.
"You sleep under the very blanket of protection that I provide then question the way I provide it........"
Col. Nathan R. Jessep..A Few Good Men
I like movies! Whatever happened to that character in the end, the Colonel...kinda fell asleep during the flick. He walk?

[Crazysix]

off topic man, but rent it and let me know

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

I fully support any method used to bring these Animals to Justice.

Aha! Now I see why no-one seems to support AR!! If you treated animals with the respect, you'd no longer be able to justify treating other humans badly because you labeled them "animals"...

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

off topic man, but rent it and let me know
Not at all. You use a quote from a character who is discredited and convicted as a criminal to back up your position. Perhaps you missed the point of the movie, just as you're missing the point on torture now. If you really wanted the US to succeed in its current struggles, you'd be asking your leaders to stop torture asap. It's making things worse, not better. Any ineffective strategy should be out. Or maybe you really want to keep losing...

1. Torture and cruel treatment yield unreliable results.
2. There is no way to keep the exception from becoming the rule.
3. Torture and cruel treatment put U.S. troops at risk.
4. Torture and cruel treatment undermine American missions overseas.
5. Torture and cruel treatment damage intelligence collection.
6. Torture and cruel treatment make it harder to get cooperation from allies
7. When torture and cruel treatment yield misinformation, the cost of pursuing the wrong lead can be enormous.
8. When you create a "ticking time bomb" exception, every situation becomes a ticking time bomb scenario

Go back and read the linked articles. You may not be convinced, but you will be informed.

[Crazysix]

Aha! Now I see why no-one seems to support AR!! If you treated animals with the respect, you'd no longer be able to justify treating other humans badly because you labeled them "animals"...
OK I admit I do treat animals badly...I Love my steak and chicken well done slightly seered :thumbup:
Just like my terrorist:army:

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Well, just like the huge factory farms producing tonnes of juicy meat for you unrepentant gluttons, the US and its torturing ways are producing thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of new and delicious terrorists in its new factory farms abroad. Good luck with that!

[Crazysix]

Not at all. You use a quote from a character who is discredited and convicted as a criminal to back up your position. Perhaps you missed the point of the movie, just as you're missing the point on torture now. If you really wanted the US to succeed in its current struggles, you'd be asking your leaders to stop torture asap. It's making things worse, not better. Any ineffective strategy should be out. Or maybe you really want to keep losing...

1. Torture and cruel treatment yield unreliable results.
2. There is no way to keep the exception from becoming the rule.
3. Torture and cruel treatment put U.S. troops at risk.
4. Torture and cruel treatment undermine American missions overseas.
5. Torture and cruel treatment damage intelligence collection.
6. Torture and cruel treatment make it harder to get cooperation from allies
7. When torture and cruel treatment yield misinformation, the cost of pursuing the wrong lead can be enormous.
8. When you create a "ticking time bomb" exception, every situation becomes a ticking time bomb scenario

Go back and read the linked articles. You may not be convinced, but you will be informed.

NO i wouldnt ask them to stop, I would remind of the point that thy may have the clearance but not the need to know. Whatever means it takes, The US has been punked a few times or taken a weaker role in most conflicts since Vietnam. If we show them that if you grab a bull by the tail you will get the horns.
This represented in something I learned in Boot Camp.
The mission of the Marine rifle squad is to, Locate,close with and DESTROY the enemy, with fire and Manuever, and Close combat. Key word is DESTROY. Not lull into complanecy by turning our backs and letting civilians, whom, most were never scouts, much less military members, dictate what is cruel in WAR.

War is meant to be cruel, that is the nature of the beast, not nice and pleasant then it would be called a meeting.

[Crazysix]

Well, just like the huge factory farms producing tonnes of juicy meat for you unrepentant gluttons, the US and its torturing ways are producing thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of new and delicious terrorists in its new factory farms abroad. Good luck with that!
Yep you are correct, thats why those convicted of the violations should not be allowed to return to society. Or if we leveled the playing field then maybe, the blind followers would open thier eyes, if not, just like dinner time sometimes I like seconds

[TheNoNamedOne]

Aha! Now I see why no-one seems to support AR!! If you treated animals with the respect, you'd no longer be able to justify treating other humans badly because you labeled them "animals"...

This is so true! That's why in the minds of many it is important to dehumanize humans so that treating them like "animals" becomes acceptable. I mean, if they are animals (in one's mind), then there really is nothing wrong with chaining them up and turning them into beasts of burdens, or cramming them onto boxcars and shipping them out like livestock -- or just doing what you want with them i.e. torture and not feel bad for them because they are just animals.

Good point, E.

[Crazysix]

Well . buddy you have your point and I have mine......yours is kinder and gentler. Mine is ....Take your enemy to the gates of hell and give him the choice hell or me

[Crazysix]

This is so true! That's why in the minds of many it is important to dehumanize humans so that treating them like "animals" becomes acceptable. I mean, if they are animals (in one's mind), then there really is nothing wrong with chaining them up and turning them into beasts of burdens, or cramming them onto boxcars and shipping them out like livestock -- or just doing what you want with them i.e. torture and not feel bad for them because they are just animals.

Good point, E.
OMG ...who the called our amnesty international/ PETA rep???:thumbup::w00t:
seriously maybe if they started treating their own as humans...and not just beast of burden or bomb delivery systems, then maybe we wouldnt have this thread in the first place.

[Crazysix]

remember this mentality started on their home ground .....not ours

[TheNoNamedOne]

You are still assuming that torture is effective. You are still assuming that we are not creating more enemies by resorting to it when others at higher levels and think tanks are telling us that we are.

Your point seems to be premised more on anger and frustration rather than a cool and calm examination of the facts and situation.

You are also assuming that every person brought back from the areas of operations are in fact guilty, and that they may not have just been swept up in a collection of people in the area at the time. So, are you saying the torture of 20 innocent people for every 100 combatants is a good ratio to accept? Well, what do you think those 20 innocent people who were tortured are going to do when they get back out and meet with 10 members of their family and 10 friends, and those go on to tell the tale to 10 other family members and 10 other friends?

In an area where tribes, clans, loyalty and honor are so important in a country awash with weapons, I would say a good number of new enemies have been created. Or, to stop that should we just execute those 20 innocents so they can't go back to tell the tale to increase the enemy's numbers?

[Crazysix]

dead men tell no tale

[Crazysix]

So how the hell, do you suggest the info....ask them nicely, spank them on their bottom and send them on their way?

[TheNoNamedOne]

OMG ...who the called our amnesty international/ PETA rep???:thumbup::w00t:

No need to call. I'm on duty 24/7.

...seriously maybe if they started treating their own as humans...and not just beast of burden or bomb delivery systems, then maybe we wouldnt have this thread in the first place.

But they would regress it further back and say if as a world power we dealt with other countries fairly and not just blind support for those countries (Israel) and leaders that allign with us (the Shah), then they would not be throwing themselves at us as bomb delivery systems etc...

Btw, you will find suicidal sacrifice in killing the enemy on the side of the U.S., too, in her history of warfare. And those have not been derided by us.

Though, I do agree with you that there seems to be something inherent within countries that are predominantly Islamic in the Middle East/N.Africa/Stans, that an inegalitarian of treatment towards one another seems to be more the rule rather than the exception.

[Crazysix]

DK, you are pro human rights......and a Vegan......the last time you went home(US), I assume you ate fruit and veggies then......Did you ever stop to think about the people from South America that are treated like animals,living in sub human conditions and sometimes beated and killed or even died trying to getyou, your ceasar salad...hummm just food for thought...did you go on a hunger strike????? or what about the sweatshops, which are worse than anything at gitmo, so you can wear your pants to work today? did you go naked in protest????
just food or thought.

Humans not matter how hard we try will always caste ourselves,that is the way of the world. Anyone who is a terrorist is a hell of alot worse than any animal.

I support any means, that provides a safe place for my family, short of genocide.

[TheNoNamedOne]

dead men tell no tale

There you go. You've given your hand away.

Basically you have just given us a glimpse inside your personal; that you are more than willing to torture and then execute innocent people and jokingly dismiss it as if their lives were nothing more than mere things and that you believe the ends justifies the means i.e. you are no better or honorable than those you are filled with hate in fighting. I think that is one of the goals of those terrorists i.e. to turn you into them to keep the pot brewing along as briskly as possible so that your actions can keep the dominos falling and falling and falling.

You seem more like an American Taliban than a noble soldier of dignity.

[vvloc]

Anyone who is a terrorist is a hell of alot worse than any animal.

Some view the U.S. government as responsible for most acts of terrorism committed since the end of World War II. For example, Arno Mayer, Emeritus Professor of History at Princeton University, claimed that "since 1947 America has been the chief and pioneering perpetrator of 'preemptive' state terror, exclusively in the Third World and therefore widely dissembled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_Un ited_States

[Crazysix]

No need to call. I'm on duty 24/7.



But they would regress it further back and say if as a world power we dealt with other countries fairly and not just blind support for those countries (Israel) and leaders that allign with us (the Shah), then they would not be throwing themselves at us as bomb delivery systems etc...

Btw, you will find suicidal sacrifice in killing the enemy on the side of the U.S., too, in her history of warfare. And those have not been derided by us.

Though, I do agree with you that there seems to be something inherent within countries that are predominantly Islamic in the Middle East/N.Africa/Stans, that an inegalitarian of treatment towards one another seems to be more the rule rather than the exception.
This is true, but what sense does it make, when a country is trying to help you progress and and improve your level of living/standard, do you try to kill and destroy every good thing they have built and setup for you. It seems the worse enemy to terrorism is education of the masses. If a innocent people must die for the betterment of your people, then in the story of the human race. It is acceptable. Unfortunately the Masses must suffer for the ignorance of a few...this is life . Now if the Group leaders came togather and held talks with the US then, by any means necessary, is no longer acceptable and those who fail to abide by this should be dealt with on both sides.
Sounds like utopic ideaology, but then and only then will there be a measure of equal justice. But until then.......

[Crazysix]

Some view the U.S. government as responsible for most acts of terrorism committed since the end of World War II. For example, Arno Mayer, Emeritus Professor of History at Princeton University, claimed that "since 1947 America has been the chief and pioneering perpetrator of 'preemptive' state terror, exclusively in the Third World and therefore widely dissembled.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_Un ited_States
So basically what your saying is we create our own worse enemy?????? I agree, but if in many cases someone doesnt stand up for the underdog who will. Now for the record I DO NOT AGREE WITH WHY WE ARE AT WAR IN IRAQ, but I fully support our troops there and in Afghanistan and they should have the right to win with all weapons in our arsenal with only 2 exceptions nuclear and chem/bio

I just had a chance to skim through the article you linked, It brings upa term COINLIC warefare
. This can be viewed as terrorism or actually bringing the fight to them, instead of global scale, on a region level not involving large amout of troops of equipement, but train alocal army or force that can protect you assets in that region or act as your sword in cases of decisive actions. The biggest problem we had with that, was that funds would dry up or friends be forgotten. But overall that is the emphasis/ basis of military doctrine now with this we have seen a growth in the SPECOP community and will continue to see such as the entire concept of massive land/sea/Air battle slide to the way side and small unit tactics become more acceptable in an effort to cut down on civilian losses and keep conflicts regional

[Crazysix]

HA My wife just read my post, she said ....Thankgod I dont work in the UN or for President LMAO

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Yo C6! Please tell us just what the US has set up for the people of Iraq. What infrastructure, social services, and so on have been set up and delivered to the Iraqi population, before the bad men came in and destroyed the gifts as you suggest?

[Crazysix]

OK so what about schools, hospitals, quality of survival, that these animals continue to attack and destroy. we have people willing to help them and yet scared because we cannot guarentee the safety of the workers. Prime example what about all the AMCITS there to help restore everything to the people that were beheaded. Did you shed a tear for them, or do still cry for hadji in gitmo that gets question, allowed to practice his religion and gets 3 squares a day and crys he is being mistreated. You show me where one terrorist has helped the Iraqi people!

[Crazysix]

Yo C6! Please tell us just what the US has set up for the people of Iraq. What infrastructure, social services, and so on have been set up and delivered to the Iraqi population, before the bad men came in and destroyed the gifts as you suggest?

Sarcasm will get you no where you are still a ASSHOLE in my book:thumbup1:

[vvloc]

So basically what your saying is we create our own worse enemy?

No, not quite. Perhaps this excerpt states it more clearly:

"Throughout the world, on any given day, a man, woman, or child is likely to be displaced, tortured, killed, or 'disappeared' at the hands of governments or armed political groups. More often than not, the United States shares the blame." -- Amnesty International, 1996

Yesterday, Henry Kissinger was facing accusations (thank you, Christopher Hitchens) of being a war criminal. He's not alone. Here's a short list of additional recent American war criminals -- essentially the American leaders of the last decades:

Gen.Colin Powell, Secretary of State, for his leading role in the attacks on Panama, Iraq, and covering up My Lai.

George Bush, former President, for the murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, and thousands of Panamanian civilians (along with kidnapping the country's leader, a former CIA protégé).

Gen.Norman Schwarzkopf, former Commander in Chief, U.S. Central Command, for his role in attacking Iraqi civilians.

Ronald Reagan, former President, for illegal attacks on El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Grenada, and Libya.

Elliot Abrams, former Assistant Secretary of State (and back in the new Bush Administration), for overseeing much of the death and fascism in Central America. Also Casper Weinberger, Secretary of Defense; Lt. Col. Oliver North; and many others

Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State: Chile, Vietnam, East Timor, Angola, Iraq, and Cambodia.

Gerald Ford, former President, for giving approval to Indonesia for the genocide of East Timor.


And on, back through the war in Southeast Asia. "War criminal" means just that -- inflicting a level of carnage barbaric and unacceptable even in time of war. It does not even begin to touch the many regimes -- today, Israel comes to mind -- that the U.S. has supported, armed, advised, and even installed, who have inflicted horrors on their own populations.

Tuesday 9/11) was a day of complete horror in the history of the United States; and the American public as well as its leaders will demand retribution. Let's not forget, however, how we got to this day.

http://www.crescentlife.com/heal%20the%20world/america's_terrorist_roots.htm

[dk]

DK, you are ...... a Vegan......
I am? :eek::eek::eek:

[Crazysix]

well in a sense we do alot, of what has been stated, some wars/conflicts are not justified nor the acions of those involved, how ever war is war and unfortunately not only combants get killed. Now having said that some actions that were mentioned above have resulted in better world policies some havent. you do bring up some good points.
My only question is why arent the other sides in all conflicts involving the US ever mentioned. Many times they are just as bad or not worse. Like the vietnamese, cambodians, Iraqis, Afghanis the Philipinos. Crimes these and many other govtshave committed against thier own people?

[vvloc]

And perhaps this states the problem even better:

Does This Country Have The Moral Authority To Lead The World?
Stephen Gowans
Media Monitors
29 October 2001
http://www.mediamonitors.net/
It claims to be conducting a war on terrorism against a network (al-Qaeda) it helped create to fight proxy wars on its behalf (in Afghanistan and the Balkans.)

It says it must bring anthrax terrorists to justice, but has the world's largest stockpile of smallpox, anthrax, and other biological weapons. It continues to experiment with new weaponized pathogens. It refuses to agree to measures to strengthen a biological weapons treaty. And there's evidence it has used biological weapons (in the Korean War.)

It has called some its past adversaries empires, bent on world domination (the Soviet Union), but it has 200,000 soldiers permanently stationed in dozens of countries around the globe. Its global military presence expands every year, encircling one of the few countries left to challenge its hegemony -- Russia.

In one country alone (South Korea), which it has occupied for over five decades, it has 45,000 soldiers.

The country's wars are always said to be fought for some high moral purpose: to stop ethnic cleansing, to prevent tyranny, to uphold international law, to defeat communist expansion, to root out terrorism, but somehow, while this is being done, the country always seems, as John Flynn once put it, to capture its enemies' markets while blundering into their oil wells.

It's always strapped for cash when it comes to social spending, health care and Social Security, but can find billions at the drop of a hat for a new weapons program.

Its colossal military is more than two and half times larger than the militaries of the next nine largest potential adversaries combined (Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Cuba.)

Its military spending, combined with that of its allies (NATO, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Saudi Arabia), is five times greater than that of the next nine largest potential adversaries together. Yet, it says, it's always under threat.

In the last five decades, it has attacked no less than two dozen countries. In the last four years, it has bombed four countries (Afghanistan, Sudan, Yugoslavia, Iraq) one of them in two separate campaigns (Afghanistan), and one almost daily (Iraq.)

Even though the raison d'être of the major military alliance it leads (NATO) has vanished, the alliance is more robust than ever, and is expanding.

It refuses to sign a treaty banning land mines.

It refuses to sign the Kyoto Accords, limiting greenhouse gasses.

It uses cluster bombs -- bombs consisting of dozens of tiny land mine-like bomblets -- which continue to kill, usually children, well after a war is finished.

It has 30,000 tons of chemical weapons.

It has the world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons. It refuses to sign the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

It refuses to renounce the first strike use of nuclear weapons. It won't commit to refraining from using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states.

It is the only country to ever use nuclear weapons.

It says it doesn't target civilians, but, in maintaining the world's largest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, is prepared to kill civilians in countless numbers.

In one major campaign lasting over ten years (Vietnam War), it carpet bombed three countries (North Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos), killing at least three million civilians. A decade earlier, it carpet bombed North Korea so thoroughly it ran out of targets to bomb.

It issues ultimata to other countries (Yugoslavia, Afghanistan), and when the ultimata are rejected, it says the other side refused to negotiate. When the other side begs to negotiate, it's bombed.

It promotes the deception that a country can be bombed around the clock with only a few civilian casualties. It announces in advance of a bombing campaign that some civilian deaths are inevitable, and then, when they occur, say they were accidental and unintended.

It bombs civilian infrastructure -- water treatment facilities, power plants, dams, flood control systems, irrigation, water storage, pumping stations, sewage facilities, bridges, transportation facilities, petrochemical plants, fertilizer factories, auto-plants, as well as hospitals, schools, old folks homes, Red Cross buildings, and residential neighborhoods. After reducing its enemies to rubble, it imposes sanctions to hinder the rebuilding of all that was destroyed (Yugoslavia, Iraq), until a puppet regime is installed (Yugoslavia.)

It enforces one sanctions regime (Iraq) that is estimated to have contributed to the deaths of 1.5 million civilians. One of the country's leaders (Madeleine Albright) said the deaths are "worth it."

If it doesn't like another country's economic policies, it tars the leadership as tyrants and brutes, declares the country a dictatorship, and raises concern about human rights violations (Yugoslavia, Belarus) and railroads the leaders into jail (Yugoslavia) or arranges to have them overthrown in a coup (Iran, Chile, Guatemala, Yugoslavia.) Authoritarian countries whose leaders are tyrants and brutes and who routinely trample human rights are called friends and allies if they have the right economic policies (Iran, Chile, Guatemala, Philippines, El Salvador, Haiti.) Their leaders don't go to jail (Pinochet.)

It routinely intervenes in the elections of other countries, funding political parties, NGO's and media, but prohibits other countries from intervening in its own elections.

It commits war crimes unrestrainedly, free from censure and prosecution, because it controls the international body that establishes war crimes tribunals. It refuses to sign a treaty to establish a international criminal court that could prosecute war crimes free from its interference.

Its media is described as practicing "suck-up" journalism, afraid to be too critical of the country's leadership, for fear of being frozen out and refused access to "news makers." The media regards itself as duty-bound by patriotism to assist in the production and dissemination of propaganda in times of war, a now permanent condition.

The majority of its population consists of honest, humane, peace-loving people, who are poles apart from the barbarous, sociopaths who run the country. They are kept in a fog as to what's being done in their name. If they knew, they wouldn't stand for it for a moment. This, the leadership knows, and so spends liberally on public relations to keep the population pliable and in the dark.

It has the largest prison population per capita in the world.

In one of its largest states (California), it spends more on prisons than education.

The infant mortality rate in its capital is higher than that of a third world country it has blockaded economically for four decades (Cuba), and whose politics it doesn't like.

Criticism of the country's foreign policy is dealt with by assigning dismissive labels to the critics (anti-American, communists), threats of legal sanction (charges of sedition), or threats of deportation (to Cuba.) The criticisms themselves are never addressed.

The country forces the poor and wretched of the world to adopt austere economic policies that it, itself, would never adopt, for fear of economic ruin. The polices have the effect of intensifying the misery of the world's poor, while increasing the wealth of the country's business elite.

The country claims to have a free press, but only the wealthiest can own the press. Not surprisingly, the press reflects the interests of the wealthy. It's said that anyone can become leader of the country, but only those who can ingratiate themselves with the wealthiest citizens can raise the funds and backing to occupy the country's highest offices. The president, the cabinet, and most elected representatives, have either been bought by, or are members of, the country's economic elite.

The country's foreign policies have caused illimitable suffering throughout much of the world for decades. This has led to it being reviled over the greater part of the globe. Its leader (George W. Bush) can only reply, "I don't know why. We're doing such a good job

[Crazysix]

:w00t::)I am? :eek::eek::eek:

just asked? but you do see my point?

[dk]

:w00t::)

just asked? but you do see my point?
No, I just saw my name associated with being a vegan! I'll read the thread later. I assure you, I am a carnivore.

*steps out of thread*

[Tony Stacks]

"to capture its enemies' markets while blundering into their oil wells."
Really?
Bullshit! I'm so sick of people saying the war is about oil. If it was for oil then why the hell would gas prices keep going up?

Pure BS!

[vvloc]

Any comments about any of the other points the author raises, Tony?

[P_chan]

"to capture its enemies' markets while blundering into their oil wells."
Really?
Bullshit! I'm so sick of people saying the war is about oil. If it was for oil then why the hell would gas prices keep going up?

Pure BS!

Honestly, will gas prices ever go down? Even if the cost of oil dropped, would the price drop all that much?

[Crazysix]

Vvloc so do you think we should go back to isolationism, and only worry about CONUS and our territories and let the world do as it pleases, Maybe we should, Support our allies and the heck with the rest of the world?That may be the key. Bring our boys home,shut down overseas bases and focus on building ourselves up until when we are ready to come out from behind the curtain, the world will be surprised. I think if we did that, the outside world would still be jealous of us and call us criminals...........Vvloc, this was not an attack on you please dont view it as such.
While we as a country, are not perfect, we try to spread and share our benefits with all to a point. Going back to torture, sorry I still support it. Maybe a good work around is to deport all prisoners to 3rd party countries, that are allies, the dont have thier hands tied by an over sensitive public to get the INTEL for us...ya know sorta like outsourcing

[Crazysix]

No, I just saw my name associated with being a vegan! I'll read the thread later. I assure you, I am a carnivore.

*steps out of thread*

Oh OK my fellow meat eater, I mistook you for some else,my bad:w00t:

[vvloc]

Crazy6, I applaud your civility in discussing such matters. In answer to your question as to whether we should go back to isolation, I would point out that the author mentions that we have attacked 2 dozen countries in the last 50 years. Something is obviously VERY wrong with a country that proclaims to be peace-loving, yet feels the need to engage in military adventurism every 2 years.

In regards to torture, I would defer to these military and intelligence professionals:

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/64/22776

[Crazysix]

The post above*very top, seems to be written from one point of view,man points are correct, but that is what our country is, Yes we used the bomb and it saved thousands of lives as a result. Yes we have Chems, but we are in the process of destroying them. If we got rid of nukes do you honestly think countries like NK,Pakistan, India, Iran would whole hardly just give thiers up? Yes we have a large military force, but when besides military actions how many humanitarian missions have we undertook, or how many times another country gets into trouble have they asked for our help or technology. So there are 2 sides to every argument and once again to reinforce arguments this crap is used...so sad

[Crazysix]

ok guys I gotta head out will finish this later

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Sarcasm will get you no where you are still a ASSHOLE in my book

Crazy6, I applaud your civility in discussing such matters.
Yeah, C6 is a real sweet talker<3

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Reconstruction
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif
Wars, sanctions and looting had left Iraq's infrastructure in ruins before the post-conflict insurgency took hold.

Millions of dollars have been pledged and distributed to reconstruction projects across the country. But efforts have been hampered by insurgent attacks and funds diverted to meet rising security costs.

US officials say the total reconstruction bill is likely to spiral well above the $55bn estimated in 2003.

Electricity generation at best meets half of estimated demand and fell below pre-war levels at the end of 2006. Most of the country lacks effective sanitation. Iraq's Ministry of Water Resources says only 32% of the population has access to clean drinking water, and only 19% has access to a good sewage system. Aid agencies say 60% of people in Anbar and Baghdad suburbs use river water.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/post_saddam_iraq/html/1.stm


Introduction

Three years after the fall of Saddam, many Iraqis still lack basic amenities like potable water, regularly endure power outages, and have yet to fully benefit from their country's immense oil wealth. "Efforts to rebuild Iraq are failing," says Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA), a leading Democratic critic of Bush administration reconstruction efforts. "We've spent $2 billion and the situation is worse than when we arrived."...

http://www.cfr.org/publication/10971/

Infrastructure in Iraq below prewar levels
http://www.signonsandiego.com/images/black.gif

By James Glanz
NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE
February 9, 2006 WASHINGTON – Virtually every measure of the performance of Iraq's oil, electricity, water and sewerage sectors has fallen below pre-invasion levels even though $16 billion of U.S. taxpayer money already has been disbursed in the Iraq reconstruction program, several government witnesses told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060209/news_1n9rebuild.html

[Crazysix]

Yeah, C6 is a real sweet talker<3
Your just jealous that I want play nice with you:w00t:

[Crazysix]

For The Record I Made Mistake With MY Meat And Veggie Comment, Dk And Tp I Apologize, I Was Mistaken

[TheNoNamedOne]

Sarcasm will get you no where you are still a ASSHOLE in my book:thumbup1:

Please refrain from name calling such as this. This kind of name-calling is over the line and unnecessary. Thank you. -- TP

[Crazysix]

Please refrain from name calling such as this. This kind of name-calling is over the line and unnecessary. Thank you. -- TP
Not necessary but true, I will refrain.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Whoa! I stepped away for about 4 hours and this thread has just taken off. Sorry about bringing old posts up in trying to catch up.

TP, you are pro human rights......and a Vegan......the last time you went home(US), I assume you ate fruit and veggies then......Did you ever stop to think about the people from South America that are treated like animals,living in sub human conditions and sometimes beated and killed or even died trying to getyou, your ceasar salad...hummm just food for thought...did you go on a hunger strike????? or what about the sweatshops, which are worse than anything at gitmo, so you can wear your pants to work today? did you go naked in protest????
just food or thought.

All obfuscation, C6. Sure things are linked like that, but Veg*ism isn't about insuring every action one takes is the perfect end-all cutting all links one finds oneself associated to cruelty just by the fact one is a member of society. It is about doing as much as possible without forfeiting your life and still being able to function in the world.

Torture on the other hand and no holds bar warfare inherently magnifies suffering when a lot of that would be unnecessary with some restraint.

Humans not matter how hard we try will always caste ourselves,that is the way of the world. Anyone who is a terrorist is a hell of alot worse than any animal.

Well, how do you define a terrorist? Surely you are aware of perspective and that maxim, "one man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter," aren't you?

I support any means, that provides a safe place for my family, short of genocide.

Well then, it is nice to know you support the torture Japanese used on our soldiers for their end goals since they, too, were short of genocide. Perhaps you should go to some WW2 vets and tell them it was all good what the Japanese subjected them to when they fell into their hands -- after all, the Japanese were not signatories to treaties on handling POWs.

[TheNoNamedOne]

This is true, but what sense does it make, when a country is trying to help you progress and and improve your level of living/standard, do you try to kill and destroy every good thing they have built and setup for you.

I think this is too simple a view of the situation, C6. I don't think you are taking into account the backdrop of history that has precipitated much of the problems now. Take tribalism for example. It is no secret that former colonial powers, knowing that the only way they could continue to keep a colony under control, would use the tactic of divide and conquer. Kenya in the news gives a good example of colonialism from the past bleeding into the present. The British would identify the different tribes and then offer support to one tribe and then that tribe would exert pressure with their supported status on the other tribes to keep them down. Once colonialism is lifted this memory of unfair backing brings back those bitter feelings of animosity at having had been left out.

Iraq, too, is a mishmash of tribes and religious sects that have no trust amongst them, and it is just too simplistic to say they should see how we are trying to help them as if we are being some kind of benevolent power, when they view our support of one sect as a threat to another. They do not view it as us helping them, but all our actions as a way of ultimately helping ourself, and if we have to back the majority Shia to get a 10 year lease on an embassy compound and military installations, and those Shia continue to keep the power grids in Sunni areas turned off, animosity is going to keep boiling up.

It seems the worse enemy to terrorism is education of the masses. If a innocent people must die for the betterment of your people, then in the story of the human race. It is acceptable. Unfortunately the Masses must suffer for the ignorance of a few...this is life.

Two fallacies exist here:


Appeal to tradition
False dilemma


Appeal to tradition is pretty obvious, and hopefully you can see why that what has been true need not always be true. Do a google search if you want to follow up and learn more about that fallacy.

A false dilemma is usually put forth as if there is no inbetween ground between the two poles -- such as you described before, either torturing them or sitting down at a meeting with them. Obviously neither are the only two choices.

Experienced interrogators have commented that effective communication over time mixed with some uncomfortable conditions is much more effective than torture. Uncomfortable situations could include a wide mix of things without having to resort to purposely inflicting severe physical and or psychological trauma on the prisoner.

[vvloc]

Not necessary but true, . . .

I apologize for accusing you of civility.

[Crazysix]

I will not hold it against you

[Bones]

Not much to do this evening, but I'll have to side with Crazysix as it relates to the thread.

"vvlock" has posted some interesting things. But he comes across as someone who is willing to vilify our actions, without taking into consideration what has caused our country to attack in the first place.

There is no mention of why we attacked in the first place. Perhaps he/she feels that it's o.k. to ignore what happens in other countries, for example, the atrocities committed by the current regime against it's own people.

"eelecurb" comes across the same way to me.

Some people out there, are so worried about the money that we are wasting on war. Just guessing, but I would say that much more money is being spent on things that we don't need every day, that it would support this war indefinitely.

Drugs, prostitution, gambling, driving a Hummer, the list is endless.

On the combat side of the house, we saw this thing in Viet Nam, and if my memory serves me correctly, it wasn't until the regime change in Iran that we started seeing suicide bombers. Combatants hiding in a civilian community. Some may be quick to point out the "Kamikaze" attacks, but it's not the same thing imho. They flew planes identifying themselves as belonging to Japan.

If you're so focused on the money side of the house, shouldn't we be more careful about how we spend our money responsibly? Don't complain to me if you have a big house, how much money that it costs to fill up your gas tank, etc...

The Geneva convention is fine, if you're captured by an ally. The person that captured you probably doesn't subscribe to it.

And if you were captured by one of those people, then you'll probably have endured a lot of things that even "The Movies" won't touch.

Oh, and the kids at the movies that everyone seems to complain about. They're probably someone else's. I'm too worried about the latest sales at the BX, or how much money I can make at Bingo.

It's a sad state of affairs.:(

NBTP

[Crazysix]

Whoa! I stepped away for about 4 hours and this thread has just taken off. Sorry about bringing old posts up in trying to catch up.



All obfuscation, C6. Sure things are linked like that, but Veg*ism isn't about insuring every action one takes is the perfect end-all cutting all links one finds oneself associated to cruelty just by the fact one is a member of society. It is about doing as much as possible without forfeiting your life and still being able to function in the world.

Torture on the other hand and no holds bar warfare inherently magnifies suffering when a lot of that would be unnecessary with some restraint.



Well, how do you define a terrorist? Surely you are aware of perspective and that maxim, "one man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter," aren't you?



Well then, it is nice to know you support the torture Japanese used on our soldiers for their end goals since they, too, were short of genocide. Perhaps you should go to some WW2 vets and tell them it was all good what the Japanese subjected them to when they fell into their hands -- after all, the Japanese were not signatories to treaties on handling POWs.

1. I was using as an example of how people here seem to be ready to accept somethings as bad but not others

2. We must do what it takes to insure victory with the minimal loss of AMERICAN lives.

3. A terrorist a person who uses violence or destructive means to disrupt the norm, he or she will use religion, philosophy, poverty or the lack of education to recruit members to the cause. They use terror tactics as thier main weapon to influence others or in some cases government decisons.

4. If I were Japanese during that time and torture was occuring to protect my home land I doubt I would really care. Today I really dont care how the information is collected. Intel is all time critical, reeducation is not. Take time and and do the reeducation correctly and humanely if possible, with minimal risk to US Personnel.

[Crazysix]

well said Bones......It seems that everyone has forgotten what got us to the point. As far as innocent people getting hurt....well that is a regrettable fact but its a factor we are willing to accept. I would perfer one tortured terrorist, who doesnt care whether he lives or dies, to losing more friends and former roomates to this war, simply because some armchair commando feels we should play nice. We did not attack first

[TheNoNamedOne]

Here is the famous hand to hand knife scene fight in "Saving Private Ryan." Notice, that when death is imminent from the enemy, one appeals to their humanity eye to eye and begs.

YouTube - Saving Private Ryan - Knife Fight High Quality

[Crazysix]

wow [if] i was about stab you, I doubt you would throw on you best texas accent and dare me to do it

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

There is no mention of why we attacked in the first place. Perhaps he/she feels that it's o.k. to ignore what happens in other countries, for example, the atrocities committed by the current regime against it's own people.

Why did America go to war with Iraq? No WMD, no demonstrable connection to terrorists or 9/11, Sadaam certainly no worse, and in many ways better than any number of other dictators around the world...AND not for oil (so y'all say). Well?

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Intel is all time critical
That old dog don't hunt.
2. Torture does not yield information quickly

Although eventually everyone will confess to something, it takes a lot of time. We know that many militaries and radical groups train their members to resist torture and to pass along false pieces of information during the process. And those with strong religious or political beliefs that help them understand the purposes of torture used against them are most able to resist and to recover from its impact.

http://www.cvt.org/main.php/Advocacy/TheCampaigntoStopTorture/WhatCVTknowsaboutTorture

Wasted time following up on false leads, as suspects will and do say anything to make the torture stop.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

C6 & NBTP won't like the hippie ideas in here, but then again, they don't seem to mind the never-ending black hole of misery, despair, and death.

Torture reconsidered II : When more humanity meant more success

http://img.iht.com/images/dot_h.gif
By Ulrich Straus
Published: WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 22, 2004
http://img.iht.com/images/dot_h.gif

NORTHPORT, Michigan: The abhorrent and illegal treatment of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib and the coercive interrogation of Afghan war detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, contrast starkly with the humane extraction of "actionable" intelligence from Japanese POWs during World War II. Sixty years ago, we learned that abiding by international law and treating the enemy as a member of the human race not only shortened the war in the Pacific, but also helped win the peace in the occupation that followed.


U.S. interrogators at Abu Ghraib (and their supervisors in Baghdad and Washington) failed to understand how abusive treatment of prisoners would dominate perceptions of the United States by the Iraqi people. Even if the savage treatment of prisoners had not been exposed by U.S. (and then Arab) media, survivors would have spread the word about abominable misdeeds by Americans upon their release, deeply undercutting official U.S. assertions of friendship and trust. More recent revelations of mistreatment of prisoners at Guantánamo — which the International Red Cross has deemed "tantamount to torture" — suggest that this lesson has yet to be learned.


Wartime interrogations are complex, subtle procedures requiring much preparation and patience to comprehend the POW mind-set. In World War II, Japanese soldiers had been indoctrinated to kill themselves rather then surrender, and Japanese POWs racked with self-humiliation expected to be brutally mistreated and probably killed by their captors. When they were well fed, clothed and nursed back to health by caring medics, they often repaid such kindness with the information sought by the interrogators. Occasionally we learned about the timing of an impending attack or the range of the guns on Japanese battleships.


Skilled interrogators take their time and cannot allow themselves to become frustrated by initial failure. The prerequisite for success lies in creating a decent human relationship with the prisoner. Beatings, humiliation or intimidation rarely produce results. If sufficiently scared, a prisoner may talk, but under duress he is more than likely to invent information than to tell the truth.


In the war against Japan, some of the best interrogation results came from skilled Japanese-American intelligence personnel with superior language skills and sensitivity to Japanese cultural nuances. In their memoirs, Japanese POWs have often noted that having an interrogator or interpreter who "looked like" them eased their anxieties and spurred conversation. By contrast, none of the U.S. soldiers accused of crimes at Abu Ghraib was ethnically Arab, and there is no indication that large numbers of Arab-Americans have been utilized to deal with prisoners in Iraq.



In Iraq and in Afghanistan, some of those guarding and interrogating prisoners were untrained mercenaries from American corporations. Motivated primarily by profit, these individuals were poorly prepared for the difficult task of conducting interrogations according to the rules of international law. The chain of U.S. command should have realized that whether prisoners are abused by guards or interrogators, the results are likely to be the same. Those are not the conditions conducive to productive interrogations that result in shortening the conflict, but will only deepen mutual hatreds and delay the onset of peace.


During World War II, our forces were able to lay aside the intense hatred of the enemy resulting from the widespread mistreatment of American POWs in Japanese hands. The Western allies all provided humane treatment to the Japanese we captured. We realized that in order to win the war and, equally important, the peace that would follow, we would have to treat POWs decently, as we ourselves would want to be treated if the roles were reversed.


The results speak for themselves: The occupation of Japan was entirely peaceful, and there was not a single armed confrontation like the daily human tragedies wrought by the continuing resistance in today's Iraq. Many factors contributed to the successful outcome of the occupation and the enduring alliance and Japanese-American friendship of the past 59 years. However, a growing body of Japanese memoirs makes clear that our enlightened policies toward Japanese POWs during the war were certainly contributing factors. Until the people of Iraq see American soldiers building a durable peace through enlightened policies under international law, none of our commanders will be able to proclaim their mission accomplished.
***
Ulrich Straus is the author of "The Anguish of Surrender: Japanese POWs of World War II." He was a U.S. Army language officer during the occupation of Japan.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/12/22/edstraus_ed3_.php

[Bones]

As posted by eelecurb:

Why did America go to war with Iraq? No WMD, no demonstrable connection to terrorists or 9/11, Sadaam certainly no worse, and in many ways better than any number of other dictators around the world...AND not for oil (so y'all say). Well?

I understand your question eel, and I understand where you're coming from.

It's great to able to reflect on things that have happened in the past, but it's too late to postulate your opinions.

Why? Everything that you are complaining about has happened in the past, and the cycle will probably repeat itself in the future.

I'm wondering however, about how our lives would be different had all of these things not happened.

Not talking about wars per say, just people sitting around their homes complaining about things that they don't have.

NBTP

[Crazysix]

Good catch DK, thanks for the edit

[Crazysix]

That old dog don't hunt.

[Wasted time following up on false leads, as suspects will and do say anything to make the torture stop.

Well so your saying taking my time and playing baby tactics will get good intel. Intel thats not up to date is called History. Trust me you can tell if a man is lying or not in the right environoment

[Crazysix]

We can sit around debate whether this is right or wrong, but the fact is, it is happening and will continue, whether in public view or not.

[vvloc]

"vvlock" has posted some interesting things. But he comes across as someone who is willing to vilify our actions, without taking into consideration what has caused our country to attack in the first place.

There is no mention of why we attacked in the first place. Perhaps he/she feels that it's o.k. to ignore what happens in other countries, for example, the atrocities committed by the current regime against it's own people.

I posted a letter in which the author claims that the US has militarily intervened in the internal affairs of other countries an astounding 24 times in the past 50 years. Is it your contention that we were justified in all 24 incursions?

On the combat side of the house, we saw this thing in Viet Nam, and if my memory serves me correctly, it wasn't until the regime change in Iran that we started seeing suicide bombers.

Regime change in Iran??? I think you'd best re-check your recollections on suicide bombings.

CIA Officers: 
****Milton Bearden, Directorate of Operations 
****Ray Close, Directorate of Operations 
****Vincent Cannistraro, Directorate of Operations 
****Philip Giraldi, Directorate of Operations 
****James Marcinkowski, Directorate of Operations 
****Melissa Mahle, Directorate of Operations 
****Paul Pillar, Directorate of Intelligence 
****David MacMichael, Directorate of Intelligence 
****Melvin Goodman, Directorate of Intelligence 
****Ray McGovern, Directorate of Intelligence 
****Mary O. McCarthy, DCI professional staff
****US Military and Department of Defense: 
****W. Patrick Lang, (Colonel, US Army retired, Director Defense Humint Services, retired) 
****A. D. Ackels, (Colonel, US Army, retired) 
****Karen Kwiatkowski, (Lt. Colonel, USAF, retired)
****US Department of State: 
****Thomas R. Maertens, Deputy Coordinator, Office of Counter Terrorism, US Department of State 
****Larry C Johnson, Office of Counter Terrorism, US Department of State
****Federal Bureau of Investigation: 
****Christopher Whitcomb, Hostage Rescue Team

signed the letter to Leahy and Specter decrying torture. I think I'll trust their qualifications and judgment above yours and C6

[vvloc]

We did not attack first

Dang, I must be getting really old. I keep on forgetting Iraq attacking us first!!!

[TheNoNamedOne]

I posted a letter in which the author claims that the US has militarily intervened in the internal affairs of other countries an astounding 24 times in the past 50 years. Is it your contention that we were justified in all 24 incursions?

It shouldn't be that anyone would think we are always right. Even legendary Marine General Smedley Butler saw us as unjustified in our world adventures as we intervened for our own benefit. Called it like it was (and relevant to today, too) -- a man of honor by redeeming himself with admitting the truth after he came to realize it.

From Wiki:

In addition to his military career, Smedley Butler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler) was noted for his outspoken anti-interventionist views, and his book War is a Racket. His book was one of the first works describing the workings of the military-industrial complex and after retiring from service, he became a popular speaker at meetings organized by veterans, pacifists and church groups in the 1930s. ...

Butler was known for his outspoken lectures against war profiteering and what he viewed as nascent fascism in the United States. During the 1930s, he gave many such speeches to pacifist groups. Between 1935 and 1937, he served as a spokesman for the American League Against War and Fascism (which some considered communist-dominated).[18]
In his 1935 book, War Is a Racket, Butler presented an exposé and trenchant condemnation of the profit motive behind warfare. His views on the subject are well summarized in the following passage from a 1935 issue of "the non-Marxist, socialist" magazine, Common Sense — one of Butler's most widely quoted statements:

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents." [19]

Oooh-rah! Semperfi do or die! HUA!

You tell 'em Smed!

Timeless, just timeless.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Well so your saying taking my time and playing baby tactics will get good intel. Intel thats not up to date is called History. Trust me you can tell if a man is lying or not in the right environoment
No, I don't think I will...

I don't say humane treatment of POWs gets actionable intelligence - Ulrich does. But why trust a WWII vet on issues of war, eh.

As for lying, I guess you don't read (the Washington Post) much.

4 Most people can tell when someone is lying under torture.
Not so -- and we know quite a bit about this. For about 40 years, psychologists have been testing police officers as well as normal people to see whether they can spot lies, and the results aren't encouraging. Ordinary folk have an accuracy rate of about 57 percent, which is pretty poor considering that 50 percent is the flip of a coin. Likewise, the cops' accuracy rates fall between 45 percent and 65 percent -- that is, sometimes less accurate than a coin toss.
Why does this matter? Because even if torturers break a person, they have to recognize it, and most of the time they can't. Torturers assume too much and reject what doesn't fit their assumptions. For instance, Sheila Cassidy, a British physician, cracked under electric-shock torture by the Chilean secret service in the 1970s and identified priests who had helped the country's socialist opposition. But her devout interrogators couldn't believe that priests would ever help the socialists, so they tortured her for another week until they finally became convinced. By that time, she was so damaged that she couldn't remember the location of the safe house.
In fact, most torturers are nowhere near as well trained for interrogation as police are. Torturers are usually chosen because they've endured hardship and pain, fought with courage, kept secrets, held the right beliefs and earned a reputation as trustworthy and loyal. They often rely on folklore about what lying behavior looks like -- shifty eyes, sweaty palms and so on. And, not surprisingly, they make a lot of mistakes.

From Five Myths About Torture
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/13/AR2007121301303_pf.html

[Crazysix]

No, I don't think I will...

I don't say humane treatment of POWs gets actionable intelligence - Ulrich does. But why trust a WWII vet on issues of war, eh.

As for lying, I guess you don't read (the Washington Post) much.


From Five Myths About Torture
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/13/AR2007121301303_pf.html
no matter what I still support it and would gladly give more tax dollars to do what ever keeps my family safe.

[Crazysix]

Dang, I must be getting really old. I keep on forgetting Iraq attacking us first!!!

Oh you are a swift one(since I have been warned on using profanity, I will not say what I really think), anyways, when we say "they attacked first", you automatically assumed Iraq, I was refering to Afghanistan. Afghanistan was the country harboring, a terrorist network call Al Qaeda. We in response to 9/11, the US and Allies attacked the country.

A large number of the people in "POW" camps or torture factories, as you like to call them are from that region( Afghanistan) . Most of the insurgents from Iraq are kept in country or other places:D,

Like I said if we didn't do the things we do,worse things have could happened.

Dont worry things will change soon, and we will not torture any more animals(terrorist), because its "not nice" or inhumane.

[TheNoNamedOne]

no matter what I still support it and would gladly give...

You do not see that you are using the same defunct reasoning as the other side even after facts are presented to you -- that you decry them for not jumping on the U.S. bandwagon? . Don't you think that when we try and reason with them from our side they have those die hards who reply with?:

"no matter what I still support it [i.e. the insurgency] and would gladly give..."

What do you think of people who would reply to U.S. overtures with, "No matter what I support the insurgency and would gladly give..."? Of course we know what you think of them, but what do you think of their reasoning processes when they refuse to listen to the evidence and argument and then make an informed decision after hearing that? Do you think they are being reasonable?

[vvloc]

Oh you are a swift one(since I have been warned on using profanity in response to smart ass comments/ commentors) too I see, anyways, when we say they attacked first you thought Iraq, not me. Afghanistan was the country haboring, at the time, a terrorist network call Al Qaeda. We in respose to 9/11 attacked them. A large number of the people in "POW" camps or torture factories, as you like to call them are from that region. Most of the insurgents from Iraq are kept in country or other places:D, none which I really care about.

Like I said if we didnt do the things we do, alot worse things have could happened.

Dont worry things will change soon and we will not torture any more animals, because its "not nice".

Are you an adult? My 10 year old boy writes more coherently than you.

The only time I've ever seen the terminology "terror factories" was your usage.

""POW" camps?" To what do you refer? Be careful with your answer? You may reveal that you are more ignorant of realities than you have already.

Not to belabor a point already made, but now that you've revealed your stunning knowledge of the fact that it was Al Qaeda from Afghanistan that attacked us first, maybe you, as a spokesman for the cowboy brigade, will stop evading and finally comment on this:

"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

[vvloc]

no matter what I still support it and would gladly give more tax dollars to do what ever keeps my family safe.

Some people have absolutely no shame.

This guy comes aboard advocating action contrary to US law, International law, and military law:

Military field manuals
Main article: U.S. Army Field Manuals
In late 2006, the military issued updated field manuals on intelligence collection (FM 2-22.3. Human Intelligence Collector Operations, September 2006) and counterinsurgency (FM 3-24. Counterinsurgency, December 2006). Both manuals reiterated that "no person in the custody or under the control of DOD, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, in accordance with and as defined in US law."[9] Specific techniques described as prohibited in the intelligence collection manual include:
Forcing the detainee to be naked, perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexual manner.
Placing hoods or sacks over the head of a detainee; using duct tape over the eyes.
Applying beatings, electric shock, burns, or other forms of physical pain.
Waterboarding
Using military working dogs.
Inducing hypothermia or heat injury.
Conducting mock executions.
Depriving the detainee of necessary food, water, or medical care.[10]

These professionals, who actually know something about the subject: http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artm...w.cgi/64/22776
and John McCain, all publicly disallow the thought, yet this guy has nothing better to offer than "no matter what I still support it."

I think the first 5 letters of his handle adequately sum up the situation.

[Bones]

As posted by vvlock:

I posted a letter in which the author claims that the US has militarily intervened in the internal affairs of other countries an astounding 24 times in the past 50 years. Is it your contention that we were justified in all 24 incursions?

Of course not, but it might have been "justified" to the people who had initiated those actions at the time. Not having been able to perfect my ability to do "time travel", I'm forced to look at documentation concerning those events. And the general mind set of the population at the time of those events, was probably radically different as compared to what it is today.

Now I don't know what your Military credentials are, moot point imho. But the main thrust of your argument seems to evolve around the perceived atrocities to the combatants that our current military force is facing, or those that they may have committed in the past.

What you seem to neglect to mention, very skillfully I may add, are the atrocities that were forced on our fighting men/women while they were being held captive. Are you saying that it's o.k. for other nations to abuse our fighting personell, while they are carrying out their duty? Or are you saying that it's their own fault for following orders?

Are you saying, when a foreign government that asks for our help, should be disregarded? Just so you can live whatever life-style you are enjoying at the current moment?

Are you saying that when a government, is set out to destroy a local drug cartel in South America, which has an obvious impact on our drug users out there is wrong? Even tho that drug trade has turned the lives of the local villagers within that country into a living hell?

Because all of your arguments tend me to believe that this is what you are saying.

NBTP

[vvloc]

As posted by vvlock:



Of course not, but it might have been "justified" to the people who had initiated those actions at the time. Not having been able to perfect my ability to do "time travel", I'm forced to look at documentation concerning those events. And the general mind set of the population at the time of those events, was probably radically different as compared to what it is today.

Now I don't know what your Military credentials are, moot point imho. But the main thrust of your argument seems to evolve around the perceived atrocities to the combatants that our current military force is facing, or those that they may have committed in the past.

What you seem to neglect to mention, very skillfully I may add, are the atrocities that were forced on our fighting men/women while they were being held captive. Are you saying that it's o.k. for other nations to abuse our fighting personell, while they are carrying out their duty? Or are you saying that it's their own fault for following orders?

Are you saying, when a foreign government that asks for our help, should be disregarded? Just so you can live whatever life-style you are enjoying at the current moment?

Are you saying that when a government, is set out to destroy a local drug cartel in South America, which has an obvious impact on our drug users out there is wrong? Even tho that drug trade has turned the lives of the local villagers within that country into a living hell?

Because all of your arguments tend me to believe that this is what you are saying. What and how many governments have asked for our "help?" And by what domain, do we have to choose which countries drug cartels demand our military intervention?


NBTP

With all due respect, what are you talking about??? I mention 24 military incursions. What atrocities are you referring to?

What and how many governments have asked for our "help?" And by what domain, do we have to choose which countries' drug cartels demand our military intervention?

[TheNoNamedOne]

And when soldiers come home to the home front, there is another war, and some soldiers find their voice -- a real patriot's voice who fears not dissenting from one's countries leaders and policies gone astray. They fight the good fight against the horrors and lies of war.

A very moving scene totally relevant to today, and I am not ashamed to say that the courage shown here brings me to tears. It is a courage of crying out for peace and it is the greatest and most noblest of all:

YouTube - Born on the Fourth of July clip

Transcribed from clip:

Do you hear me when I tell you this war is a crime?

You can't stop me!

This war is wrong. This society lied to me. It lied to my brothers. This country tricked me into going 13,000 miles to fight a war against a poor preasant people who have a proud history of resistance.

I can't find the words to express how the leadership of this government sickens me. Now people say if you don't love American, then get the hell out. But I love America We love the people of America very much, but when it comes to the government it stops right there, the government is a bunch of corrupt thieves, they are rapists and robbers, and we are here to say that we don't have to take it anymore. We are here to say to tell the truth, they are killing our brothers in Vietnam we want them to hear the truth...

We are never going to let the people of the United States forget the War...

Is this what we get a spit in the face?

This wheel chair is your memorial on wheel. We are your yankee doodle dandy come home. We are your yankee doodle dandee come home...

Stop the fighting Stop the war....

It is a lie, they are killing a whole generation of young men and brothers....

Stop the bombing stop the war! ...

[Bones]

As posted by vvlock:

With all due respect, what are you talking about??? I mention 24 military incursions. What atrocities are you referring to?

What and how many governments have asked for our "help?" And by what domain, do we have to choose which countries' drug cartels demand our military intervention?

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, if that's what you're afraid of. I'm just trying to explain to you how some other's out there would interpret what you're saying.

If you dig further into the Central American issues, especially Columbia, it was all about drug cartels.

With the incursions that you've mentioned, you came across as tho you felt we had violated their countries. Perhaps we did, who's to say?

Your studies are concentrated more on what our country has done, as to compared to what actually prompted us to intervene in the first place. perhaps they did ask us to get involved, but the documentation somehow got "lost".

NBTP

[Crazysix]

Are you an adult? My 10 year old boy writes more coherently than you.

The only time I've ever seen the terminology "terror factories" was your usage.

""POW" camps?" To what do you refer? Be careful with your answer? You may reveal that you are more ignorant of realities than you have already.

Not to belabor a point already made, but now that you've revealed your stunning knowledge of the fact that it was Al Qaeda from Afghanistan that attacked us first, maybe you, as a spokesman for the cowboy brigade, will stop evading and finally comment on this:

"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
sorry about my typing, but i had my daughter on my lap, had to type fast

[Crazysix]

Some people have absolutely no shame.

This guy comes aboard advocating action contrary to US law, International law, and military law:

Military field manuals
Main article: U.S. Army Field Manuals
In late 2006, the military issued updated field manuals on intelligence collection (FM 2-22.3. Human Intelligence Collector Operations, September 2006) and counterinsurgency (FM 3-24. Counterinsurgency, December 2006). Both manuals reiterated that "no person in the custody or under the control of DOD, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, in accordance with and as defined in US law."[9] Specific techniques described as prohibited in the intelligence collection manual include:
Forcing the detainee to be naked, perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexual manner.
Placing hoods or sacks over the head of a detainee; using duct tape over the eyes.
Applying beatings, electric shock, burns, or other forms of physical pain.
Waterboarding
Using military working dogs.
Inducing hypothermia or heat injury.
Conducting mock executions.
Depriving the detainee of necessary food, water, or medical care.[10]

These professionals, who actually know something about the subject: http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artm...w.cgi/64/22776
and John McCain, all publicly disallow the thought, yet this guy has nothing better to offer than "no matter what I still support it."

I think the first 5 letters of his handle adequately sum up the situation.

Shame? in this day and time can we afford this luxury? So, maybe still, this why cannot progress against an enemy, who uses any all tactics to destroy his enemy.

[vvloc]

And I am not trying to fight with you, BUT especially when you say:

What you seem to neglect to mention, very skillfully I may add, are the atrocities that were forced on our fighting men/women while they were being held captive.

I must admit that I haven't any idea what you are talking about.

[Crazysix]

Are you an adult? My 10 year old boy writes more coherently than you.

The only time I've ever seen the terminology "terror factories" was your usage.

""POW" camps?" To what do you refer? Be careful with your answer? You may reveal that you are more ignorant of realities than you have already.

Not to belabor a point already made, but now that you've revealed your stunning knowledge of the fact that it was Al Qaeda from Afghanistan that attacked us first, maybe you, as a spokesman for the cowboy brigade, will stop evading and finally comment on this:

"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

Also I was being civil with you, now please don't compare me to your offspring. Now if you have any other problems with that, or anything I said to you, please PM me. we can sit down and discuss it face to face in the most gentlemanly way.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Your studies are concentrated more on what our country has done, as to compared to what actually prompted us to intervene in the first place. perhaps they did ask us to get involved, but the documentation somehow got "lost".

NBTP

Geeesh...I am pretty sure vvloc is not referring to just Columbia and our recent efforts to fight drug production in Columbia.

You need to go back HERE (http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/showpost.php?p=54318&postcount=96) and see what a man who has the largest Marine Corpes base in Okinawa named after him said about U.S. interventionist policy, and tell him he has it all wrong.

[Crazysix]

Most detainees that are considered "important" are take to 3rd party camps(abroad).
the low value prisoners, aka the common footsoldier / insurgent are kept local

[Crazysix]

You do not see that you are using the same defunct reasoning as the other side even after facts are presented to you -- that you decry them for not jumping on the U.S. bandwagon? . Don't you think that when we try and reason with them from our side they have those die hards who reply with?:

"no matter what I still support it [i.e. the insurgency] and would gladly give..."

What do you think of people who would reply to U.S. overtures with, "No matter what I support the insurgency and would gladly give..."? Of course we know what you think of them, but what do you think of their reasoning processes when they refuse to listen to the evidence and argument and then make an informed decision after hearing that? Do you think they are being reasonable?
I do see that, but what I am saying is this....."Why is is logical to play by a certain set of rules that dont apply to all sides involved, that cost us thousands of US Servicemen and women lives?" When this is over, who will be held accountable? Or will the US be left being the bad guy?

[vvloc]

Also I was being civil with you, now please don't compare me to your offspring. Now if you have any other problems with that, or anything I said to you, please PM me. we can sit down and discuss it face to face in the most gentlemanly way.

Oh excuse me, I didn't notice that you were being civil with me. Maybe I got thrown off by your opening words:

Oh you are a swift one(since I have been warned on using profanity in response to smart ass comments/ commentors)

I didn't compare you with my 10 year old, I compared the writing in that post to his. Regardless of the reasons, the comparison still stands. He writes MUCH better than the writing in that post.

When my son gets old enough to understand and he asks what I did to combat the miseries spreading throughout the world, I will be happy to tell him that among other things, I spoke against the moral depravity of Americans advocating torture on a militarily dominated board.

When your daughter, likewise is old enough, I wonder how she'll greet your advocacy.

I also wonder in regard to your question about can we afford shame, how you justify opposition to the views of McCain and these guys who clearly state that what you advocate is IMMORAL?

CIA Officers:
Milton Bearden, Directorate of Operations
Ray Close, Directorate of Operations
Vincent Cannistraro, Directorate of Operations
Philip Giraldi, Directorate of Operations
James Marcinkowski, Directorate of Operations
Melissa Mahle, Directorate of Operations
Paul Pillar, Directorate of Intelligence
David MacMichael, Directorate of Intelligence
Melvin Goodman, Directorate of Intelligence
Ray McGovern, Directorate of Intelligence
Mary O. McCarthy, DCI professional staff

US Military and Department of Defense:
W. Patrick Lang, (Colonel, US Army retired, Director Defense Humint Services, retired)
A. D. Ackels, (Colonel, US Army, retired)
Karen Kwiatkowski, (Lt. Colonel, USAF, retired)

US Department of State:
Thomas R. Maertens, Deputy Coordinator, Office of Counter Terrorism, US Department of State
Larry C Johnson, Office of Counter Terrorism, US Department of State

Federal Bureau of Investigation:
Christopher Whitcomb, Hostage Rescue Team

[vvloc]

Most detainees that are considered "important" are take to 3rd party camps(abroad).
the low value prisoners, aka the common footsoldier / insurgent are kept local

What does this mean and what does it pertain to?

[Crazysix]

What does this mean and what does it pertain to?
Forget it, I pray your son lives long enough to enjoy a life that need for terrorism and torture is not needed, but I dont think that will happen, especially with the previous links about the history of US aggression.

[Crazysix]

Oh excuse me, I didn't notice that you were being civil with me. Maybe I got thrown off by your opening words:



I didn't compare you with my 10 year old, I compared the writing in that post to his. Regardless of the reasons, the comparison still stands. He writes MUCH better than the writing in that post.

When my son gets old enough to understand and he asks what I did to combat the miseries spreading throughout the world, I will be happy to tell him that among other things, I spoke against the moral depravity of Americans advocating torture on a militarily dominated board.

When your daughter, likewise is old enough, I wonder how she'll greet your advocacy.

I also wonder in regard to your question about can we afford shame, how you justify opposition to the views of McCain and these guys who clearly state that what you advocate is IMMORAL?

CIA Officers:
Milton Bearden, Directorate of Operations
Ray Close, Directorate of Operations
Vincent Cannistraro, Directorate of Operations
Philip Giraldi, Directorate of Operations
James Marcinkowski, Directorate of Operations
Melissa Mahle, Directorate of Operations
Paul Pillar, Directorate of Intelligence
David MacMichael, Directorate of Intelligence
Melvin Goodman, Directorate of Intelligence
Ray McGovern, Directorate of Intelligence
Mary O. McCarthy, DCI professional staff

US Military and Department of Defense:
W. Patrick Lang, (Colonel, US Army retired, Director Defense Humint Services, retired)
A. D. Ackels, (Colonel, US Army, retired)
Karen Kwiatkowski, (Lt. Colonel, USAF, retired)

US Department of State:
Thomas R. Maertens, Deputy Coordinator, Office of Counter Terrorism, US Department of State
Larry C Johnson, Office of Counter Terrorism, US Department of State

Federal Bureau of Investigation:
Christopher Whitcomb, Hostage Rescue Team

When my kids are old enough, they will have to make their own decisions on this and other matters, and whether I go to hell or not, I will go knowing the best was done to keep my family safe.

You spoke out and thats it, while somewhere in the world torture continues.
But like I said good luck with it.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

If you dig further into the Central American issues, especially Columbia, it was all about drug cartels.
TP has posted evidence that it was all about American business in interests in Central America. You have yet to show one shred of evidence otherwise. BTW, Columbia is a South American country.

Your studies are concentrated more on what our country has done, as to compared to what actually prompted us to intervene in the first place. perhaps they did ask us to get involved, but the documentation somehow got "lost".
Follow the money. Sure, American toadies may have asked for assistance when their incompetence didn't allow them to buy off their gov't with CIA funds, and then Team America came to "the rescue".

As for your Columbia War on Drugs...
It's not the drugs; it's the war

What's going on? Why are we doing this?
It's not the drugs
It's the war
Nothing about the War on Drugs makes any sense in the context of drugs
Everything about the War on Drugs makes sense in the context of war
We aren't running the War on Drugs because we want to eradicate drugs
We're running the War on Drugs because we want to have a war.More specifically, we're running the War on Drugs because it serves the interests of people in this country.
The United States is a democracy. Nothing
this big
this expensive
this destructivecan go on in the United States—for decades—without broad-based political support. The War on Drugs has constituencies. It has groups of people who support it because it serves their interests.
These groups don't have to support the War on Drugs for the same reasons. They don't have to support it for good reasons. They don't even have to support it for coherent reasons. All that is necessary for the War on Drugs to continue is that enough people get something out of it, and that it doesn't seriously inconvenience the middle class, which it doesn't.
http://world.std.com/~swmcd/steven/rants/war.html (http://world.std.com/%7Eswmcd/steven/rants/war.html)

Constituencies

So who are these groups? Who are the constituents of the War on Drugs? Let's start with the obvious ones.

The War on Drugs is an employment program for law enforcement. The War on Drugs employs
everyone in the Drug Enforcement Administration
people in the FBI, the INS, and the border patrol
state and local police officers
judges, and prosecuting attorneys, and defense attorneys
prison wardens, and prison guards The War on Drugs has a big payroll, and everyone on that payroll has some interest in seeing the war continue.
The War on Drugs supports the prison industry. Since we've put 2 million people behind bars, building, supplying, and running prisons has become big business. This alignment of government and business in running the prison system is called the prison-industrial complex.
The War on Drugs serves the government. The government needs bogeymen. It needs threats that can be used to justify
military intervention
foreign intelligence operations
greater domestic police powers For many years, the international communist conspiracy played this role, but that hasn't been so credible since communism collapsed 10 years ago. Today, the government invokes the specter of international drug cartels when it needs to generate support for some extra-legal, unconstitutional, or otherwise ill-advised use of force (http://world.std.com/%7Eswmcd/steven/rants/war.html#unconstitutional).

The War on Drugs serves the military-industrial complex (http://world.std.com/%7Eswmcd/steven/rants/war.html#complex). Last year, President Clinton asked for, and received, 1.3 billion dollars to send to Columbia to help them fight our War on Drugs. Of course, we didn't send a billion three in cash to Columbia, or even something moderately useful, like food or medicine. We sent them weapons. Built, of course, by American companies.
The War on Drugs serves politicians. Politicians

need simple, emotional issues to drive their campaigns
need issues that make good sound bites
need issues that polarize discussion, so that they can claim the high ground, and label their opponents weak, or naive, or evil (http://world.std.com/%7Eswmcd/steven/rants/war.html#label) These are some of the obvious beneficiaries of the War on Drugs. There are also groups that benefit in more subtle ways.

The War on Drugs is an instrument of racial oppression. You won't find the words black, white, Caucasian, or Negro written into the laws, but the way the government treats drug users depends on the color of their skin. People with dark skin are treated more harshly at every level
police make more arrests
prosecutors file more charges
juries return more convictions
judges impose longer sentences In a country that is mostly white, we have created a prison population that is mostly black.
The War on Drugs serves those who maintain political control by disenfranchising minorities. Convicted criminals generally can't vote; the ACLU estimates that the War on Drugs has permanently disenfranchised 14% of African-American men. We used to use poll taxes and literacy tests to keep people from voting (http://world.std.com/%7Eswmcd/steven/rants/war.html#vote); now we have the War on Drugs.
The War on Drugs serves those who fear racial minorities. The history of drug laws in this country is a history of racial fear (http://world.std.com/%7Eswmcd/steven/rants/war.html#reefer). Drugs were never outlawed because European-Americans were using them. Drugs were outlawed because minorities were using them
Chinese-Americans
Mexican-Americans
African-Americans
the '60s youth counter-culture There are, today, people who fear minorities; the War on Drugs preferentially imprisons minorities; therefore, these people perceive that the War on Drugs serves their interests.

The War on Drugs serves a society in search of scapegoats. Historically, people who needed someone to blame—or hate—had their choice of racial, ethnic, and religious groups. As Tom Lehrer famously observed in the song National Brotherhood Week: The Protestants hate the Catholics
The Catholics hate the Protestants
The Hindus hate the Moslems
And everybody hates the Jews And if you needed a less parochial target, there were always the Communists. But the Communists have evaporated, and garden-variety ethnic bigotry has become mostly unacceptable in public discourse.
Today, the War on Drugs provides us with scapegoats. We identify drug users as dangerous, and evil. We blame them for the troubles of our society, and herd them into prisons. And as our troubles persist, we imprison more and more drug users, for longer and longer terms, under harsher and harsher conditions, thinking that if we can only punish them enough, then surely our troubles will leave us.
Read the homepage, be informed.

[vvloc]

When this is over, who will be held accountable? Or will the US be left being the bad guy?

You really must not be a reader if you could ask such a question? Haven't you seen that the world as a whole has roundly from the very beginning of this travesty condemned this exercise in pre-emptive war. The membership of the Coalition of the Willing should be enough to tell you that. In Europe, polls clearly indicate that the U.S. is considered the 2nd greatest threat to world peace, right behind our ally, Israel. The so-called axis of evil hardly show up on the poll.

If I didn't know you better, I would think your questions were trick questions.

[Bones]

As posted by vvlock:

I must admit that I haven't any idea what you are talking about.

Really?:rolleyes:

Since your post seems to be mostly from your perspective, as related to our "supposed war crimes", your arguments fall short on mentioning where we have obtained those skills, or why we have adopted them.

Pick up a book, written by any of our POWs', and read about the torture that they had to endure at the hands of their captors. Not talking about the blond chick, but real POW's.

Compare what they had to endure, to "The Geneva Convention".

NBTP

[Crazysix]

You really must not be a reader if you could ask such a question? Haven't you seen that the world as a whole has roundly from the very beginning of this travesty condemned this exercise in pre-emptive war. The membership of the Coalition of the Willing should be enough to tell you that. In Europe, polls clearly indicate that the U.S. is considered the 2nd greatest threat to world peace, right behind our ally, Israel. The so-called axis of evil hardly show up on the poll.

If I didn't know you better, I would think your questions were trick
questions.
So you question the tactics that keep you free.
Sure call me baby killer, war lover, what ever.......As long as we win with minimal US losses.

[vvloc]

As posted by vvlock:

Really?:rolleyes:

Since your post seems to be mostly from your perspective, as related to our "supposed war crimes", your arguments fall short on mentioning where we have obtained those skills, or why we have adopted them.

Pick up a book, written by any of our POWs', and read about the torture that they had to endure at the hands of their captors. Not talking about the blond chick, but real POW's.

Compare what they had to endure, to "The Geneva Convention".

NBTP

Ya' know Bones, you try real hard to play games. I mentioned that there have been 24 incursions in 50 years. You come back with this assinine comment:

What you seem to neglect to mention, very skillfully I may add, are the atrocities that were forced on our fighting men/women while they were being held captive.

So I told you that I had NO idea what you meant. Now, let's get more specific, How many of these 24 incursions in any way involved atrocities committed against American service members???

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

As posted by vvlock:

Really?:rolleyes:

Since your post seems to be mostly from your perspective, as related to our "supposed war crimes", your arguments fall short on mentioning where we have obtained those skills, or why we have adopted them.

Pick up a book, written by any of our POWs', and read about the torture that they had to endure at the hands of their captors. Not talking about the blond chick, but real POW's.

Compare what they had to endure, to "The Geneva Convention".

NBTP
I don't believe you've been reading along NBTP. In the IHT article I posted, Ulrich Straus explained exactly why we should be good to POWs in our care, and the powerful results that brings. No one has denied the enemy may break the rules now, and has most definitely done so in the past. But Mr. Straus has reminded us how we can turn enemies into friends...

The abhorrent and illegal treatment of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib and the coercive interrogation of Afghan war detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, contrast starkly with the humane extraction of "actionable" intelligence from Japanese POWs during World War II. Sixty years ago, we learned that abiding by international law and treating the enemy as a member of the human race not only shortened the war in the Pacific, but also helped win the peace in the occupation that followed.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/12/22/edstraus_ed3_.php

[TheNoNamedOne]

I do see that, but what I am saying is this....."Why is is logical to play by a certain set of rules that dont apply to all sides involved, that cost us thousands of US Servicemen and women lives?"

Because life (not dieing) and winning at all costs by any means necessary is not a noble, moral, or dignified thing.

Let me try and outline this in a controlled thought exercise for you to see how the ends just does not justify the means:

If one finds their 11 year old child dead in an apartment complex, and one is 99% sure the killer is still there, but there are 30 people in there, some in the room where the body is (and which of those called one to the scene one is not sure of), and some in adjacent rooms, of course one could kill all 30 and be certain to kill the one responsible for murdering one's child, but would that certainty be justified by the way in which it happened, i.e. killing all 29 others who may have had nothing to do with it or any knowledge of it? Are one's emotions to be listened to here simply for justice and imposing will on the guilty when innocents on such a large ratio are going to be affected? Why wouldn't one think some rules of decency and morals should not be applied here?

You are basically in the whole dialogue, C6, justifying things only on emotion and throwing away thousands of years of incremental changes in what most generals and statesmen have already learned from examining the past and using philosophy. Why don't you see any value in all that and restraint? You are giving the argument of Taliban/Hamas reprisal reasoning. You are not showing any better nature and your only higher position and certainty rests on being in the army with higher technology.

To have rules is logical also because if you devolve to the point where you have none, then one will not win the hearts and minds of the people, and unless you are proposing anything short of genocide, in a guerilla war embedded within the urban centers, the hearts and minds are the high ground of the battle. Are you willing to cede the high ground? Sound military tactics should tell you that is the wrong thing to do.

You are not reasoning.

When this is over, who will be held accountable? Or will the US be left being the bad guy?

Whoever loses will probably be held accountable. But if one is wrong, then why would one hope to win? If the U.S. and its soldiers such as yourself take the reasoningn that the ends justifies the means and it is ok for us to get just as dirty as Al Quaida, then we will be left being the bad guy.

[Crazysix]

I still see no tears being shed for the US service members and contractors that have been tortured,executed, and dismembered by these people, you seem to so want to save and protect.

[vvloc]

So you question the tactics that keep you free.
Sure call me baby killer, war lover, what ever.......As long as we win with minimal US losses.

Torture keeps me free? I have heard moronic arguments before, but you Mr. Crazy (that is your name, isn't it?) belong in the Hall of Shame. You refuse to comment on the professionals, the guys who truly know something about this subject who stand DIAMETRICALLY opposed to your barbaric ill-informed views.

[Crazysix]

Because life (not dieing) and winning at all costs by any means necessary is not a noble, moral, or dignified thing.

Let me try and outline this in a controlled thought exercise for you to see how the ends just does not justify the means:

If one finds their 11 year old child dead in an apartment complex, and one is 99% sure the killer is still there, but there are 30 people in there, some in the room where the body is (and which of those called one to the scene one is not sure of), and some in adjacent rooms, of course one could kill all 20 and be certain to kill the one responsible for murdering one's child, but would that certainty be justified by the way in which it happened, i.e. killing all 19 others who may have had nothing to do with it or any knowledge of it? Are one's emotions to be listened to here simply for justice and imposing will on the guilty when innocents on such a large ratio are going to be affected? Why wouldn't one think some rules of decency and morals should not be applied here?

You are basically in the whole dialogue, C6 justifying things only on emotion and throwing away thousands of years of incremental changes in what most generals and statesmen have already learned from examining the past and using philosophy. Why don't you see any value in all that and restraint? You are giving the argument of Taliban/Hamas reprisal reasoning. You are not showing any better nature and your only higher position and certainty rests on being in the army with higher technology.

To have rules is logical also because if you devolve to the point where you have none, then one will not win the hearts and minds of the people, and unless you are proposing anything short of genocide, in a guerilla war embedded within the urban centers, the hearts and minds are the high ground of the battle. Are you willing to cede the high ground? Sound military tactics should tell you that is the wrong thing to do.

You are not reasoning.



Whoever loses will probably be held accountable. But if one is wrong, then why would one hope to win? If the U.S. and its soldiers such as yourself take the reasoningn that the ends justifies the means and it is ok for us to get just as dirty as Al Quaida, then we will be left being the bad guy.

Look we have our separate beliefs on this subject, I will hold onto mine and support anyway I can, Just as you have yours and stand strongly beside it. Yes I will admit this argument being emotionally driven, I have lost alot of friends, and honest caring and compassion toward the enemy left my hear and mind a long time ago.
Im done with this, its beer time Have a good night amigos

[Crazysix]

Torture keeps me free? I have heard moronic arguments before, but you Mr. Crazy (that is your name, isn't it?) belong in the Hall of Shame. You refuse to comment on the professionals, the guys who truly know something about this subject who stand DIAMETRICALLY opposed to your barbaric ill-informed views.
dude do me a favor, and cry me a river

[Crazysix]

vvloc calm down and chill, this is just a forum, one more insult and I will return fire:thumbup1:

[TheNoNamedOne]

Everyone, let's stop the needling. -- TP

[vvloc]

vvloc calm down and chill, this is just a forum, one more insult and I will return fire:thumbup1:

I shiver in my boots, as I contemplate being attacked by one of the torture makes us free battalion. In the words of your commander in chief, "Bring it on (if you can).

[TheNoNamedOne]

Look we have our separate beliefs on this subject, I will hold onto mine and support anyway I can, Just as you have yours and stand strongly beside it.
Im done with this, its beer time Have a good night amigos

Of course we have separate beliefs. However, I and others have been giving you factual information and reasoned arguments, but you really haven't been addressing those.

[Crazysix]

yeah, is that just like water boarding?:D

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Unfortunately for C6, he's unwilling and unable to cite any evidence to back up his reactionary statements. His blind fear and rabid devotion, coupled with his inability to respond meaningfully to reasoned argument make him the perfect instrument for the powers that be to further their cause.

[Crazysix]

Unfortunately for C6, he's unwilling and unable to cite any evidence to back up his reactionary statements. His blind fear and rabid devotion, coupled with his inability to respond meaningfully to reasoned argument make him the perfect instrument for the powers that be to further their cause.
Love you too sailor.:w00t:
Im trying this new peace love and happiness thing now
You do say some of the nicest things, you really know how sweetalk em

[vvloc]

Love you too sailor.:w00t:
Im trying this new peace love and happiness thing now

You seem to be very good with the smilies.

[Crazysix]

You seem to be very good with the smilies.
Thanks sweetcheeks

[Crazysix]

Of course we have separate beliefs. However, I and others have been giving you factual information and reasoned arguments, but you really haven't been addressing those.
Whether I give you examples or not, it doesnt change a thing. Torture, though evil, still produces data/Intelligence. And as long as it saves American lives my personal feelings will remain.

[Crazysix]

this thread should be moved out of movie and entertainment section

[vvloc]

Whether I give you examples or not, it doesnt change a thing. Torture, though evil, still produces data/Intelligence

One last time, the experts in the field (they have been listed THREE times in this thread) say you are wrong.

"No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices."

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/64/22776

Do you doubt their expertise in the field. If so, what credentials do you have to dispute their conclusions?

[TheNoNamedOne]

Whether I give you examples or not, it doesnt change a thing. Torture, though evil, still produces data/Intelligence.

The question is not whether it EVER does (though it's effectiveness overall has never been proven), but whether or not it hurts our efforts more than helps, and that hurting our efforts could result in more deaths of U.S. soldiers and wasted recourses -- making victory even more elusive.

And as long as it saves American lives my personal feelings will remain.

You just haven't shown that it has saved American lives. On the other hand, I think it was Eel who pointed out to you, many at high levels have stated their expert opinion on the fact that it is counterproductive or that they simply disagree with for other also important reasons.

You still haven't specifically addressed the scenario in the apartment I layed out for you. You quoted it, but didn't address it.

[Crazysix]

To kill all 30 over one dead child is revenge without proof, there fore insanity, but to retain and question all 30 with all means necessary, in hope hopes to save one child is exceptable. IMHO. Now showing torture has saved lives is not on my level, but the intelligence that does come from somewhere, be it IMIT, HUMIT, SIGNIT and then verified, and sent out to the Battlefield commander. HUMIT does work, whether it be civil affairs, interacting and gaining trust or Interrogation. I will do some research and get back to you on how it does help. TP, Eel, and V, I will be honest with you ,this is an emotional subject, and honestly enemy combants are treated as such IAW the Geneva convention, however does a terrorist deserve this right IAW GC and the Law of War?

[Crazysix]

V, arent all the Agencies on the last link you sent out currently under investigation? sounds like a CYA tactic.

[Crazysix]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding
"everal accounts reported that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded while being interrogated by the CIA. According to the Bush administration, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed divulged information of tremendous value during his detention. He is said to have helped point the way to the capture of Hambali, the Indonesian terrorist responsible for the 2002 bombings of night clubs in Bali. According to the Bush administration, he also provided information on an Al Qaeda leader in England.[42]

During a radio interview on October 24, 2006, with Scott Hennen of radio station WDAY, Vice President Dick Cheney seemed to agree with the use of waterboarding.[43] The following are the questions and answers at issue, excerpted from the transcript of the interview:

Hennen: "…And I've had people call and say, please, let the Vice President know that if it takes dunking a terrorist in water, we're all for it, if it saves American lives. Again, this debate seems a little silly given the threat we face, would you agree?"
Cheney: "I do agree. And I think the terrorist threat, for example, with respect to our ability to interrogate high value detainees like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, that's been a very important tool that we've had to be able to secure the nation. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed provided us with enormously valuable information about how many there are, about how they plan, what their training processes are and so forth, we've learned a lot. We need to be able to continue that."
…
Hennen: "Would you agree a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives?"
Cheney: "Well, it's a no-brainer for me, but for a while there I was criticized as being the vice president for torture. We don't torture. That's not what we're involved in."[44]

The administration later denied that Cheney had confirmed the use of waterboarding, saying that U.S. officials do not talk publicly about interrogation techniques because they are classified. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said that Cheney was not referring to waterboarding, but only to a "dunk in the water", prompting one reporter to ask, "So dunk in the water means, what, we have a pool now at Guantanamo and they go swimming?" Tony Snow replied, "You doing stand-up?"[45] On September 13, 2007 ABC News reported that a former intelligence officer stated that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had been waterboarded in the presence of a female CIA supervisor.[46]

Captured along with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was a letter from bin Laden[47] which led officials to think that he knew where the Al Qaeda founder was hiding.[48]

According to sources familiar with a private interview of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, he claimed to have been waterboarded five times.[42] "A CIA official told ABC News that he had been water-boarded, and had won the admiration of his interrogators because it took him two to two-and-half minutes to start confessing – well beyond the average of 14 seconds observed in others."[49] This is disputed by two former CIA officers who are reportedly friends with one of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed interrogators called this bravado, and who claimed that he was waterboarded only once. According to one of the officers, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed needed only to be shown the drowning equipment again before he "broke." "Waterboarding works," the former officer said. "Drowning is a baseline fear. So is falling. People dream about it. It’s human nature. Suffocation is a very scary thing. When you’re waterboarded, you’re inverted, so it exacerbates the fear. It’s not painful, but it scares the shit out of you." (The former officer was waterboarded himself in a training course.) Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, he claimed, "didn’t resist. He sang right away. He cracked real quick." He said, "A lot of them want to talk. Their egos are unimaginable. (He) was just a little doughboy. He couldn't stand toe to toe and fight it out."[42] After being subjected to waterboarding, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed claimed involvement in thirty-one terrorist plots"

Waterboarding is not a torture technique it is an advanced interrogation tech. Trust me it works well. The advance techniques are and include

According to the sources, only a handful of CIA interrogators are trained and authorized to use the techniques:

1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.

2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.

3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.

4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.

5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.

6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

Now none these will kill you, trust me been there done it, so from now on I will refer to Enhanced interrogation techniques

[vvloc]

V, arent all the Agencies on the last link you sent out currently under investigation? sounds like a CYA tactic.

The CIA, the FBI, the Air Force, the Army, the State Department????

[Crazysix]

Yep, from the incidents at Abu Graf to Gitmo and 3rd party countries

[Crazysix]

except the State dept.
currently anyone that can be tied to torture is in CYA mode even those not directly involved

[Crazysix]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/11/agent.tapes/index.html#cnnSTCText
first line is key

[vvloc]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding
"everal accounts reported that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded while being interrogated by the CIA. According to the Bush administration, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed divulged information of tremendous value during his detention. He is said to have helped point the way to the capture of Hambali, the Indonesian terrorist responsible for the 2002 bombings of night clubs in Bali. According to the Bush administration, he also provided information on an Al Qaeda leader in England.[42]

During a radio interview on October 24, 2006, with Scott Hennen of radio station WDAY, Vice President Dick Cheney seemed to agree with the use of waterboarding.[43] The following are the questions and answers at issue, excerpted from the transcript of the interview:

Hennen: "…And I've had people call and say, please, let the Vice President know that if it takes dunking a terrorist in water, we're all for it, if it saves American lives. Again, this debate seems a little silly given the threat we face, would you agree?"
Cheney: "I do agree. And I think the terrorist threat, for example, with respect to our ability to interrogate high value detainees like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, that's been a very important tool that we've had to be able to secure the nation. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed provided us with enormously valuable information about how many there are, about how they plan, what their training processes are and so forth, we've learned a lot. We need to be able to continue that."
…
Hennen: "Would you agree a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives?"
Cheney: "Well, it's a no-brainer for me, but for a while there I was criticized as being the vice president for torture. We don't torture. That's not what we're involved in."[44]

The administration later denied that Cheney had confirmed the use of waterboarding, saying that U.S. officials do not talk publicly about interrogation techniques because they are classified. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said that Cheney was not referring to waterboarding, but only to a "dunk in the water", prompting one reporter to ask, "So dunk in the water means, what, we have a pool now at Guantanamo and they go swimming?" Tony Snow replied, "You doing stand-up?"[45] On September 13, 2007 ABC News reported that a former intelligence officer stated that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had been waterboarded in the presence of a female CIA supervisor.[46]

Captured along with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was a letter from bin Laden[47] which led officials to think that he knew where the Al Qaeda founder was hiding.[48]

According to sources familiar with a private interview of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, he claimed to have been waterboarded five times.[42] "A CIA official told ABC News that he had been water-boarded, and had won the admiration of his interrogators because it took him two to two-and-half minutes to start confessing – well beyond the average of 14 seconds observed in others."[49] This is disputed by two former CIA officers who are reportedly friends with one of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed interrogators called this bravado, and who claimed that he was waterboarded only once. According to one of the officers, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed needed only to be shown the drowning equipment again before he "broke." "Waterboarding works," the former officer said. "Drowning is a baseline fear. So is falling. People dream about it. It’s human nature. Suffocation is a very scary thing. When you’re waterboarded, you’re inverted, so it exacerbates the fear. It’s not painful, but it scares the shit out of you." (The former officer was waterboarded himself in a training course.) Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, he claimed, "didn’t resist. He sang right away. He cracked real quick." He said, "A lot of them want to talk. Their egos are unimaginable. (He) was just a little doughboy. He couldn't stand toe to toe and fight it out."[42] After being subjected to waterboarding, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed claimed involvement in thirty-one terrorist plots"

Waterboarding is not a torture technique it is an advanced interrogation tech. Trust me it works well. The advance techniques are and include

According to the sources, only a handful of CIA interrogators are trained and authorized to use the techniques:

1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.

2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.

3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.

4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.

5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.

6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

Now none these will kill you, trust me been there done it, so from now on I will refer to Enhanced interrogation techniques

This is really getting tedious. I offer TEN CIA Directorates, 1 CIA Staffer, 3 Colonels, 2 State Department Office of Counter-Terrorism staffers, and a member of the FBI'S Hostage Rescue team; and you come back with Dick Cheney of all people. Are you really serious?

And what is the point of listing these 6 methods. When the Japanese water-boarded Americans in WWII, there was no confusion or word-playing. The US (and the world) condemned such torture.

I am out of this discussion - I leave it to Eel and TP. Clearly, you are not in the slightest serious or informed.

[Crazysix]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1836797,00.html

[Crazysix]

You asked for proof and i give it

[Crazysix]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/05/torture_may_save_lives.html

[Crazysix]

This is really getting tedious. I offer TEN CIA Directorates, 1 CIA Staffer, 3 Colonels, 2 State Department Office of Counter-Terrorism staffers, and a member of the FBI'S Hostage Rescue team; and you come back with Dick Cheney of all people. Are you really serious?

And what is the point of listing these 6 methods. When the Japanese water-boarded Americans in WWII, there was no confusion or word-playing. The US (and the world) condemned such torture.

I am out of this discussion - I leave it to Eel and TP. Clearly, you are not in the slightest serious or informed.
yes but remember he is one of the people you will hold responsible. So his argument is invalid?

[Crazysix]

vvloc have a goodnight and take care

[Crazysix]

Captured along with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was a letter from bin Laden[47] which led officials to think that he knew where the Al Qaeda founder was hiding.[48]

According to sources familiar with a private interview of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, he claimed to have been waterboarded five times.[42] "A CIA official told ABC News that he had been water-boarded, and had won the admiration of his interrogators because it took him two to two-and-half minutes to start confessing – well beyond the average of 14 seconds observed in others."[49] This is disputed by two former CIA officers who are reportedly friends with one of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed interrogators called this bravado, and who claimed that he was waterboarded only once. According to one of the officers, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed needed only to be shown the drowning equipment again before he "broke." "Waterboarding works," the former officer said. "Drowning is a baseline fear. So is falling. People dream about it. It’s human nature. Suffocation is a very scary thing. When you’re waterboarded, you’re inverted, so it exacerbates the fear. It’s not painful, but it scares the shit out of you." (The former officer was waterboarded himself in a training course.) Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, he claimed, "didn’t resist. He sang right away. He cracked real quick." He said, "A lot of them want to talk. Their egos are unimaginable. (He) was just a little doughboy. He couldn't stand toe to toe and fight it out."[42] After being subjected to waterboarding, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed claimed involvement in thirty-one terrorist plots"

This the meat and potatoes of story for you so you dont have to focus on Cheney

[TheNoNamedOne]

C6, then I guess you accept Pogo's observation, and that there really is very little to separate us from our enemies?

"We have met the enemy and he is us."

[Crazysix]

maybe, depending on who's eye you are looking from

[Crazysix]

goodnight tp have a good one, I am out, sleep time.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1836797,00.html
From Wikipedia:
On 21 October (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_21) 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005), her leaked statement to the Law Lords (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Lords) about the unreliable information from a man in Algeria who had probably been tortured (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture#Incrimination_of_innocent_people) which led to the Wood Green ricin plot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_Green_ricin_plot) raid in January 2003, she said, "Experience proves that detainee reporting can be accurate and may enable lives to be saved."[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliza_Manningham-Buller#_note-6)

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/05/torture_may_save_lives.html
Debunked.
http://www.discourse.net/archives/2004/06/the_terrorist_with_an_abomb_torture_scenario.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticking_time_bomb_scenario

[Crazysix]

well as it,I see your articles are scenerios, alot of what if's. show me a an article that states bad intel , that was gained from enhanced interrogation/torture that resulted in a loss of American lives since 9/11.

If we had a better way of collecting the info fine, but very few other methods work or meet with success. Now if you take all intel disciplines and combine them , with HUMINT leading the way and all others as supporting factors, a true pic of the current situation can be seen, so that informed decisions can made. Unfortunatley the meat and potatoes of HUMINT is interrogation, be it simple questioning or other means

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

HUMINT is not merely torturing POWs and so-called non-combatants. Informants, and networks, have to be cultivated.

Interrogation is a skilled technique, which often involves building rapport with the subject. In an intelligence context, interrogators should be trained specialists, although they may work with linguists and subject matter experts [12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HUMINT#_note-USNDIC2006).
Regardless of whether the interview is voluntary or involuntary, the interrogator needs to keep the initiative. To keep the initiative, the interrogator may not need to be harsh. Indeed, the many successful interrogators are formally polite within the subject's cultural traditions.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HUMINT#_note-FM34-52) If, in societies with a strong host-guest tradition, the interrogator takes the role of host, that can allow polite domination of the conversation.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HUMINT

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

well as it,I see your articles are scenerios, alot of what if's. show me a an article that states bad intel , that was gained from enhanced interrogation/torture that resulted in a loss of American lives since 9/11.

Let's start with going to war (Iraq) based on faulty intelligence.

Check.

[Crazysix]

Let's start with going to war (Iraq) based on faulty intelligence.

Check.
No argument there, but I really dont think that any intel agency was at fault, I think the CINC had an alternate plan from day 1, he used his agencies as an excuse.

[Crazysix]

HUMINT is not merely torturing POWs and so-called non-combatants. Informants, and networks, have to be cultivated.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HUMINT
HA in the perfect world thats how they work, real world not so much, but most of whom we are talking about are CIA/contractors, who very rarely leave the base camp or secure compound.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Sounds like y'all have a king...cool! So the Boston Tea Party was all bollocks...as I suspected.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Please educate us about handling an informant. Don't forget to cite your Tom Clancy collection.

[Crazysix]

Sounds like y'all have a king...cool! So the Boston Tea Party was all bollocks...as I suspected.
WHAT are you talking about??

[Crazysix]

eele where are you from???

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Lots of different places. How 'bout you?

[Crazysix]

wasnt trying to be a smarty pants, your use of the word bollocks threw me off, not many Americans use that term

[Crazysix]

use the term "Smarty pants" so I dont get put in the penalty box

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

I don't consider myself American, though I have lived in the US.

[Crazysix]

Please educate us about handling an informant. Don't forget to cite your Tom Clancy collection.
treat with utmost courtesy
secure
turn them over to the professionals
Informants are not my concern

[Crazysix]

I don't consider myself American, though I have lived in the US.
Sorry to hear that, I am very proud to be so even though there are a lot of problems with system, that is home and I cant wait to return.
But before I do I am planning to spend a year in Mallorca , fell in love with it a few years back

[Crazysix]

treat with utmost courtesy
secure
turn them over to the professionals
Informants are not my concern
or do you mean sneak into the ville, kill the chiefs wife then sneak him out with a dirty sock in his mouth......let me restart my video game:w00t:

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

I'm sure my Appalachian relatives will be happy to tie you to a rock and baste you with honey on your return...

[Crazysix]

I doubt that, hell them hillbillies are least of my concern

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Back on topic...

You keep saying anything is acceptable as long as US deaths are kept at a minimum...

Iraq (invasion - March 20. 2003 - April 30, 2003) 139 deaths
Iraq (occupation - May 01, 2003 - present) 3,782 deaths

Post WWII Germany occupation (1945-1949) - about 700 deaths

Six times the death toll in Iraq, and climbing...

[dk]

Post WWII Germany occupation (1945-1949) - about 700 deaths

Six times the death toll in Iraq, and climbing...
Why do you think that might be?

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

If there's still really any confusion, refer to post #123 in this thread. US policy regarding POWs, and the way occupation assistance was/is handled.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33331.pdf

Another fine summary:

http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/may03/middleEast6.asp

[dk]

I don't believe you've been reading along NBTP. In the IHT article I posted, Ulrich Straus explained exactly why we should be good to POWs in our care, and the powerful results that brings. No one has denied the enemy may break the rules now, and has most definitely done so in the past. But Mr. Straus has reminded us how we can turn enemies into friends...



http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/12/22/edstraus_ed3_.php
Unless I'm reading this wrong, he was a language officer? What, aside from first-hand experience gives his opinion any more credibility than anyone else in here who might possibly have dealt with a prisoner? I'm looking around (I've probably spent five minutes looking around, but I haven't had any more time so far today) and I'm really coming up with blanks. Tried wikipedia and the only thing I learned is that he did some writing and is a Japanologist. Was he actually into research, or is this just glorified opinion work?

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/10/07/wwii-veteran-nazi-interrogators-denounced-bushs-torture-techniques/
For six decades, they held their silence.
The group of World War II veterans kept a military code and the decorum of their generation, telling virtually no one of their top-secret work interrogating Nazi prisoners of war at Fort Hunt.
“We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture,” said Henry Kolm, 90, an MIT (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Massachusetts+Institute+of+Technology?tid=informli ne) physicist who had been assigned to play chess in Germany (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Germany?tid=informline) with Hitler (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Adolf+Hitler?tid=informline)’s deputy, Rudolf Hess.
”During the many interrogations, I never laid hands on anyone,” said George Frenkel, 87, of Kensington (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Kensington?tid=informline). “We extracted information in a battle of the wits. I’m proud to say I never compromised my humanity.”…read on (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100502492_2.html?hpid=topnews)
BushCo. and the Republican Congress will always be known as the “Party of Torture.” Their pundits as well are a disgrace to the American flag that they wrap themselves around in everyday…


The full article can be had (for those with more than five minutes to spare) on the Washington Post site.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100502492.html

[dk]

For those unable to google "effective torture" to find the views of veterans who have and still do find torture to be an effective tactic, here you go:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4412065.stm

The public distances itself from images of abuse recently inflicted by occupying troops in Iraq, but many of the people who've dealt out near electrocutions, mock drownings and beatings believe such techniques are effective - that torture works in getting people to talk. And some retired torturers insist they would not hesitate from doing the same today.

During Algeria's fight for independence in the 1950s, French Resistance fighter Paul Aussaresses felt it was his duty to inflict electric shocks on Arab nationalists.

Like many former torturers, he still believes it is the most effective way to gather intelligence in a so called "ticking bomb" case. He claims to have stopped Algerian bomb makers from killing French civilians by extracting confessions though electric shocks and suffocation with a water saturated towel. They were methods he'd adapted from the Nazis.
The belief that torture works is justification enough for most torturers. Some experts claim that information divulged under force is always unreliable, but many who've practised torture say they have the experience to prove otherwise.



Once again, for every veteran who will tell you that they have pulled better intelligence from NOT torturing a prisoner, there will be another veteran who will disagree.


I'm undecided on this topic, but it seems as if only one side is being shown.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Once again, for every veteran who will tell you that they have pulled better intelligence from NOT torturing a prisoner, there will be another veteran who will disagree.


I'm undecided on this topic, but it seems as if only one side is being shown.
Au contraire. You cite a single individual, one who became a considerable source of controversy, and lost both rank and honors bestowed on him as a result of his confession. You'll note that the "for" case is usually argued by single individuals, often those who have lost much credibility as a result of their support of torture. Those for the "against" case tend to be former soldiers and intelligence professionals who went on to become extremely successful professors, lawyers, engineers, and managers. Should we believe the few single dregs of society who insist on demonic behavior, or those who have both served their countries and their families with honor and dignity?

Aussaresses provoked controversy in 2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000), when in an interview with the French newspaper Le Monde (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Monde), he defended the use of torture during the Algerian war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_during_the_Algerian_war). He repeated the defense in an interview with CBS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBS)'s 60 Minutes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/60_Minutes), further arguing that torture ought to be used in the fight against Al-Qaeda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda), and again defended his use of torture during the Algerian war in a 2001 book, The Battle of the Casbah. In the aftermath of the controversy, he was stripped of his rank and the right to wear his military uniform, and then President Jacques Chirac (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Chirac) stripped him of his Legion d'Honneur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legion_d%27Honneur). Aussaresses remained defiant, and dismissed the latter act as hypocritical.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Aussaresses

The others involved in Algeria take a somewhat different stance (you'd have needed more than five minutes to read the links in the Wiki to find that out):
General Jacques Massu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Massu), military chief of Algier, had evoked torture in his 1972 book, The True Battle of Algiers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Algiers) (La vraie bataille d'Alger). He declared to Le Monde in 2000 that "torture was not necessary and that we could have decided not to use it".[49] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_during_the_Algerian_war#_note-36)
Two days after the visit to France of Algerian president Abdelaziz Bouteflika (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdelaziz_Bouteflika), Louisette Ighilahriz, a former ALN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALN) activist, published her testimony in Le Monde on June 20, 2000. At the age of twenty she had been captured in September 1957, during the Battle of Algiers, and raped and tortured for three months. She named General Massu as the responsible of the French military at the time. Massu, 94 years old, acknowledged Ighilahriz's testimony and declared to 'Le Monde that "Torture isn't indispensable in times of war, and one can very well do without it. When l look back on Algeria, it saddens me... One could have done things differently." To the contrary, General Bigeard, then Colonel called her remarks a "tissue of lies," while Aussaresses justified it[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_during_the_Algerian_war#_note-NYR)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_during_the_Algerian_war

If you read a bit further, you find out that those who supported torture claim to never have personally engaged in torture. What a bunch of moral cowards!

Shall we examine the state of post occupation Germany and Japan, versus that of Algeria, to compare and contrast the effects of humane treatment on a peoples versus that where torture and brutality were the main?

[TheNoNamedOne]

I'm undecided on this topic, but it seems as if only one side is being shown.

The other side is not being told very well because the support for it is sparse, and many who have sang the praises of torture, if they are the ones who infliced it, are discreditd and disgraced, or really cannot produce evidence to support their claims. Besides that, as Eel pointed out, those that have used torture in the past after reflection of its usefulness have come out and said that the torture was unecessary.

Here is more from the side against the effectiveness of torture:

Rethinking the Psychology of Torture (http://explore.georgetown.edu/news/?ID=20647)

Former Interrogators, Psychologists Join to Study the Effectiveness of Torture
Torture does not yield reliable information and is actually counterproductive in intelligence interrogations. This was the conclusion released by retired senior military interrogators and research psychologists during a press conference at Georgetown University. ...

“Torture is based on outmoded behaviorist ideas. Threats may change overt behavior, but it is naïve to assume that threats make a person tell the truth.”

The interrogators participating in the research have conducted interrogation and other human intelligence operations in various military operations, including Vietnam, Grenada, Desert Storm, Bosnia, Kosovo, and the ongoing war in Iraq. They maintained that, even in the most urgent situations, torture can not be considered a viable option. The involuntary circumstances of the disclosure would compromise the integrity of the information obtained. According to the psychologists participating in the group, decades of research into directly relevant topics such as social influence, stress, cultural and religious identification, false confessions, and interpersonal relationships point to the same conclusion. ...

The group’s report also discusses the “ticking time bomb” scenario, in which a terrorist who knows the location of a bomb is tortured ...

“In my many years of interrogation,” Bennett said at the press conference, “I haven’t met an interrogator who has encountered this type of situation.”


We have not only the testimony of former and successful interrogators about torture being an unreliable method in gathering information, but also professional researchers in the area of psychology with decades of research in culture, interpersonal relationships, stress, religious gratification etc... also saying the same thing.

What, are all these modern experts and methodologies of research in their respective disciplines to just be slighted in favor of primitive and barbaric practices that have been with us for centuries? Just subjugate what the experts (and former successful interrogators) in a wide array of fields and research are telling us? That is just irrational.

Anyways, the story is not long. Please be sure to read the whole thing.

[vvloc]

For those unable to google "effective torture" to find the views of veterans who have and still do find torture to be an effective tactic, here you go:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4412065.stm

The public distances itself from images of abuse recently inflicted by occupying troops in Iraq, but many of the people who've dealt out near electrocutions, mock drownings and beatings believe such techniques are effective - that torture works in getting people to talk. And some retired torturers insist they would not hesitate from doing the same today.

During Algeria's fight for independence in the 1950s, French Resistance fighter Paul Aussaresses felt it was his duty to inflict electric shocks on Arab nationalists.

Like many former torturers, he still believes it is the most effective way to gather intelligence in a so called "ticking bomb" case. He claims to have stopped Algerian bomb makers from killing French civilians by extracting confessions though electric shocks and suffocation with a water saturated towel. They were methods he'd adapted from the Nazis.
The belief that torture works is justification enough for most torturers. Some experts claim that information divulged under force is always unreliable, but many who've practised torture say they have the experience to prove otherwise.



Once again, for every veteran who will tell you that they have pulled better intelligence from NOT torturing a prisoner, there will be another veteran who will disagree.


I'm undecided on this topic, but it seems as if only one side is being shown.

This poster supplies us testimony of torturers, and then provides us with the conclusion that for every veteran opposed to torture there is one who supports it. Such a conclusion of a 50-50 breakdown is unsupported and could not be more fallacious.

He further opines that it seems that only one side is being presented.

Were we to use the results of the McCain anti-torture bill as a measure which passed the Senate by a vote of 90 - 9, the 3 opposed (Eel, TP, VVLOC) to 1 support (C6) would lend credence to the thought that the pro-torture side has been grossly (pun intended) over-represented here.

There are many sane voices that could be cited to criticize this insanity. I'll quote one who is quite clearly decided on this and allied issues. This person volunteered for service and lived through the horrors of the firebombing of Dresden as an American P.O.W.

He says he has no country and supports this statement thusly: "I myself feel that our country, for whose Constitution I fought in a just war, might as well have been invaded by Martians and body snatchers. Sometimes I wish it had been. What has happened instead is that it was taken over by means of the sleaziest, low-comedy, Keystone Cops-style coup d'etat imaginable."

At his acceptance speech for humanist of the year in Oregon:

"When I was a little boy in Indianapolis, I used to be thankful that there were no longer torture chambers with iron maidens and racks and thumbscrews and Spanish boots and so on. But there may be more of them now than ever--not in this country but elsewhere, often in countries we call our friends. Ask the Human Rights Watch. Ask Amnesty International if this isn't so. Don't ask the U.S. State Department.

And the horrors of those torture chambers--their powers of persuasion--have been upgraded, like those of warfare, by applied science, by the domestication of electricity and the de tailed understanding of the human nervous system, and so on.

Napalm, incidentally, is a gift to civilization from the chemistry department of Harvard University."

Anyone who wants to quibble about Vonnegut's phrase "not in this country" above, should be reminded that this speech was delivered in 1992, well before documentation of the tactics of the new American empire. Anyone doubting Vonnegut's unequivical opposition to torture just doesn't understand the man or his writings.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Some should also question about how effective torture is when our soldiers in Vietnam who were downed from their fighters and bombers, would go on film and write statements confessing they were deliberately bombing women and children and dropping chemical and biological weapons on population centers.

I guess it is true! Look, the torture got them to speak the truth of the matter, huh? Now we have so many confessed war criminals from Vietnam reintegrated into our society (as heroes nevertheless) after coming home from that war and after they have divulged the "truth" to their captors i.e. our enemy about their actions there.

Please... someone tell me I do not need smilies for sarcasm in making a point!

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Excellent input from vvloc and TP. Obviously did their research and spent time thinking through their responses.

A little more on the fallacy of that oxymoron "effective torture"...

Please look into the work of Darius Rejali. (http://academic.reed.edu/poli_sci/faculty/rejali/rejali/academic.html)

You can check out his work for yourselves here:
http://academic.reed.edu/poli_sci/faculty/rejali/rejali/press.html

Here's a bit about Algiers:
Torture apologists point to one powerful example to counter all the arguments against torture: the Battle of Algiers.

Yet the French won by applying overwhelming force in an extremely constrained space, not by superior intelligence gathered through torture. As noted war historian John Keegan said in his recent study of military intelligence ("Intelligence in War: Knowledge of the Enemy From Napoleon to Al-Qaeda"), "it is force, not fraud or forethought, that counts" in modern wars.

Algerian archives are now open, and many French torturers wrote their autobiographies in the 1990s. The story they tell will not comfort generals who tell self-serving stories of torture's success. In fact, the battle shows the devastating consequences of torture for any democracy foolish enough to institutionalize it.

Torture by the French failed miserably in Vietnam, and the French could never entirely secure the Algerian countryside, so either torture really did not work or there was some additional factor that made the difference in Algiers.

In fact, no rank-and-file soldier has related a tale of how he personally, through timely interrogation, produced decisive information that stopped a ticking bomb. "As the pain of interrogation began," observed torturer Jean-Pierre Vittori, "they talked abundantly, citing the names of the dead or militants on the run, indicating locations of old hiding places in which we didn't find anything but some documents without interest." Detainees also provided names of their enemies -- true information, but without utility to the French.

Unlike in the famous movie, (http://dir.salon.com/ent/feature/2004/01/09/yacef/) which portrays the Algerian population as united behind the FLN and assumes that torture is why the French won the battle, the real Battle of Algiers was a story of collaboration and betrayal by the local population. It was, as Alistair Horne describes in "A Savage War of Peace: Algeria 1954-1962," a population that was cowed beyond belief and blamed the FLN leadership for having brought them to this pass.


Get in there, and check out the full article, and the related articles on his homepage. He's also published a textbook or two dealiing with torture topics.

His CV is right on the website in case anyone feels the need to criticize his qualifications to speak out.

[Tony Stacks]

Honestly, I know that torture is wrong and the US is supposed to set the example and do what7s right but then I think about 9/11 and friends that were in the wtc and I start to think about the issue using emotion wrather than logic and sometimes I just want revenge.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Honestly, I know that torture is wrong and the US is supposed to set the example and do what7s right but then I think about 9/11 and friends that were in the wtc and I start to think about the issue using emotion wrather than logic and sometimes I just want revenge.

OK, and that is an honest answer. It is one of anger and frustration. But you have to go beyond that and not say you just know that it is wrong, but that you are against it. It is wrong all the way around and a rational mind with today's information at your hands should allow you to state so. Divorce yourself from the emotion and judge here on what the research is telling you.

We have posted pages and pages for the argument against with detailed papers suporting that. Just allow yourself to get knocked off the fence and say "torture is something I cannot support." Leave the thoughts of revenge and gratifying that out of the picture. What is the data telling you?

Have you been reading the articles and links posted here? The whole argument is so lopsided it is unbelievable and only those blinded by anger can continue to ignore it. No shame in changing your position. It is a simple choice.

[Bones]

As posted by eelecurb:

If there's still really any confusion, refer to post #123 in this thread. US policy regarding POWs, and the way occupation assistance was/is handled.

Yeah, I will have to take the hit for that.\:-)

Had to leave last night, the daughter's car broke down, and it looks as though the repair bill will be substantial.:(

Back on track, I think the biggest confusion was my fault as well. But what I was was inadequately trying to ask is this:

"I'm all for treating PO W's in a decent manner. But during a conflict, when our people fall into enemy hands, they are not afforded the same level of protection that we offer their prisoners."

Sometimes, when a person is captured by foreign country, their security services take over, and that's when the torture begins. Most of those times , the Military is taken out of the picture. The prisoners may be treated well, but tortured occasionally to try to obtain critical information.

That happens on all sides, and sometimes the people who cooperate with their captors are given special privileges. Usually, not well received when the prisoner is released back to his own country.

In regards to "Humint", it's not torture, the people approached usually cooperate on their own, and receive special treatment from the people attacking their country. Their life-span depends on who retains power after the conflict. For example, if you supported the attackers, and the people in power were the one's whom you may have opposed, planning your retirement options would probably be a waste of time.

As it relates to our current conflict, I'm not convinced that anything bad is really happening. I see little sense in trying to offer comfort a terrorist, since they seem to have no problem killing non-combatants.

NBTP

[Tony Stacks]

OK, and that is an honest answer. It is one of anger and frustration. But you have to go beyond that and not say you just know that it is wrong, but that you are against it. It is wrong all the way around and a rational mind with today's information at your hands should allow you to state so. Divorce yourself from the emotion and judge here on what the research is telling you.

We have posted pages and pages for the argument against with detailed papers suporting that. Just allow yourself to get knocked off the fence and say "torture is something I cannot support." Leave the thoughts of revenge and gratifying that out of the picture. What is the data telling you?

Have you been reading the articles and links posted here? The whole argument is so lopsided it is unbelievable and only those blinded by anger can continue to ignore it. No shame in changing your position. It is a simple choice.

I am against it I guess I'm just venting and the info you guys provided gave me some good insight on the issue so kudos.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

The whole argument is so lopsided it is unbelievable and only those blinded by anger can continue to ignore it. No shame in changing your position. It is a simple choice.
Yes, blinded by anger & FEAR. Your remarks reminded me of this great interview, TP.

YouTube - Tony Benn from Sicko

It's barely two minutes long, but spot on.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Consider this to those of you who have not offered kudos yet as Tony has, are U.S. servicemen dying for the principles and values that make the United States great, or are they dying for the goals of a foreign policy of any given administration at any given time?

Is one's country to be defended at all costs, even if that means peeling away those characteristics that define one's country? If so, then the original country you are fighting for has been melted away and no longer exists except for the borders on a map and a governing body over a population. But then the body is merely left!

Where is the heart and soul of that body that once animated it to greatness?

[vvloc]

But during a conflict, when our people fall into enemy hands, they are not afforded the same level of protection that we offer their prisoners."

Sometimes, when a person is captured by foreign country, their security services take over, and that's when the torture begins.

Here's a little exercise - Put the words "American claims he was tortured" into yahoo and tell us what the results are.

As it relates to our current conflict, I'm not convinced that anything bad is really happening.

This statement from you is hardly surprising.

[Bones]

As posted by vvlock:

Here's a little exercise - Put the words "American claims he was tortured" into yahoo and tell us what the results are.

Don't use yahoo. Tried google, and the results were pretty much the same I suspect. But I won't let you off the hook that easily. There are a lot of posts out there proclaiming that the U.S. has tortured people after 9/11.

Now, instead of relying on the internet, try reading a book about Col.George Day, John McCain, or any other famous celebrity that you know of who has been a prisoner of war.

Yeah, those conflicts may have happened a long time ago. Most of the things that I've read about in the posts that you've mentioned are about articles that happened after 9/11. They are mostly middle eastern of descent, is that a surprise?

The people who are attacking us come from that part of the world. They wear no uniform, claim to be honest citizens, but may have been wrongly flagged. Yet once they've established a normal life over in the states, they go on about their terrorist ways. These people are trained to use our own legal system against us, and if you claim to be as well informed about this issue, you would know that.

NBTP

[vvloc]

As posted by vvlock:



Don't use yahoo. Tried google, and the results were pretty much the same I suspect. But I won't let you off the hook that easily. There are a lot of posts out there proclaiming that the U.S. has tortured people after 9/11.

Now, instead of relying on the internet, try reading a book about Col.George Day, John McCain, or any other famous celebrity that you know of who has been a prisoner of war.

Yeah, those conflicts may have happened a long time ago. Most of the things that I've read about in the posts that you've mentioned are about articles that happened after 9/11. They are mostly middle eastern of descent, is that a surprise?NBTP

Well, good morning, nobones, did you have a nice sleep? Of course, they are since 9/11. Did we somehow miss making the point that it is THIS administration who stand condemned. Did anyone here try to impress upon you that past regimes have resorted to the filth that this one has?

Earlier in this thread, you tried the same trick you want to try here. We all are aware of torture of P.O.W.s in the Vietnam War. I, myself, referred to John McCain several times. But you wish to keep on using Vietnam as a justification for ANYTHING.

In a previous post, I quoted 24 military incursions in 50 years, and you came back with the same vacuous response. I told you that I didn't understand your logic. You dropped the issue instead of explaining the relevance. Why not level with us and stop talking oranges when the subject is apples?

[TheNoNamedOne]

The people who are attacking us come from that part of the world. They wear no uniform, claim to be honest citizens, but may have been wrongly flagged. Yet once they've established a normal life over in the states, they go on about their terrorist ways. These people are trained to use our own legal system against us, and if you claim to be as well informed about this issue, you would know that.

What are you talking about!? That part of the world? You mean Israel?

Are you referring to the hijackers of the planes that flew into the WTCs? So, that right there gives us a license to make torture a policy for eliciting information? From who? From all those picked up in a sweep from an area who just may have been in that area at the time when an attack happened?

Here is what Israel's High Court of Justice (http://www.irri-kiib.be/speechnotes/06/060213-jihad.terr/deVries.htm), a country who has been bloodied by terrorism far more than the U.S. has had to say on the point of torture and its own intelligence apparatus that resorted to it:

This is the destiny of a democracy—it does not see all means
as acceptable, and the ways of its enemies are not always open
before it. A democracy must sometimes fight with one hand tied
behind its back. Even so, a democracy has the upper hand. The
rule of law and the liberty of an individual constitute important
components in its understanding of security. At the end of the
day, they strengthen its spirit and this strength allows it to
overcome its difficulties.

And to drive that point home even harder by linking it to the struggle of U.S. liberty and rights, our principles and values, follow it up by reading this short article from The San diego Union Tribune (http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040701/news_lz1e1motro.html).

[vvloc]

But I won't let you off the hook that easily.

You won't let me off the hook!!! That's a riot. Thanks for the laugh, bones. You are on these boards condoning torture condoning the use of lynching and nappy headed ho's towards black people, and you won't let me off the hook.

You told us, not so many months ago, that the wars were unfolding much as you predicted. Do you remember that one? Are you really serious about the things that you say, or are you just here for comedic value?

[Bones]

As posted by vvlock:

You won't let me off the hook!!! That's a riot. Thanks for the laugh, bones. You are on these boards condoning torture condoning the use of lynching and nappy headed ho's towards black people, and you won't let me off the hook.

You told us, not so many months ago, that the wars were unfolding much as you predicted. Do you remember that one? Are you really serious about the things that you say, or are you just here for comedic value?

On the first part, I'm not condoning torture. If it did happen, I was not in a position to do anything about it.

On the second part, my predictions about this current campaign were pretty much on target. There were a few surprises along the way in regards to Iran's leadership. So burn me for that one.

But everything that I had predicted, is pretty much happening right now. I didn't share everything on the forums, there were some people at work that I argued with about this issue. And some of those predictions came to pass, tho it has taken much longer than I suspected. But these things are happening today.

Getting back to the first part of your message:

You are on these boards condoning torture condoning the use of lynching and nappy headed ho's towards black people, and you won't let me off the hook.

I'm not condoning anything. As you've stated in a previous post before TP tipped in, I'm waking up to the fact that you happen to be attacking the current administration in power. If that's so, well whatever.

The current administration will be leaving soon, and you will be replaced by someone who disagrees with the new kids on the block.

The rest of your words are your own.

NBTP

[Bones]

Pretty much thinking along the lines that this thread needs to be moved.

Anybody else out there concur?

NBTP

[vvloc]

As posted by vvlock:



On the first part, I'm not condoning torture. If it did happen, I was not in a position to do anything about it.

On the second part, my predictions about this current campaign were pretty much on target. There were a few surprises along the way in regards to Iran's leadership. So burn me for that one.

But everything that I had predicted, is pretty much happening right now. I didn't share everything on the forums, there were some people at work that I argued with about this issue. And some of those predictions came to pass, tho it has taken much longer than I suspected. But these things are happening today.

Getting back to the first part of your message:



I'm not condoning anything. As you've stated in a previous post before TP tipped in, I'm waking up to the fact that you happen to be attacking the current administration in power. If that's so, well whatever.

The current administration will be leaving soon, and you will be replaced by someone who disagrees with the new kids on the block.

The rest of your words are your own.

NBTP

You're waking up to the fact that this thread concerns the current administration! It took you nearly 200 posts to realize that? OMG, I can't believe that I'm actually wasting my time replying to you. Is the problem reading or is it comprehension?

The thread is about Iraq amongst other places. It is not about Iran. This is the 2nd time you've spoken of Iran. In post 82, you spoke of regime change in Iran. You are aware that Iran is not Iraq, aren't you? If so, what is the regime change in Iran that you refer to?

After you figure that out, maybe you can share the predictions that you were on-target with.

[TheNoNamedOne]

I know this can get heated, so let's all try to keep the tenor from boiling out of control. -- TP

[TheNoNamedOne]

Tony, I notice you "Thanked" NBTP on his post above. I really have no problem with you thanking him -- or anyone for that matter. But, just what exactly are you thanking him on!? On bunk statements of "predictions that came to past" but that he didn't share with us and we are just to take his word that he had the whole thing pegged from the start (of course except for Irans leadership <LMAO about that one!>)?

I wouldn't even be asking you what you "thanked" him for except for the fact that you offered kudos to us who have been arguing against torture, and stated that our posts had helped you to see that it is indeed wrong and should not be supported.

Everything NBTP posted in that post is just fluff and this really has virtually no meaning or even content:

NBTP:
I'm not condoning anything. As you've stated in a previous post before TP tipped in, I'm waking up to the fact that you happen to be attacking the current administration in power. If that's so, well whatever.

The current administration will be leaving soon, and you will be replaced by someone who disagrees with the new kids on the block.

The rest of your words are your own.

NBTP

So, like WTF? First you kudos those against torture and then you thank a fluff post with no content. Just what specifically are you thanking up there? I guess I could even ask the same thing to C6 eventhough he didn't offer any kudos.

NBTP:
The rest of your words are your own.

Like, wtf does that mean!? Geesh. Of course his words are his own, as are anyone's. Surely you weren't thanking that, were you?

But, just what were you "thanking"?

[Crazysix]

Tony, I notice you "Thanked" NBTP on his post above. I really have no problem with you thanking him -- or anyone for that matter. But, just what exactly are you thanking him on!? On bunk statements of "predictions that came to past" but that he didn't share with us and we are just to take his word that he had the whole thing pegged from the start (of course except for Irans leadership <LMAO about that one!>)?

I wouldn't even be asking you what you "thanked" him for except for the fact that you offered kudos to us who have been arguing against torture, and stated that our posts had helped you to see that it is indeed wrong and should not be supported.

Everything NBTP posted in that post is just fluff and this really has virtually no meaning or even content:




So, like WTF? First you kudos those against torture and then you thank a fluff post with no content. Just what specifically are you thanking up there? I guess I could even ask the same thing to C6 eventhough he didn't offer any kudos.



Like, wtf does that mean!? Geesh. Of course his words are his own, as are anyone's. Surely you weren't thanking that, were you?

But, just what were you "thanking"?

Hey man woooosaaaa!!!!! he is entitled to thank anybody for anything. Take a chill pill count to ten and start again:thumbup:

[TheNoNamedOne]

Hey man woooosaaaa!!!!! he is entitled to thank anybody for anything.

Of course he is! Not saying he is not. I am just curious, since the post was not just 2 or 3 sentences, to know exactly what specifically was "he thanking," and like I said, I would probably not even ask had it not been for his previous offer of kudos. I am just asking for some clarification here.

He has merely piqued my interest.


But C6, I think you have a lot of reading material to sink your teeth into since you have been gone. What of that have you read so far and what specifically do you reject or accept from that body?

[Tony Stacks]

Tony, I notice you "Thanked" NBTP on his post above. I really have no problem with you thanking him -- or anyone for that matter. But, just what exactly are you thanking him on!? On bunk statements of "predictions that came to past" but that he didn't share with us and we are just to take his word that he had the whole thing pegged from the start (of course except for Irans leadership <LMAO about that one!>)?

I wouldn't even be asking you what you "thanked" him for except for the fact that you offered kudos to us who have been arguing against torture, and stated that our posts had helped you to see that it is indeed wrong and should not be supported.

Everything NBTP posted in that post is just fluff and this really has virtually no meaning or even content:



So, like WTF? First you kudos those against torture and then you thank a fluff post with no content. Just what specifically are you thanking up there? I guess I could even ask the same thing to C6 eventhough he didn't offer any kudos.



Like, wtf does that mean!? Geesh. Of course his words are his own, as are anyone's. Surely you weren't thanking that, were you?

But, just what were you "thanking"?

I thanked him for this statement: As posted by NBTP- "The current administration will be leaving soon, and you will be replaced by someone who disagrees with the new kids on the block."

This is true and no matter who is right or wrong ppl will always disagree and somebody will always bitch.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Ok, thanks for clarifying that, Tony. When a post is not just a short sentence or two, and it is thanked, it is hard to know if the absurd part is being thanked or just the common sense part is being thanked. Of course the administration will be leaving soon and then after that and after that and after that and after that a new administration affects different policy on points of disagreement with the previous one.

I find it strange that people thank for statements of obvious fact. Look at this: "Some more soldiers will die in Iraq this year." An obvious fact that one surely would not disagree with. Is it worthy of "thanking"?

Point being, why not thank for helpful posts that clarify things that may not have been so clear, rather than thanking for the obvious? Not saying you have to, and of course you are free to thank whatever you wish, but why the obvious?

[Tony Stacks]

Ok, thanks for clarifying that, Tony. When a post is not just a short sentence or two, and it is thanked, it is hard to know if the absurd part is being thanked or just the common sense part is being thanked. Of course the administration will be leaving soon and then after that and after that and after that and after that a new administration affects different policy on points of disagreement with the previous one.

I find it strange that people thank for statements of obvious fact. Look at this: "Some more soldiers will die in Iraq this year." An obvious fact that one surely would not disagree with. Is it worthy of "thanking"?

Point being, why not thank for helpful posts that clarify things that may not have been so clear, rather than thanking for the obvious? Not saying you have to, and of course you are free to thank whatever you wish, but why the obvious?


Because sometimes just the obvious explains more than the complex and can give a deeper insight into the not so obvious.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Tony, are you saying we have been given some deep insight by having it pointed out to us that the administration will be changing soon and that a new administration will have different policies that may disagree with the old policies? Who doesn't know that!?

How is anyone given deep insight by such a common shared knowledge of such a thing? I really can't see why you can't offer a "fair enough" on this and acknowledge you may have been a little hasty with the "thanks" and are going to defend thanking such simple minded observation.

[Tony Stacks]

Tony, are you saying we have been given some deep insight by having it pointed out to us that the administration will be changing soon and that a new administration will have different policies that may disagree with the old policies? Who doesn't know that!?

How is anyone given deep insight by such a common shared knowledge of such a thing? I really can't see why you can't offer a "fair enough" on this and acknowledge you may have been a little hasty with the "thanks" and are going to defend thanking such simple minded observation.


To us it is obvious but someone would not notice that without the thanks button.

[TheNoNamedOne]

On the first part, I'm not condoning torture.

There is the concept of complicity by silence. If you cannot even condemn the act clearly without hemming and hawing on the issue or by being silent when the issue is put to you, then there is that element of complicity in support of it.

If it did happen, I was not in a position to do anything about it.

What do you mean if? Indicators are showing you that it has e.g. the CIA destroying "interrogation" sessions, extraordinary renditions to other countries that do torture, secret prisons, a refusal to acknowledge waterboarding as torture today when in fact we condemned it as torture during WW2, the FBI ordering its officers to not be present during some sessions of interrogations by other branches of the government so as to protect them from criminal or legal proceedings in the future, etc...

ONe need only use deductive reasoning to see what is the probability and that "if" just evaporates. Only those complicit will cling to that "if."

Sure, you can do something about it. You can condemn it and say that such things do not represent the values and principles of my country and debate against those who feel it is justified. The chatter of the U.S. public is important in creating an atmosphere that does not allow such heinous practice. Furthermore, you could call your congressman, write letters to the editor, etc...

[TheNoNamedOne]

Well, it looks like National Intelligence Director, Mike McConnel, sure knows that waterboarding is torture and gives some pretty powerful testimony on it by being able to imagine being a target of it:

McConnell weighs in on waterboarding (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080113/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/terrorist_interrogation)
By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer
41 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The nation's intelligence chief says waterboarding "would be torture" if used against him or if someone under interrogation actually was taking water into his lungs. ...

"If it ever is determined to be torture, there will be a huge penalty to be paid for anyone engaging in it," McConnell told The New Yorker, which published a 16,000-word article Sunday on the director of national intelligence. ...

"If I had water draining into my nose, oh God, I just can't imagine how painful! Whether it's torture by anybody else's definition, for me it would be torture," McConnell told the magazine. ...

McConnell said the legal test for torture should be "pretty simple."

"Is it excruciatingly painful to the point of forcing someone to say something because of the pain?" he said.

[vvloc]

There is the concept of complicity by silence. If you cannot even condemn the act clearly without hemming and hawing on the issue or by being silent when the issue is put to you, then there is that element of complicity in support of it.



What do you mean if? Indicators are showing you that it has e.g. the CIA destroying "interrogation" sessions, extraordinary renditions to other countries that do torture, secret prisons, a refusal to acknowledge waterboarding as torture today when in fact we condemned it as torture during WW2, the FBI ordering its officers to not be present during some sessions of interrogations by other branches of the government so as to protect them from criminal or legal proceedings in the future, etc...

ONe need only use deductive reasoning to see what is the probability and that "if" just evaporates. Only those complicit will cling to that "if."

Sure, you can do something about it. You can condemn it and say that such things do not represent the values and principles of my country and debate against those who feel it is justified. The chatter of the U.S. public is important in creating an atmosphere that does not allow such heinous practice. Furthermore, you could call your congressman, write letters to the editor, etc...

Ease up on bones, TP. I see he's posting elsewhere on a humor thread. I guess he's still trying to figure out something on this Iran regime change thing he dreamed up

[P_chan]

Ease up on bones, TP. I see he's posting elsewhere on a humor thread. I guess he's still trying to figure out something on this Iran regime change thing he dreamed up

Yes because anyone who posts on a humor thread is obviously too dimwitted to post in any serious threads:rolleyes::thumbdown:

[vvloc]

Yes because anyone who posts on a humor thread is obviously too dimwitted to post in any serious threads:rolleyes::thumbdown:

GREAT smilie work, pea - perhaps you'd like to help bones on this Iranian regime change issue.

[Bones]

As posted by TP:

There is the concept of complicity by silence. If you cannot even condemn the act clearly without hemming and hawing on the issue or by being silent when the issue is put to you, then there is that element of complicity in support of it.

I won't this disagree with you on that TP. And if you're a civilian, then you can do all of the things that you've mentioned.

But let me try explain why I said what I did, in the post that you are quoting.

Let's say I was a Flight Line Superintendent, and "Air America" delivers a crew of civilians. They were sent out by some "higher authority" , to debrief some captives. Rumors of torture crop up in the Mess Hall. Well, you know all about rumors.

Let's say I happen to go into the Wing Conference Room, for our shift rotation briefing and I hear the "Wing King" yelling at the civilians, while addressing the above mentioned rumors. He's told that he doesn't have the "Required Clearance", nor does he have a "need to know" what happens behind closed doors. He's not even in their "Chain of Command".

By this time, they've already told a "full bird", to mind his own business.

As a Senior NCO, if I approached them saying that I thought that what they were doing was wrong, do you think that they would apologize to me, make amends and simply disappear?

Yeah, I could write to my Congress person from the "Combat Zone", complaining about their behavior. Talk about career regression.:thumbdown:

NBTP

[Bones]

As posted by vvlock:

Ease up on bones, TP. I see he's posting elsewhere on a humor thread. I guess he's still trying to figure out something on this Iran regime change thing he dreamed up

Heh, dreamed up?:eek:

Check out the following link:

http:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran

I can understand your sarcasm up to a point. You're thinking that I had implied a regime change by the current administration.

I didn't, the regime change that I was talking about took place in 1979, and the person who took power, did so without any help from our side. One day it was "Mohammad Reza Pahlavi", one month later it was "The Ayatollah Khomeini".

By the way, Pahlavi was installed by Great Britain, and Russia, in 1941 after forcing the previous "Sha" to advocate in favor of his son.

BTW, you'll have to type the above posted link in yourself. Don't have enough free time to figure out all of the things within the forums yet.:rolleyes:

Enjoy the laughter, vv.

NBTP:old:

[P_chan]

GREAT smilie work, pea - perhaps you'd like to help bones on this Iranian regime change issue.

Perhaps you shouldn't be so condescending to other users. You know, then people might not think your an ass.

[vvloc]

As posted by vvlock:



Heh, dreamed up?:eek:

Check out the following link:

http:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran

I can understand your sarcasm up to a point. You're thinking that I had implied a regime change by the current administration.

I didn't, the regime change that I was talking about took place in 1979, and the person who took power, did so without any help from our side. One day it was "Mohammad Reza Pahlavi", one month later it was "The Ayatollah Khomeini".

By the way, Pahlavi was installed by Great Britain, and Russia, in 1941 after forcing the previous "Sha" to advocate in favor of his son.

BTW, you'll have to type the above posted link in yourself. Don't have enough free time to figure out all of the things within the forums yet.:rolleyes:

Enjoy the laughter, vv.

NBTP:old:

The laughter is at you, bones. You took a day to finally find events 35 years ago, which only you could find as plausible to justify your delusions . If you had the slightest inkling about this matter you would have justified yourself at the time of the discussion. Now seeing that regime change in Iran, as regards the current discussion is but a product of a demented mind, you furiously searched for an alibi.

It's sad when people have to resort to lies to justify their loose lips. You said in regards to the current campaign and the subject of this thread, which by your own admission took you hundreds of posts to understand:

"On the second part, my predictions about this current campaign were pretty much on target. There were a few surprises along the way in regards to Iran's leadership."

"it wasn't until the regime change in Iran that we started seeing suicide bombers."

Now you would have us believe you were referencing events long ago?

Ummm, by the way, did you find anything about suicide bombers in the timeframe you now wish to switch to?

[vvloc]

Perhaps you shouldn't be so condescending to other users. You know, then people might not think your an ass.

Which part was condescending, complimenting you on your smilies, or thinking you could help bones out?

[P_chan]

Which part was condescending, complimenting you on your smilies, or thinking you could help bones out?

Thank you for proving my point.

[vvloc]

Thank you for proving my point.

On my very first post on these forums, you came rushing to fonze's defense because I asked him about his homophobia. Now you jump in and intervene on the part of bones. Birds of a feather certainly tend to flock together, and I don't find your choice of buddies at all surprising. Ya'all are really adept at smilies and . . . .

[Bones]

As posted by vvlock:

The laughter is at you, bones. You took a day to finally find events 35 years ago, which only you could find as plausible to justify your delusions . If you had the slightest inkling about this matter you would have justified yourself at the time of the discussion. Now seeing that regime change in Iran, as regards the current discussion is but a product of a demented mind, you furiously searched for an alibi.

It's sad when people have to resort to lies to justify their loose lips. You said in regards to the current campaign and the subject of this thread, which by your own admission took you hundreds of posts to understand:

"it wasn't until the regime change in Iran that we started seeing suicide bombers."

Now you would have us believe you were referencing events long ago?

Ummm, by the way, did you find anything about suicide bombers in the timeframe you now wish to switch to?

It only took a couple of seconds to respond to your accusation of my having "dreamed up" the regime" change.

And now you come up with this post.:rolleyes:

Yeah, it may have taken a few posts for me to get your point. Maybe I'm just not as sharp as I used to be.:(

But I won't sink down to your level.:)

NBTP

[Crazysix]

On my very first post on these forums, you came rushing to fonze's defense because I asked him about his homophobia. Now you jump in and intervene on the part of bones. Birds of a feather certainly tend to flock together, and I don't find your choice of buddies at all surprising. Ya'all are really adept at smilies and . . . .
V dude you really have a stick up your ass or what? I have my opinion on this matter just as anyone else does. You really should relax your tone. We are all adults and we have been pretty civil in this discussion, except when I lashed out at E, but we are human. just go play Wii or something:thumbup1:

[P_chan]

On my very first post on these forums, you came rushing to fonze's defense because I asked him about his homophobia. Now you jump in and intervene on the part of bones. Birds of a feather certainly tend to flock together, and I don't find your choice of buddies at all surprising. Ya'all are really adept at smilies and . . . .

Not really, your just acting like an ass. You can't even debate NBTP points with out borderline insulting him in your replies. Why is it you have to look down on everyone who is on the opposite side of what you're saying?

What does my use of smilies have to do with anything? So what, I use them. Does that make my posts useless or does it dumb down what I say? So does that make everyone who uses smilies a retard? There is only one person in here who's acting stupid, and it's not me.

Get off your high horse.

:edit: Also, what does it matter to you who I consider a "buddy" on here. Do I have to run everything by you, or should I be trying to impress you? Does my choice of "buddies" make what I say hold less merit? Because you sure are acting like anyone who's against you is some how "lower" then you.

[Crazysix]

No problem bones, If he/she is really and advocate for fair treatment of all, do something about it, your talk and facts are cheap, just wind. Go out and actually make a difference.

[Crazysix]

Not really, your just acting like an ass. You can't even debate NBTP points with out borderline insulting him in your replies. Why is it you have to look down on everyone who is on the opposite side of what you're saying?

What does my use of smilies have to do with anything? So what, I use them. Does that make my posts useless or does it dumb down what I say? So does that make everyone who uses smilies a retard? There is only one person in here who's acting stupid, and it's not me.

Get off your high horse.
Wow at least 2 ass votes

[Bones]

As posted by Crazysix:

V dude you really have a stick up your ass or what? I have my opinion on this matter just as anyone else does. You really should relax your tone. We are all adults and we have been pretty civil in this discussion, except when I lashed out at E, but we are human. just go play Wii or something?:thumbup1:

There are some people out there who claim to be educated, simply due to the fact that they've read a lot of books. They side with some people, they dish out the trash, and when confronted, the child takes over.:thumbdown:

The "V dude", seems to be one of those.

It's kind of like being in "High School". A bully picks on a person, and when the kid starts fighting back, they start coming up with excuses for why they lost the fight.

Same scenario on the forums, he'll probably ask for support from TP.:cool:

NBTP

P.S.

Now the counter claims will come in, asking why I didn't defend my position form the start. I didn't feel like it at the time.

[Crazysix]

As posted by Crazysix:

:thumbup1:

There are some people out there who claim to be educated, simply due to the fact that they've read a lot of books. They side with some people, they dish out the trash, and when confronted, the child takes over.:thumbdown:

The "V dude", seems to be one of those.

It's kind of like being in "High School". A bully picks on a person, and when the kid starts fighting back, they start coming up with excuses for why they lost the fight.

Same scenario on the forums, he'll probably ask for support from TP.:cool:

NBTP

P.S.

Now the counter claims will come in, asking why I didn't defend my position form the start. I didn't feel like it at the time.
No issues here, bro, I feel the way I do, as each person feels their way, and reserve the right to change their mind, comment or not or just gaff it all off.
Dont matter, people are people

[Bones]

As posted by Crazysix:

No issues here, bro, I feel the way I do, as each person feels their way, and reserve the right to change their mind, comment or not or just gaff it all off.
Dont matter, people are people

Now you will be labled as being my "Butt Buddy", or even worse. "An idiot"

Appreciate your support however.:)

NBTP

[Crazysix]

words dont mean shit, as I stated before, and I really dont care!!!!

[Bones]

As posted by Crazysix:

words dont mean shit, as I stated before, and I really dont care!!!!

I feel you, but can't wait to hear their response.:rolleyes:

Posted mine a few hours ago, and haven't heard a word out of either one of them. Perhaps they are coordinating their response. Either way, it's time to hit the sack.

NBTP:old:

[Crazysix]

Peace bro...

[DougP]

On my very first post on these forums, you came rushing to fonze's defense because I asked him about his homophobia. Now you jump in and intervene on the part of bones. Birds of a feather certainly tend to flock together, and I don't find your choice of buddies at all surprising. Ya'all are really adept at smilies and . . . .

Your very first post here was asking someone about their homophobia?:ohmy: I would usually stick to a hello or simple introduction.

[Crazysix]

wow, should I call Dr Phil???

[DoctorP]

How about quitting the small talk within the topic...use the chat feature for that please. Also, no need to start calling names or tossing insults (not saying it happened, but getting close!). There have been some good points brought up. Continue to discuss them and keep the chattiness down!

[vvloc]

If I am adjudged to be condescending especially when I respond to those who advocate torture, to those who defend those who advocate torture, and to those who lie to justify war, then I plead guilty as charged. I truly believe those who take these positions are the lowest of the low and deserve to be spoken down to.

I accused bones of claiming that he had predicted the course that these wars have taken, and in response, he said:

". . . my predictions about this current campaign were pretty much on target. There were a few surprises along the way in regards to Iran's leadership."

Anyone who chooses to believe that he was referring to the overthrow of the Shah, some 30 years before in his "prediction" is welcome to their opinion. If the forum rules, call for me not to call him a liar, but allow me to call the statement a lie, I will call it so.

The axiom of silence being complicity is one of my favorites. I am not ashamed that my 1st post targeted a habitual homophobic poster. In fact, I view it as a badge of pride.

I have no problems expressing my emotions and letting my words convey my feelings. I clearly do feel that the use of smilies on this forum comprised theoretically of adults is more infantile than I have ever seen elsewhere.

[Crazysix]

If I am adjudged to be condescending especially when I respond to those who advocate torture, to those who defend those who advocate torture, and to those who lie to justify war, then I plead guilty as charged. I truly believe those who take these positions are the lowest of the low and deserve to be spoken down to.

I accused bones of claiming that he had predicted the course that these wars have taken, and in response, he said:

". . . my predictions about this current campaign were pretty much on target. There were a few surprises along the way in regards to Iran's leadership."

Anyone who chooses to believe that he was referring to the overthrow of the Shah, some 30 years before in his "prediction" is welcome to their opinion. If the forum rules, call for me not to call him a liar, but allow me to call the statement a lie, I will call it so.

The axiom of silence being complicity is one of my favorites. I am not ashamed that my 1st post targeted a habitual homophobic poster. In fact, I view it as a badge of pride.

I have no problems expressing my emotions and letting my words convey my feelings. I clearly do feel that the use of smilies on this forum comprised theoretically of adults is more infantile than I have ever seen elsewhere.

Kid, you got issues, did mommy not waterboard you enough when you were a baby?:w00t::w00t:

[Crazysix]

If I am adjudged to be condescending especially when I respond to those who advocate torture, to those who defend those who advocate torture, and to those who lie to justify war, then I plead guilty as charged. I truly believe those who take these positions are the lowest of the low and deserve to be spoken down to.

I accused bones of claiming that he had predicted the course that these wars have taken, and in response, he said:

". . . my predictions about this current campaign were pretty much on target. There were a few surprises along the way in regards to Iran's leadership."

Anyone who chooses to believe that he was referring to the overthrow of the Shah, some 30 years before in his "prediction" is welcome to their opinion. If the forum rules, call for me not to call him a liar, but allow me to call the statement a lie, I will call it so.

The axiom of silence being complicity is one of my favorites. I am not ashamed that my 1st post targeted a habitual homophobic poster. In fact, I view it as a badge of pride.

I have no problems expressing my emotions and letting my words convey my feelings. I clearly do feel that the use of smilies on this forum comprised theoretically of adults is more infantile than I have ever seen elsewhere.
Sorry If we are below you why are you wasting your and our time, trying to argue your points. If this subject is so sensitive to you, that you consider people with different beliefs, lower than you, what makes you any different than the people who you are trying to convince? Bones, myself, Eel, P, TP, Tony and and anyone else I forgot, we all have different views on this subject and no matter how many links or articles we read at the end of the day we will hold on to our opinions . So dont stress it.

[Crazysix]

How about quitting the small talk within the topic...use the chat feature for that please. Also, no need to start calling names or tossing insults (not saying it happened, but getting close!). There have been some good points brought up. Continue to discuss them and keep the chattiness down!
Chattiness, My grandmom use to do that alot:D:D:D