The moral bankruptcy of the torture apologists

Page 1 of 2 12 Last
  1. Registered User
    lutherblsstt's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  225 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    760
    Answers
    0

    The moral bankruptcy of the torture apologists


    Ray McGovern, former senior analyst at the CIA, discusses the emotional aversion CIA agents developed for their own torture tactics, the moral bankruptcy of torture apologists, the barriers to an effective Senate Intelligence Committee torture investigation and the reemergence of long time cover-up artist Warren Rudman.

    http://dissentradio.com/radio/09_04_24_mcgovern.mp3

    Ray McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years, from the John F. Kennedy administration to that of George H. W. Bush. His articles appear on Consortium News and Antiwar.com.

  2. Gold Member
    RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,291
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by lutherblsstt View Post
    Ray McGovern, former senior analyst at the CIA, discusses the emotional aversion CIA agents developed for their own torture tactics, the moral bankruptcy of torture apologists, the barriers to an effective Senate Intelligence Committee torture investigation and the reemergence of long time cover-up artist Warren Rudman.

    http://dissentradio.com/radio/09_04_24_mcgovern.mp3

    Ray McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years, from the John F. Kennedy administration to that of George H. W. Bush. His articles appear on Consortium News and Antiwar.com.
    I don't apologize for expanded interrogation on unlawful enemy combatants. Its use prevented a second 9/11 in Los Angelos and saved thousands of American lives.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123993446103128041.html
  3. Registered User
    TexasTitan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,186
    Answers
    0

    Torture is useful. We play by the rules, they dont, and we are painfully inept because of it. Its like asking us to fight a humane and moral war. Its impossible because of the nature of it.

    Douchebags who grow up and learn that words can be used to get out of anything think this is somehow the way the world works outside the US. Idealistic, naive, hilariously inept.
    •   
       

  4. Registered User
    suncloud's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  201 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Age
    37
    Posts
    6,353
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    I don't apologize for expanded interrogation on unlawful enemy combatants. Its use prevented a second 9/11 in Los Angelos and saved thousands of American lives.
    why bring a knife to a gun fight? seriously, these guys pick unarmed civilians, women and children to kill and think that any god would reward them for those efforts? if you're tied to a terrorist group that supports killing innocents, you deserve whatever happens - if i captured them, i'd probably do worse than what the CIA does.

    heck, if china or mexico captures them they'd get worse treatment. have you seen the jails and lack of food in those places? and that's not even their torture chambers. i say we show them just as much mercy as they would show our civilians. if they don't like it, play by the frikken rules.

    its the same issue we have in iraq. the terrorists dress like civilians and then bitch when civilians die. its not my fault they're too pansy to dress in uniforms like we do. if they're content dressing like a civilian, then they share as much blame as we do when innocents die. pity how they're so quick to point the finger at the "infidels".

    could you imagine if WE fought like that? took thousands of random iraqi's and used them as human shields for our forces, and blaming them for killing the targets that we provided? its the lack of intelligence of terrorists that allow them to have a lopsided view of reality and find reasons to complain for their own incompetence.
  5. Registered User
    TexasTitan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,186
    Answers
    0

    If the US threw the moral constrictions we use off and fought without compassion or mercy, the Iraq would be secure in a week.
  6. Registered User
    Jimmy Alto's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  190 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    68
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by TexasTitan View Post
    If the US threw the moral constrictions we use off and fought without compassion or mercy, the Iraq would be secure in a week.
    Yea, we could round up all those pesky terrorists that are in the US too. ****ing liberals living in a world where rainbows sprinkle pixy dust on people. **** the law, **** morals and **** those rag-heads!! ooh-rah!!
  7. Registered User
    3PeteNC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Age
    28
    Posts
    164
    Answers
    0

    really guys? i am as conservative as anyone here but i believe as the U.S., the leader of world power and freedom we HAVE THE RESPONSIBILTY to act in a manner ABOVE the terrorists and treat our prisoners with the dignity we expect our POW's to be treated with. I mean honestly if we don't follow our moral code and the Geneva Convention who will?
  8. Registered User
    lutherblsstt's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  225 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    760
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by TexasTitan View Post
    Torture is useful. We play by the rules, they dont, and we are painfully inept because of it. Its like asking us to fight a humane and moral war. Its impossible because of the nature of it.

    Douchebags who grow up and learn that words can be used to get out of anything think this is somehow the way the world works outside the US. Idealistic, naive, hilariously inept.

    Did you listen to the interview?
  9. Registered User
    lutherblsstt's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  225 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    760
    Answers
    0

    According to this article http://rainmaker.newsvine.mobi/_news...y-if-necessary House Judiciary Committee member Jerry Nadler said:

    "There can't be a compromise -- you have to follow the law. If the facts say that some former high-ranking official should be prosecuted, the fact people will get angry should be irrelevant. (...) If we do not investigate the torture that is clear that it occured, and if the evidence is there prosecute, not only are we disobeying the law, not only are we being immoral, but we are inviting torture of our people in the future."

    Worse than that, I'd say. There is even more at stake than this. You risk a future in which the American Way is defined by "the right to torture, rendition and pursuit of terrorism".

    Since it's the right wing that has become so zealous in their defense of torture they are not only defining their party by the support for torture, but trying to define American identity by support for torture example: http://wharrison55.newsvine.com/_new...ump-our-safety

    In other words they are saying:

    "We are the party that tortures. If any of us were in a position in which we were called upon to torture someone - anyone - we would do it. If you were a suspect of terrorism, I would gladly torture you. We also consider anyone willing to do less than that a breach in the US defense system."

    By pulling the 9/11 and the "ticking bomb scenario" torture apologists effectively draw a picture in which "the safety of America" is unthinkable without torture. USA rests on the pillars of torture. Torture, it has been argued, has been applied by American forces in several conflicts from Second World War to Vietnam, and now in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    I read an interesting piece on this called :

    The Uncertainty Principle of Torture

    "To be very technical about it: For someone to torture another to gain crucial information there has to be a level of ignorance proportional to the the importance of the information, an information gap we could refer to as "The Uncertainty Gap".

    Since you do not hold the desired information, you can only assume that the victim does. This means there is, in the best case, an abstract 50/50 percent chance you are torturing for no good reason.

    In the worst case, which due to human nature and the particularly paranoid setting is the more likely, the success ratio of torture will quickly grow infinitely small. The more fearful you are, the more "ticking bomb scenarios" you will find, and the more people you will torture on less and less suspicious activity.

    The less we know, the more we torture. The more actual intelligence you have, the less you need to torture. And, reversely, the frequency and intensity of the use of torture reveals the level of desperation when comes to obtaining intelligence.

    In other words, the uncertainty gap tends to explode. It is highly volatile matter. "


    You guys heard of Vine Deloria Jr., the Native American attorney and activist? He used to say, Native Americans laugh themselves sick when they hear people talk of our respect for the rule of law.
  10. Gold Member
    RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,291
    Answers
    0

    I disagreed with basically everything that interview said, but there is one thing in it that highlighted the difference in my opinion and the liberal talking points.

    The guy said:

    "Torture is implicitly wrong."

    Would you disagree with the statement:

    "Murder is implicitly wrong."


    What if I was to tell you that the guy had a gun and had already killed 10 innocent people and was heading into an elementary school. Would killing the guy at that point be wrong?

    Murder and torture are both force, pure and simple. Using force to defend against force is not wrong. INITIATING force is whats wrong.

    I think very few people would not torture if it could save the lives of those people they love.

    All this being said, the key thing with torture, is that it should be used in only the most necessary of circumstances and never by the United States government against United States citizens. The constitution is cut and dry about due process for US citizens and I support the constitution in its entirety.
  11. Registered User
    lutherblsstt's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  225 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    760
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    I disagreed with basically everything that interview said, but there is one thing in it that highlighted the difference in my opinion and the liberal talking points.

    The guy said:

    "Torture is implicitly wrong."

    Would you disagree with the statement:

    "Murder is implicitly wrong."


    What if I was to tell you that the guy had a gun and had already killed 10 innocent people and was heading into an elementary school. Would killing the guy at that point be wrong?

    Murder and torture are both force, pure and simple. Using force to defend against force is not wrong. INITIATING force is whats wrong.

    I think very few people would not torture if it could save the lives of those people they love.

    All this being said, the key thing with torture, is that it should be used in only the most necessary of circumstances and never by the United States government against United States citizens. The constitution is cut and dry about due process for US citizens and I support the constitution in its entirety.
    Mulletsoldier had a great post on the subject:

    "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949

    "Article 44. -Combatants and prisoners of war

    1. Any combatant, as defined in Article 43, who falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be a prisoner of war.

    2. While all combatants are obliged to comply with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, violations of these rules shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or, if he falls into the power of an adverse Party, of his right to be a prisoner of war, except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4.

    3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

    (a) During each military engagement, and

    (b) During such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

    Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c).

    4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed."

    Now, as I said: these individuals are covered under the provisions pursuant to or equal to the articles III, IV and V of the Geneva Conventions. "Unlawful combatants" is a bull**** term, made up to torture detainees. Case closed. "
  12. Registered User
    TexasTitan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,186
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Alto View Post
    Yea, we could round up all those pesky terrorists that are in the US too. ****ing liberals living in a world where rainbows sprinkle pixy dust on people. **** the law, **** morals and **** those rag-heads!! ooh-rah!!
    English mother****er. Do you speak it?

    Quote Originally Posted by 3PeteNC View Post
    really guys? i am as conservative as anyone here but i believe as the U.S., the leader of world power and freedom we HAVE THE RESPONSIBILTY to act in a manner ABOVE the terrorists and treat our prisoners with the dignity we expect our POW's to be treated with. I mean honestly if we don't follow our moral code and the Geneva Convention who will?
    It makes us feel better. It doesnt make us better. Who are we? A people defending themselves and their interests.

    I dont give two ****s about goat herder turned terrorist Akmed. You cant negociate, talk to, or ask these people for help. Its naive and idealistic to think our "justice" and "laws" keep us honest and help. To what end even? We are the only ones playing by the rules. To kill a monster, you have to be a monster.

    Quote Originally Posted by lutherblsstt View Post
    Did you listen to the interview?
    I dont give two ****s what your delusional ass posts. I dont even know why you bother.
  13. CDB
    CDB is offline
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,545
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by TexasTitan View Post
    I dont give two ****s about goat herder turned terrorist Akmed.
    Good. After you torture and perhaps kill him, when his brother volunteers to fly a plane into a building, perhaps you might see some cause and effect going on here. There's more to this issue than some BS braggadoccio about "whatever it takes" or "who gives a **** about a bunch of ragheads." Our policies have consequences beyond their immediate applications, and the debate on both sides of this issue is beyond ****ed at this point.

    Conservatives are all too eager to put the screws to anyone and everyone they think might have information about 'terrorist activities', and in the process run the risk of creating as many terrorists as they catch. Liberals are too eager to define any and every interrogation technique that involves discomfort as 'torture' and to ignore the key issue of whether or not valuable information has been uncovered.

    All told the conservative side of this debate disgusts me the most. The liberals are just clueless, the conservatives are displaying their most ignorant and viscious stripes. You'd better start caring about some "goat herder turned terrorist," because not only is your characterization of the enemy off the point, stereotypically wrong, and ignorant beyond belief, understanding the enemy is the first step toward defeating them.
  14. Registered User
    TexasTitan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,186
    Answers
    0



    My solution to terrorism.

    Costs a dramtic amount less, problem solved.

    End flimsy immigration from less than favorable countries. The only reason we let them come is because of their oil. Once we suck it dry, they go bye bye anyways. Back to lopping each others heads off in the desert once again.

    If people over there werent so damn stubborn and stupid, we wouldnt have our own problems. My sister's friend went to Pakistan and told us that the most popular show over there is Jerry Springer.
  15. Registered User
    Jayhawkk's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  230 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Age
    39
    Posts
    12,791
    Answers
    0

    Interrogation techniques should be allowed to be used along with some that are labeled as torture. On one end people are too willing to go down the torture path with giving way to lesser solutions and defining when and how these techniques are to be used and by whom. On the other, people are too damn concerned with anything that could be said to be torture.

    There is a solution in the middle but both sides are too up in arms to even consider giving it a try it seems.
  16. Registered User
    TexasTitan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,186
    Answers
    0

    We have a democratic house, senate, and white house. Its no secret which way is going to win. We will write the terrorists a letter telling them how angry we are and we will sanction their food down from 3 meals a day, to 2.5. Theyll listen.

    With how concerned we are with civilian deaths and whatnot like that, thats how the terrorists are plotting to beat us. Through the media.

    OMG THE US SLAUGHTERED 30 CIVILIANS, when in fact they were a terrorist group using a building as a haven and 2 other people were killed in a bombing.

    They think its hilarious. If you want to apply morality to anything relating to war, youre a naive idealistic jackass.
  17. Running with the Big Boys
    Board Sponsor
    DAdams91982's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    7,397
    Answers
    0

    Oh lord... can we get ONE post with out a copy and paste, or a link to other bull**** words? PLEASE... I am sure we can get Kramer to put a nice little icon award under your name... proving you are a useful addition to the forums.

    I love how compassion is a one way street... ie... somehow a few members around here seem to think every problem in this world is America's fault. Constantly spewing American hate speech, but then has the audacity to turn around and call anyone with different ideals as hateful.

    Hippocracy in its finest.. the Audacity of hope my friend.. the Audacity of hope.

    Adams
    The Historic PES Legend
  18. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,913
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    Good. After you torture and perhaps kill him, when his brother volunteers to fly a plane into a building, perhaps you might see some cause and effect going on here.
    The way we treat prisoners here might be the last on the priority list of why they would fly a plane into a building.
    http://anabolicminds.com/forum/image...et/twitter.png http://anabolicminds.com/forum/image...t/facebook.png

    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  19. Registered User
    Jayhawkk's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  230 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Age
    39
    Posts
    12,791
    Answers
    0

    They think its hilarious. If you want to apply morality to anything relating to war, youre a naive idealistic jackass.
    I completely disagree. Morality is definitely needed in war.
  20. CDB
    CDB is offline
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,545
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo Kramer View Post
    The way we treat prisoners here might be the last on the priority list of why they would fly a plane into a building.
    It might be. It also might be primary. It wasn't goat herders who flew planes into those two buildings. Key to my point here is you might want to look at the policy decisions that lead to a general population throwing support behind extremists.

    Of course the crowd that constantly cries "you're blaming America!" would like to think that none of our policy decision could ever, even in the slightest and most remote possibility, ever have blow back or negative consequences for us. No no. When Middle Easterners do anything and everything from speaking out against American policy to attacking us outright, it's because they're nutter goat herders. They couldn't possibly have a legitimate gripe about how our past and current interventionist policies have worked to help make their lives a living hell or caused them personal pain.

    Nah, they're just clueless and evil, and we have to kill them and pull their finger nails out and stuff. And we are nothing but great and our actions produce nothing but good for the entire planet. We **** rainbows here. People should be happy to be killed by our bombs as we bring them freedom, providing of course we avoid killing them and/or their family in the process, or avoid destroying their infrastructure and sending their economy into the tank. Gee, the world is so simple, it's almost enjoyable.
  21. Registered User
    TexasTitan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,186
    Answers
    0

    For as much bitching as the Arab world does about our treatment of prisoners and acts dont by our intelligence agencies, why dont they look in the mirror?

    Treatment of prisoners is so minor compared to the other reasons the arabs hate us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk View Post
    I completely disagree. Morality is definitely needed in war.
    Do you understand the concept of war? Systematic, relentless extermination. Ethics applied means you just slow yourselves down and add rep tape to make a fighting force more inept. We are taking a beating for the sake of trying to fight a "humane" war.
  22. Registered User
    Jayhawkk's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  230 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Age
    39
    Posts
    12,791
    Answers
    0

    Do you understand the concept of war? Systematic, relentless extermination. Ethics applied means you just slow yourselves down and add rep tape to make a fighting force more inept. We are taking a beating for the sake of trying to fight a "humane" war
    .
    Nah, just served my country in the Army because of the GI Bill and later became a cop for the pay... No clue to the function of anything that requires protecting...
  23. Registered User
    Jayhawkk's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  230 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Age
    39
    Posts
    12,791
    Answers
    0

    Do you understand the concept of war? Systematic, relentless extermination.
    Apparently not but I do understand the concept of a slaughter and of innocents.
  24. CDB
    CDB is offline
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,545
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by TexasTitan View Post
    For as much bitching as the Arab world does about our treatment of prisoners and acts dont by our intelligence agencies, why dont they look in the mirror?
    No one said they are blameless. However we have been screwing around in that part of the world since early last century with little luck and lots of bad consequences. Perhaps "Get the **** out" isn't an unreasonable request on their part.

    Do you understand the concept of war? Systematic, relentless extermination.
    No, that's the definition of genocide.

    Ethics applied means you just slow yourselves down and add rep tape to make a fighting force more inept. We are taking a beating for the sake of trying to fight a "humane" war.
    Yeah, we should be looking to up the count of dead civilians. That will solve all our problems... Until one of their relatives runs into NY club with an explosive belt on.
  25. Running with the Big Boys
    Board Sponsor
    DAdams91982's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    7,397
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk View Post
    Apparently not but I do understand the concept of a slaughter and of innocents.
    Please explain... I am confused on your context here.

    I have served, and to tell you the truth, war is slaughtering your enemy... am I wrong? I am not for the taking of innocents, but the lose is to be expected in war.

    Adams
    The Historic PES Legend
  26. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,913
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    It might be. It also might be primary. It wasn't goat herders who flew planes into those two buildings. Key to my point here is you might want to look at the policy decisions that lead to a general population throwing support behind extremists.
    Hardly. And you're right, it wasn't goat herders who flew planes into buildings and it certainly wasn't because of how we treat detainees. It was pure religious motivation from a extremist faction.....funded by an outcast of the Saudi government.

    Of course the crowd that constantly cries "you're blaming America!" would like to think that none of our policy decision could ever, even in the slightest and most remote possibility, ever have blow back or negative consequences for us.
    No, its more like "You can't deal in logic when dealing with an illogical and irrational faction".





    No no. When Middle Easterners do anything and everything from speaking out against American policy to attacking us outright, it's because they're nutter goat herders.
    Not so. You are generalizing a point of view that is not shared by most, even on the right. It wasn't the Saudi Government that told us to get out. It wasn't Pakistan. It wasn't Afghanistan. It wasn't the majority of the countries in the Middle East. It was a group of religious extremists.



    They couldn't possibly have a legitimate gripe about how our past and current interventionist policies have worked to help make their lives a living hell or caused them personal pain.
    Then they should protest against their own government....wait, they would get tortured.


    Nah, they're just clueless and evil, and we have to kill them and pull their finger nails out and stuff.
    Which we didn't do....but I'm sure all those detainees were completely innocent.

    And we are nothing but great and our actions produce nothing but good for the entire planet. We **** rainbows here.
    Who said this? It seems the one who is generalizing a point of view expressed by one person is you.

    People should be happy to be killed by our bombs as we bring them freedom, providing of course we avoid killing them and/or their family in the process, or avoid destroying their infrastructure and sending their economy into the tank. Gee, the world is so simple, it's almost enjoyable.
    Yes, that's exactly how we think the world is.
    http://anabolicminds.com/forum/image...et/twitter.png http://anabolicminds.com/forum/image...t/facebook.png

    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  27. Registered User
    TexasTitan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,186
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk View Post
    .
    Nah, just served my country in the Army because of the GI Bill and later became a cop for the pay... No clue to the function of anything that requires protecting...
    Civilians would never be targeted but their presence would not be a paralyzing factor. Thats just common sense. But we wouldnt miss a chance to take someone out with that being the case. An influencial terrorist leader in a building with a few civilians would get bombed or raided in my world. Serving in the military doesnt give your opinion much more credit to me. Maybe Im just used to knowing many vets and growing up in military schools. For it to set your opinion apart, SOF is usually where I look to.

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    No one said they are blameless. However we have been screwing around in that part of the world since early last century with little luck and lots of bad consequences. Perhaps "Get the **** out" isn't an unreasonable request on their part.

    No, that's the definition of genocide.

    Yeah, we should be looking to up the count of dead civilians. That will solve all our problems... Until one of their relatives runs into NY club with an explosive belt on.
    Thats not the definition of genocide. For it to be, it would be typically unprovolked, targeted extermination based on race or traits. This is based on a nation, or two actually fighting each other. Would you not agree that was our mission in fighting WWII? Systematic killing of Germans/Italians/Japanesse? We werent trying to win their hearts and minds, thats for sure.
  28. Registered User
    suncloud's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  201 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Age
    37
    Posts
    6,353
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    Please explain... I am confused on your context here.

    I have served, and to tell you the truth, war is slaughtering your enemy... am I wrong? I am not for the taking of innocents, but the lose is to be expected in war.

    Adams
    i think jayhawkk was referring to targeting civilians because they're on the "wrong side". innocent losses are expected, but should be kept to a minimum. if not, we take the same approach the terrorists did.

    EDIT : adams, you already know this. i think you're either toying with us, or had a few drinks before reading the post.
  29. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,913
    Answers
    0

    Or the Allies in WW2...

    just saying...
    http://anabolicminds.com/forum/image...et/twitter.png http://anabolicminds.com/forum/image...t/facebook.png

    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  30. Running with the Big Boys
    Board Sponsor
    DAdams91982's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    7,397
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by suncloud View Post
    i think jayhawkk was referring to targeting civilians because they're on the "wrong side". innocent losses are expected, but should be kept to a minimum. if not, we take the same approach the terrorists did.

    EDIT : adams, you already know this. i think you're either toying with us, or had a few drinks before reading the post.
    Damn sun... a misread and I am accused of drinking.



    Adams
    The Historic PES Legend
  31. Registered User
    suncloud's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  201 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Age
    37
    Posts
    6,353
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    Damn sun... a misread and I am accused of drinking.



    Adams
    lol. or toying with us
  32. Registered User
    Jayhawkk's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  230 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Age
    39
    Posts
    12,791
    Answers
    0

    I have served, and to tell you the truth, war is slaughtering your enemy... am I wrong? I am not for the taking of innocents, but the lose is to be expected in war.
    Do you understand the concept of war? Systematic, relentless extermination. Ethics applied means you just slow yourselves down and add rep tape to make a fighting force more inept.
    *bolding mine


    There is a big difference between defeating your enemy and slaughter without morals and ethics. Your reference to special operations has nothing to do with their tactics or mission. Exactly opposite is what their mission is. If I actually have to explain the difference then there's no point in discussing it any further with you.
  33. CDB
    CDB is offline
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,545
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo Kramer View Post
    No, its more like "You can't deal in logic when dealing with an illogical and irrational faction".
    Doesn't explain why the entire Middle East seems to have a problem with us. Yes, there is an extreme faction that is our main problem. Why do they have the slightest support from more reasonable people that make up the general population? That's the question.

    Not so. You are generalizing a point of view that is not shared by most, even on the right. It wasn't the Saudi Government that told us to get out. It wasn't Pakistan. It wasn't Afghanistan. It wasn't the majority of the countries in the Middle East. It was a group of religious extremists.
    Not according to the Middle Easterners I speak to. They want us out, period.

    Then they should protest against their own government....wait, they would get tortured.
    How would protesting against their own governments deal with us?

    Which we didn't do....but I'm sure all those detainees were completely innocent.
    Besides the point. What about the ones who were innocent? Not only detainees, but collateral damage to bombings and battles and political manipulations over the years? Got a death count there? How many tens of thousands in this most recent war alone?

    Who said this? It seems the one who is generalizing a point of view expressed by one person is you.
    I am generalizing, and having a damn good time doing it too. It's the NeoCon propensity to make foreign policy with a Please Forget the Last 100 Years of Similar, Failed Policy cap on that really needs to be dealt with.

    Yes, that's exactly how we think the world is.
    An in depth reading of DA and TT's posts pretty much supports this statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by TexasTitan
    Thats not the definition of genocide. For it to be, it would be typically unprovolked, targeted extermination based on race or traits.
    genocide (countable and uncountable; plural genocides)

    1. The systematic killing of substantial numbers of people on the basis of ethnicity, religion, political opinion, social status, or other particularity.
    2. Acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.

    This is based on a nation, or two actually fighting each other. Would you not agree that was our mission in fighting WWII? Systematic killing of Germans/Italians/Japanesse? We werent trying to win their hearts and minds, thats for sure.
    Whether it was the mission or not is irrelevant and begs the question. I'd wager most Germans, Americans, Brits, Japanese, and Italians, didn't give two ****s about each other, what the others were doing or what they believed in, until their respective governments whipped them up into a frenzy about each other. Your view of war and failure to differentiate between a nation's government, its military, its people, and their differring interests and motivations is simplistic and naive.
  34. Running with the Big Boys
    Board Sponsor
    DAdams91982's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    7,397
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    Not according to the Middle Easterners I speak to. They want us out, period.
    This is not the case with my travels to the middle east. In fact most of the locals there that I spoke to were thankful to America.

    An in depth reading of DA and TT's posts pretty much supports this statement.
    **** you CDB... quit putting words in my mouth. I am not calling you namby little *****, so don't think you have the forum to call me a war monger or the likes.

    Adams
    The Historic PES Legend
  35. CDB
    CDB is offline
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,545
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    This is not the case with my travels to the middle east. In fact most of the locals there that I spoke to were thankful to America.
    How many of them had relatives killed in our bombings?

    **** you CDB... quit putting words in my mouth. I am not calling you namby little *****, so don't think you have the forum to call me a war monger or the likes.

    Adams
    Gee, wonder if this counts as an 'infraction' these days.

    In the other thread I dared imply that not every mission the military is sent on is in the interest of US citizens and you flipped your wig and went through a few trillion posts claiming I hated the soldiers and other BS. Here and elsewhere your arguments seem to follow the NeoCon script that comes out of Hannity's mouth daily and is regurgitated on talk radio. Key points: We're good, they're evil, and thou shalt not question our policies; never look at past policy in an attempt to explain current conditions, they are adequately explained by the sheer evilness of those we're against.

    The real world is not so simple, and any reasonable assessment of our involvment in the middle east would show that a lot of people there have ample reason to be pissed at our military, our government, and the US in general. From our mindless near unquestioning support of Israel to our numerous direct and indirectly supported interventions that have backfired or left people there with some puppet dictator for the sake of stability, we've been making enemies left and right for almost a century. Now mired in a war we shouldn't have started fighting ineffectively and, oddly enough, indirectly, against an enemy that continually elludes us and doing little more than inflaming people's hatred of our presence in their lands and giving this enemy more recruits.

    So, I view the questioning of policy as a requirement at this stage of the game. No matter how many cries of "You're blaming America!" come from the peanut gallery.
  36. Running with the Big Boys
    Board Sponsor
    DAdams91982's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    7,397
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    How many of them had relatives killed in our bombings?
    I like how you intentionally avoid my first hand comments, and disregard them because they do not meet eye to eye with your ideals, yet I was actually there talking to the people in the mix.

    Gee, wonder if this counts as an 'infraction' these days.

    In the other thread I dared imply that not every mission the military is sent on is in the interest of US citizens and you flipped your wig and went through a few trillion posts claiming I hated the soldiers and other BS. Here and elsewhere your arguments seem to follow the NeoCon script that comes out of Hannity's mouth daily and is regurgitated on talk radio. Key points: We're good, they're evil, and thou shalt not question our policies; never look at past policy in an attempt to explain current conditions, they are adequately explained by the sheer evilness of those we're against.

    The real world is not so simple, and any reasonable assessment of our involvment in the middle east would show that a lot of people there have ample reason to be pissed at our military, our government, and the US in general. From our mindless near unquestioning support of Israel to our numerous direct and indirectly supported interventions that have backfired or left people there with some puppet dictator for the sake of stability, we've been making enemies left and right for almost a century. Now mired in a war we shouldn't have started fighting ineffectively and, oddly enough, indirectly, against an enemy that continually elludes us and doing little more than inflaming people's hatred of our presence in their lands and giving this enemy more recruits.

    So, I view the questioning of policy as a requirement at this stage of the game. No matter how many cries of "You're blaming America!" come from the peanut gallery.
    Your mind must be a little foggy. I said a mission accomplished from the military is a mission accomplished, and warrants respect, even congratulations. If you do not agree with the mission, that is not for Soldiers to shoulder your propagandic disregard.

    I love how you sit there calling me a NeoCon and think I listen to Hannity on a non stop basis. I honestly think your ideals are being threatened with the Conservative movement that is going on.

    Adams
    The Historic PES Legend
  37. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,913
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    Doesn't explain why the entire Middle East seems to have a problem with us. Yes, there is an extreme faction that is our main problem. Why do they have the slightest support from more reasonable people that make up the general population? That's the question.

    Actually, they don't. Moderates generally do not support them and disagree with our policies pertaining mainly to Israel as well as economic policies (mainly disrupting European economic policies) and have nothing to do with why extremists tend to hate us...which is mainly a distorted religious views.

    You are confusing half the population of Pakistan with around 1 billion Muslims. Its a bit of a stretch to say the least.

    Not according to the Middle Easterners I speak to. They want us out, period.
    Not the ones I know and have spoken too... And if you dig deeper, once again its policies that have nothing to do with why a guy wants to ram a plane into a building. You must have selective Middle Eastern friends.

    You are confusing why moderates disagree with the US on vs a distorted religious view. They are not the same.


    How would protesting against their own governments deal with us?
    Because for the most part its their own governments that initiate the policies they hate so much...mostly economic policies. When you say "the middle east" you have to include all of the middle east..not just Iraq/Iran.

    Besides the point. What about the ones who were innocent?
    Last time I check, several were released..during the Bush administration after the courts have ruled.

    If we are guilty of torturing 3 people that were involved in 9/11....so be it. I have no problem with that. I don't pretend that the US stands on some moral high ground all the time.

    Not only detainees, but collateral damage to bombings and battles and political manipulations over the years? Got a death count there? How many tens of thousands in this most recent war alone?
    Should we count both sides or just US involvement? Should we count Iranian, Syrian, Egyptian, Israeli influences as well as policies that are outside their borders?

    I am generalizing, and having a damn good time doing it too.
    Yes, I'm sure you are. Its fun watching you go off on your emotional tirades and rants.

    It's the NeoCon propensity to make foreign policy with a Please Forget the Last 100 Years of Similar, Failed Policy cap on that really needs to be dealt with.
    It seems you get your only view of what neocons are about from Sean Hannity. You might want to go into more depth than a news entertainer that is meant to get ratings and drive people like you nuts. He must be succeeding.


    An in depth reading of DA and TT's posts pretty much supports this statement.
    No, its just your sarcastic view of it.
    http://anabolicminds.com/forum/image...et/twitter.png http://anabolicminds.com/forum/image...t/facebook.png

    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  38. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,913
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    I love how you sit there calling me a NeoCon and think I listen to Hannity on a non stop basis.
    Agreed. The guy is an entertainer that tries to do one thing...piss people off like CDB and get ratings. He's the Olbermann of the right...both are idiots.
    http://anabolicminds.com/forum/image...et/twitter.png http://anabolicminds.com/forum/image...t/facebook.png

    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  39. CDB
    CDB is offline
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,545
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    I like how you intentionally avoid my first hand comments, and disregard them because they do not meet eye to eye with your ideals, yet I was actually there talking to the people in the mix.
    I did not avoid your first hand comments, I asked a direct question concerning those very experiences: how many of them had loved ones killed in our bombings? You failed to answer.

    Your mind must be a little foggy. I said a mission accomplished from the military is a mission accomplished, and warrants respect, even congratulations. If you do not agree with the mission, that is not for Soldiers to shoulder your propagandic disregard.
    The thread is there for anyone who wishes to review it, and you said quite a bit more than that.

    I love how you sit there calling me a NeoCon and think I listen to Hannity on a non stop basis. I honestly think your ideals are being threatened with the Conservative movement that is going on.
    There is no conservative movement going on. There's an I Hate Obama, Let's Get Us Another Spend Happy Republican In Office movement. I am a proud conservative. And to me conservatism means restrained government. That applies to over seas adventurism as much as it does to domestic policy. Judging by and large by who has won primaries in the Republican Party and what views dominate in talk radio and places like Fox News, the dominant 'conservative' ideology isn't actually conservatism, it's neoconservatism, a distinctly leftist movement if ever there was one, at least in the sense of wanting more government. It carries the rhetoric of old time conservatism with none of the substance. It's all well and good to talk about smaller government, when your policies both domestic and foreign require ballooning budgets and ever expanding federal powers it's rhetoric and nothing more.

    Until it becomes possible and even likely that someone like Ron Paul could win a national election there is no bonafide conservative movement in the US. There's a movement of confused left wingers who are overly obsessed with labels and personalities and nothing much more substantive than that.
  40. Running with the Big Boys
    Board Sponsor
    DAdams91982's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    7,397
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    I did not avoid your first hand comments, I asked a direct question concerning those very experiences: how many of them had loved ones killed in our bombings? You failed to answer.
    There was only one intention to your comment, and that is trying to debunk my first hand experiences, when you know good and well i didn't ask people I spoke with if they lost loved ones in the march to Baghdad. Hence a logical fallacy, if I have no answer, you must be right.



    The thread is there for anyone who wishes to review it, and you said quite a bit more than that.
    You seem to boil down my viewpoints to one sentence, so quit trying to deflect.

    There is no conservative movement going on. There's an I Hate Obama, Let's Get Us Another Spend Happy Republican In Office movement. I am a proud conservative. And to me conservatism means restrained government. That applies to over seas adventurism as much as it does to domestic policy. Judging by and large by who has won primaries in the Republican Party and what views dominate in talk radio and places like Fox News, the dominant 'conservative' ideology isn't actually conservatism, it's neoconservatism, a distinctly leftist movement if ever there was one, at least in the sense of wanting more government. It carries the rhetoric of old time conservatism with none of the substance. It's all well and good to talk about smaller government, when your policies both domestic and foreign require ballooning budgets and ever expanding federal powers it's rhetoric and nothing more.

    Until it becomes possible and even likely that someone like Ron Paul could win a national election there is no bonafide conservative movement in the US. There's a movement of confused left wingers who are overly obsessed with labels and personalities and nothing much more substantive than that.
    You have a very piss poor view of what is going on in the world today. Most people do twist the world events to appease themselves, negative or positive. You just seem to piss all over anything. Again, why are we not falling under the leadership of CDB?

    Adams
    The Historic PES Legend
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Bankruptcy, not bailout, is the right answer
    By DougMan in forum Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-30-2008, 12:45 PM
  2. Xyience Files Bankruptcy
    By TheMouth in forum Company Promotions
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 05-05-2008, 10:27 AM
  3. UFC Sponsor files for bankruptcy
    By TheMouth in forum MMA
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-22-2008, 11:31 AM
  4. Our Politicians, Denizens of our Moral Fiber...
    By BigVrunga in forum Politics
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 05-02-2006, 05:21 PM
  5. (Moral lesson) The Donkey
    By Cirrus2000 in forum General Chat
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-02-2003, 08:41 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in