Criminal Investigations of the Torturers?

[searl12]

Muslim history goes back 2000 years. For the most part, they didn't make nice with non-Muslims; initially Mohammed made advances to the Jews and Zoroastrians of the ARabian Peninsula, but once he realized he wasn't going to gain converts, he resorted to pure force, and imposed Islam on the peninsula, and from there it spread to quite a large area, always by force.

There were times and places where Muslims lived in peace with others, even Jews, but for the most part people aren't going to give up their traditions and beliefs for another's without the threat of death.

Osama bin Laden desires the return to the days of the Caliphate empire. He is very direct in saying this, and doesn't *****foot around. His initial actions were against the Russians, who he wanted out of Afghanistan, and later to force the US out of all ARab countries. But wait, the King of SAudi ARabia is perfectly happy dealing with America, and allows the US to put military bases on Saudi soil. So why did OBL attack the US, and not the Saudis, the patron themselves? He essentially tried to impose his will on the SAudi gov't, that's HIS personal brand of politics through his personal Islamic filter.

Muslims ARE oppressed. They generally are very fractured, religiously and culturally, and put more stock in religion, tribes, and families than national identities. So the strongest religious sect/tribe/family tends to rule. Instead of taking responsibility for themselves, and bettering or changing themselves, they blame their problems on Israel or the WEst, and it's very convenient for their rulers to foament that kind of behavior, otherwise citizens might actually rise up against the people actually responsible for their plight.

It's not Israel, not the US. IF you're going to blame an outside source, England would take the largest share, but that's not even accurate. Muslims/Arabs need to start looking in at themselves and where they are currently at, and taking responsibility for where they find themselves, and changing it. WE didn't do it, we didn't cause it. They did. There have been MANY far more oppressed nations on earth, and none of them used suicide bombing and terror to express outrage for something they DIDN'T cause, let alone something they did.

It takes work, brains, a little brawn, and a lot of disgression to become a great nation or people. Muslims seem to be content whining about how great they were, wondering why they aren't great now, promoting a culture of violence and condoning the use of violence to accomplish goals or gain attention, and generally pissing on anyone not Muslim. Not all are terrorists, not even close; but very few denounce the terrorists, and if I had a dollar for every time I heard 'that's awful, but...you gotta understand' from a Muslim after or in reference to a terror attack, I'd be a rich man. No, I don't have to understand why some jackholes flew a plane into the WTC, or why some ignorant **** blew up 32 kids on a bus in Jerusalem. There's NO justification for it. It's exactly this apologetic attitude which enables the terrorists to continue what they do.

Imagine if Muslims had a REAL reason to be pissy, say, THEY were the focus of Hitlers Final Solution instead of the Jews, or the victims of Pol Pot. My goodness, we'd be in a world of hurt right now.

you sir actually deserve praise for this post, glad someone with a backbone finally helped me out.

 

[poison]

No, we're just intelligent enough to realize that these were acts committed by small groups of individuals, not the entirety of the Muslim world. As it is one of the largest religions on the planet, you apparently think the planes used in 9/11 wer capable of carrying several billion passengers and most of them survived.



That you bring up Iraq and our lost soldiers there is indicative of your largely uninformed, provincial, naive view of the situation. Iraq was a war of choice, Saddam posed little to no threat to the US and had few if any ties to Al Qeda and none to 9/11 specifically. Many more times 6000 Iraqis were killed in this war, and most of them were not militants but civilians. Now I realize that means jack **** to you. However, if we move on the admittedly questionable assumption that those Iraqis were humans and not animals, and that they lived and felt as humans, and that other humans were in the general vicinity that cared about them and might be slightly pissed that the brains of their family and friends were spilled into the sand, well that might go a long way toward explaining the level of hostillity the US is held in that part of the world.

You think hostility toward the US started with the Iraq invasion?

 

[CDB]

wow, im in shock, how quickly and ignorantly you have forgotten of all your countries war dead, the thousands dead on 9/ll etc etc, just remember people like me wil ldo the fighting when the war gets even worse while people like you will defend those very people im fighting...you should be real proud o be an American right now.....your countrymen suffer while you defend the very people who are killin g them.

Bravo.

I personally lost just undr 300 people in 9/11 when Marsh McLennan's office went down. Your ignorance shines brighter than the sun. Your attempt to use the death of innocents as the justification for the murder of more innocents is disgusting and ignorant.

 

[searl12]

I personally lost just undr 300 people in 9/11 when Marsh McLennan's office went down. Your ignorance shines brighter than the sun. Your attempt to use the death of innocents as the justification for the murder of more innocents is disgusting and ignorant.

ok then, im glad you have tolerance for a religion that despises you, and a people who would gladly see all og your friends, neighbors and relatives dead.

im done with you. you and radja belong in the middle east. oh but wait, they wouldnt let you live there and if they did you would be dead within a month.

 

[CDB]

I am not an idiot, I do obviousy get the points these people make, I just choose my soldiers, my side over theirs, no matter what the cost or what people think, these guys sound like the same people who spit on Vietnam war veterans for doing what their country told them to do.

Then you are person void of thought, as mindlessly supporting 'the troops' no matter what mission they are sent on by their civilian bosses and to what end is the hallmark of a citizen likely to be more comfortable in an active police state than a free society.

you just live on the fence, do wahts best for you, and never make a stand behind your own country, I have more pride and loyalty to my country than theirs, and again if you havent noticed im not an American, I get angry when i see mothers of fallen sons, wives of 23 year old boys ied by savages, your right my h8 is based on personal loss, I respect your not at war with these people but I sure as hell am

Translate this into Arabic and you have every excuse given for every terrorist attack on the US. If you'll check my past posts, you'll realize I don't sit on any fences.

like I said, you would never serve, never pick a side, you just live for yourself, selfish typical human, never shed a tear when your heroes fall, change the channel so you dont have to deal with it....were just different.

My father was a Ranger and between the work he did when he was alive and that I continue to do for veterans, my family has probably done more for the military than your pathetic protestations of loyalty would or could ever do. Just based on the amount I've donated to the local scholarship fund started in my dad's name I've probably put a few vets' kids through college at this point in my life. Other than spewing ignorant bull**** on the net, what have you done for these troops you love so much except cheer every BS reason their civilian leaders come up with to send them to slaughter? Maybe you could explain why these active troops you love so much donated more money to the campaign of Ron Paul, another person you'd likely label a 'fence sitter', than any other candidate.

The stand I take for my country is to not let people like you turn it into a third world ****hole with nothing left to be proud about. You need more than a flag and a certain piece of real estate to be proud of, everyone has both of those. You need ideals, a way of living and dying, and a way of dealing with your fellow man, all of which need to be worth respecting. In the name of promoting that respect you would destroy everything about this country that is worthy of it. I try to preserve it, even if it means I have to take a stand against how our military is used instead of mindlessly cheering every mission those dip****s in DC can dream up. As Mullet has said, there's a difference between supporting the troops and just supporting any mission they are sent on. The latter means you support the US using the military no matter what the cause or appropriateness of doing so. Supporting the troops means doing just that, which means not supporting every mindless and outright idiotic mission dreamed up by DC policy makers who get to send other people's sons and daughters to die for their petty and poorly thought out plans for the world.

you sir actually deserve praise for this post, glad someone with a backbone finally helped me out.

Actually his post is full of generalizations and hypocrisy. Islam was always spread by force? Whereas all Christian converts were totally voluntary. Get a look at Africa lately, and how we here in the US got the Indians to see the light of Christ? His post is bull****. "Muslims seem to be content whining about how great they were, wondering why they aren't great now, promoting a culture of violence and condoning the use of violence to accomplish goals or gain attention, and generally pissing on anyone not Muslim." Really? Does this count the Muslims who fight for women's rights, or who voted against the encumbent regime in Iran? How about the various activist groups with members trying to get more open trade in these societies? The fact that you deal with "Muslims" as some homogenous group of people, none of whom apparently differ in the slightest, shows your post to be the load of **** that it is, illuminated with a few sparks of awareness that historically there has generally been religious friction, all the fault of the Muslims of course. It's just as much bull**** as the tirades extremist Muslims print about 'the west'or 'Christians' or Jews.

You think hostility toward the US started with the Iraq invasion?

No, it began a long time ago. The recent Iraq war is just another example of how the US seems to mindlessly send its military abroad and then wonder why all those brown people object to being militarily occupied and/or killed. As if they should be happy we were there, 'helping' them, whether they wanted that help or not. Hostility toward the US likely started en masse after our interference in Syria in '49, and against the modern west likely goes back at least to WWI and the British occupation of Iraq at the behest of the League of Nations.

Either way, you'd both benefit from a reading of A History of Folly by Adam Young and The Humanitarian with a Guillotine by Isabel Patterson.

 

[CDB]

ok then, im glad you have tolerance for a religion that despises you, and a people who would gladly see all og your friends, neighbors and relatives dead.

Once more, this is belied by the fact that I work peacefully with Muslims all day and have yet to have one of them try and kill me or my family or my friends.

im done with you. you and radja belong in the middle east. oh but wait, they wouldnt let you live there and if they did you would be dead within a month.

Actually you belong in the middle east. It's just your type of mindlessness that they count upon there to perpetuate their tyranny, and what threatens to bring a similar oppression here to the US.

 

[searl12]

Then you are person void of thought, as mindlessly supporting 'the troops' no matter what mission they are sent on by their civilian bosses and to what end is the hallmark of a citizen likely to be more comfortable in an active police state than a free society.



Translate this into Arabic and you have every excuse given for every terrorist attack on the US. If you'll check my past posts, you'll realize I don't sit on any fences.



My father was a Ranger and between the work he did when he was alive and that I continue to do for veterans, my family has probably done more for the military than your pathetic protestations of loyalty would or could ever do. Just based on the amount I've donated to the local scholarship fund started in my dad's name I've probably put a few vets' kids through college at this point in my life. Other than spewing ignorant bull**** on the net, what have you done for these troops you love so much except cheer every BS reason their civilian leaders come up with to send them to slaughter? Maybe you could explain why these active troops you love so much donated more money to the campaign of Ron Paul, another person you'd likely label a 'fence sitter', than any other candidate.

The stand I take for my country is to not let people like you turn it into a third world ****hole with nothing left to be proud about. You need more than a flag and a certain piece of real estate to be proud of, everyone has both of those. You need ideals, a way of living and dying, and a way of dealing with your fellow man, all of which need to be worth respecting. In the name of promoting that respect you would destroy everything about this country that is worthy of it. I try to preserve it, even if it means I have to take a stand against how our military is used instead of mindlessly cheering every mission those dip****s in DC can dream up. As Mullet has said, there's a difference between supporting the troops and just supporting any mission they are sent on. The latter means you support the US using the military no matter what the cause or appropriateness of doing so. Supporting the troops means doing just that, which means not supporting every mindless and outright idiotic mission dreamed up by DC policy makers who get to send other people's sons and daughters to die for their petty and poorly thought out plans for the world.



Actually his post is full of generalizations and hypocrisy. Islam was always spread by force? Whereas all Christian converts were totally voluntary. Get a look at Africa lately, and how we here in the US got the Indians to see the light of Christ? His post is bull****. "Muslims seem to be content whining about how great they were, wondering why they aren't great now, promoting a culture of violence and condoning the use of violence to accomplish goals or gain attention, and generally pissing on anyone not Muslim." Really? Does this count the Muslims who fight for women's rights, or who voted against the encumbent regime in Iran? How about the various activist groups with members trying to get more open trade in these societies? The fact that you deal with "Muslims" as some homogenous group of people, none of whom apparently differ in the slightest, shows your post to be the load of **** that it is, illuminated with a few sparks of awareness that historically there has generally been religious friction, all the fault of the Muslims of course. It's just as much bull**** as the tirades extremist Muslims print about 'the west'or 'Christians' or Jews.



No, it began a long time ago. The recent Iraq war is just another example of how the US seems to mindlessly send its military abroad and then wonder why all those brown people object to being militarily occupied and/or killed. As if they should be happy we were there, 'helping' them, whether they wanted that help or not. Hostility toward the US likely started en masse after our interference in Syria in '49, and against the modern west likely goes back at least to WWI and the British occupation of Iraq at the behest of the League of Nations.

Either way, you'd both benefit from a reading of A History of Folly by Adam Young and The Humanitarian with a Guillotine by Isabel Patterson.

I have served in the army reserves...and my reg force infantry application is in the process of being filed, i havent done enough yet, but I will have my chance, dont worry.

 

[poison]

Actually his post is full of generalizations and hypocrisy. Islam was always spread by force? Whereas all Christian converts were totally voluntary. Get a look at Africa lately, and how we here in the US got the Indians to see the light of Christ?

Who's talking about CHristians? Sure, CHristians have killed more people than nearly anyone on Earth. We can talk about that if you like, but that's not the topic at hand.

His post is bull****. "Muslims seem to be content whining about how great they were, wondering why they aren't great now, promoting a culture of violence and condoning the use of violence to accomplish goals or gain attention, and generally pissing on anyone not Muslim." Really? Does this count the Muslims who fight for women's rights, or who voted against the encumbent regime in Iran? How about the various activist groups with members trying to get more open trade in these societies? The fact that you deal with "Muslims" as some homogenous group of people, none of whom apparently differ in the slightest, shows your post to be the load of **** that it is, illuminated with a few sparks of awareness that historically there has generally been religious friction, all the fault of the Muslims of course. It's just as much bull**** as the tirades extremist Muslims print about 'the west'or 'Christians' or Jews.

Sure, I generalized, but there's far more than a grain of truth there. I never said 'Muslims don't do any good'. The fact is even the 'do-gooders' are sometimes more vehemently anti-West than Joe-Mohammed-Blow, and you simply don't have average Muslims standing up against Muslim terror in any meaningful fashion.

Muslims aren't inherently bad people. Plenty are good, but their voices are drowned out by the active militants/terrorists, and the majority who condone through sympathetic silence.

Do you think that the thousands killed and tortured in the Inquisition should have cared that there were likely some good CHristians who disagreed with the Inquisition?

Go look at the number of terror attacks perpetrated by Muslims, and how many innocents it affects, and in how many countries:

Invalid Link Removed

Now tell me it's the US fault, or Israel, that they have NO OTHER way to express their outrage.

No, it began a long time ago. The recent Iraq war is just another example of how the US seems to mindlessly send its military abroad and then wonder why all those brown people object to being militarily occupied and/or killed. As if they should be happy we were there, 'helping' them, whether they wanted that help or not. Hostility toward the US likely started en masse after our interference in Syria in '49, and against the modern west likely goes back at least to WWI and the British occupation of Iraq at the behest of the League of Nations.

Either way, you'd both benefit from a reading of A History of Folly by Adam Young and The Humanitarian with a Guillotine by Isabel Patterson.

The US doesn't mindlessly send its troops abroad to subjegate brown people. That was Britain, get it straight. Unless you consider WWI, WWII, Kosovo, and Afganistan mindless. The US NEVER sends troops out mindlessly. THere's ALWAYS an objective, and usually it's to save someone else, as well as protect its best interests.

Thanks for the book recommendation, I'll check em out.

 

[lutherblsstt]

Give me an example of real torture taking place by the USA and I might agree with you. So, far if just looks like the definition has been stretched pretty thin for political purposes.

Abu Ghraib Prison Photos

 

[searl12]

Abu Ghraib Prison Photos

Invalid Link Removed

those people would cut your head off in 30 frckn seconds....blow up your city, rape your women.....so what , they get 3 meals a day and a quaran to falsely worship...its more than all their victims got isnt it!
no mercy for these scumbags...and as far as im concerned no more prisoner taking , than we wouldnt need guantonamo, or abu garhab.

 

[searl12]

do all you people forget they launched an attack on your homeland? so what if they get waterboarded!

 

[poison]

Abu Ghraib Prison Photos

Abu Ghraib, while I don't agree with what was done, barely counts as torture. They do worse to US soldiers in SERE training.

 

[lutherblsstt]

those people would cut your head off in 30 frckn seconds....blow up your city, rape your women.....so what , they get 3 meals a day and a quaran to falsely worship...its more than all their victims got isnt it!
no mercy for these scumbags...and as far as im concerned no more prisoner taking , than we wouldnt need guantonamo, or abu garhab.

Invalid Link Removed

"Hundreds of Iraqi prisoners were held in Abu Ghraib prison for prolonged periods despite a lack of evidence that they posed a security threat to American forces, according to an Army report completed last fall."

 

[Mulletsoldier]

do all you people forget they launched an attack on your homeland? so what if they get waterboarded!

Yeah, so what? So what if the reaction to that particular aggression was based on intelligence that has since been revealed to be faulty and erroneous. So what if the "success" of "enhanced interrogation techniques" depends on the premise that the "interviewee" is already guilty; and so what if the information he/she provides is fabricated as a direct result of the interrogation technique, which has consistently occurred. So what if the laws, or decimation of laws, enacted to allow those techniques trample all over your civil liberties too. So what if the moral conscience and normative values of a group of nations - you know, the actual substance separating the societies we hold dear from the sites of these aforementioned conflicts - necessarily must be pissed on in order to justify a certain foreign policy decision. I mean, so what, right? All any of that means to you is that the dual American-Canadian flag you bought from Wal-Mart can hang a little higher on your antenna because you "support the troops", without having a god-damn clue about the actual reasons which bring them to these conflicts.

 

[lutherblsstt]

do all you people forget they launched an attack on your homeland? so what if they get waterboarded!

Iraqis launched an attack on our "homeland"? When was that?

 

[searl12]

Abu Ghraib, while I don't agree with what was done, barely counts as torture. They do worse to US soldiers in SERE training.

agreed, why are people so into being politically correct to our frckn enemies who want ALL OF US DEAD AND BEHEADED, why is it people care so much if our enemies live or die...

i for one enjoy hearing the news of Taliban insurgent deaths...I wish the military would truly let us know how many of them get rocked and cut to pieces.

 

[lutherblsstt]

Abu Ghraib, while I don't agree with what was done, barely counts as torture. They do worse to US soldiers in SERE training.

Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is:

...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.

—UN Convention Against Torture

 

[searl12]

Iraqis launched an attack on our "homeland"? When was that?

dont you see that their one in the same...its islam man, islam preaches hate and uses violence to progress its barbaric ideoligies....I really expected more from my friends from to the south.

 

[searl12]

Yeah, so what? So what if the reaction to that particular aggression was based on intelligence that has since been revealed to be faulty and erroneous. So what if the "success" of "enhanced interrogation techniques" depends on the premise that the "interviewee" is already guilty; and so what if the information he/she provides is fabricated as a direct result of the interrogation technique, which has consistently occurred. So what if the laws, or decimation of laws, enacted to allow those techniques trample all over your civil liberties too. So what if the moral conscience and normative values of a group of nations - you know, the actual substance separating the societies we hold dear from the sites of these aforementioned conflicts - necessarily must be pissed on in order to justify a certain foreign policy decision. I mean, so what, right? All any of that means to you is that the dual American-Canadian flag you bought from Wal-Mart can hang a little higher on your antenna because you "support the troops", without having a god-damn clue about the actual reasons which bring them to these conflicts.

Actually dude I guarantedd I could withoutr a doubt match you in any arguement or fact as to why america invaded iraq and Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein had WMD...you know why America knew this??because America gave them to him!

You know why they invaded Iraq....because they wanted to set up a front linethere where any jihadists could come and fight them, that and establishing massive military bases in the most volatile region in the world...just because it seems wrong doesnt mean it is, dont you for one second maybe think that your government knew that they were doing? that it was in your countrys best interest? fck this conspiract theory garbage, Hussein put out a ht on George Bush Sr. he destabilized the region, used chemical weapons on his own people and was str8 up a tyrant. America was just trying to kill 2 birds with 1 stone..... Iran is a MASSIVE THREAT, pretty smart to have a military presence inthe 2 neighbouring countries of your REAL BIGGEST THREAT a nucleur Iran which has sworn to wipe Israel off the map.

There are things going on that we cannot comprehend, do you really think America just went in there for the fun of it? just for oil?

Do I even need to mention that these countries are also close to North Korea?

America is simply establishing a ,military presence in that region so it can never be attacked like it was again!

whats funny is I bet none of you will believe this, or even thought oof this being the reason for both of these wars.

 

[lutherblsstt]

dont you see that their one in the same...its islam man, islam preaches hate and uses violence to progress its barbaric ideoligies....I really expected more from my friends from to the south.

A tiny fraction of Muslims have actually been involved in terrorism of any kind, and a much smaller number have been involved in suicide attacks.

Robert A. Pape, professor of political science at the University of Chicago and author of the study Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism, explains why it is that suicide bombers do what they do: To rid their land of foreign combat forces. That’s it. Not religion. Not virgins in Heaven. Not Democracy. Not Freedom™. Not women’s rights… Occupation.

Check it out:

Invalid Link Removed

or just listen:

Invalid Link Removed

 

[searl12]

bla bla bla...check this on ethen because all these people worship the religion of Islam

Invalid Link Removed

they worship a pedophile, a pirate, and a murderer, these are the people we allow in our countries, and by allowin gthem thay have rotted us from the inside.

jesus I swear I live in a world of puszys, people who live in a fairytale and actually think these people, if we were to leave would like us, they would still want us dead, beheaded and off the face fo the earth becasue we do not believe in their religion!

 

[searl12]

A tiny fraction of Muslims have actually been involved in terrorism of any kind, and a much smaller number have been involved in suicide attacks.

Robert A. Pape, professor of political science at the University of Chicago and author of the study Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism, explains why it is that suicide bombers do what they do: To rid their land of foreign combat forces. That’s it. Not religion. Not virgins in Heaven. Not Democracy. Not Freedom™. Not women’s rights… Occupation.

Check it out:

Invalid Link Removed

or just listen:

Invalid Link Removed

maybe so...but none of the other muslims denounce these barbaric attacks, none of them do anything to stop them.,....like the weasels they are they keep it uder wraps and support it under their breath...this is pathetic, even this forum has been infiltrated with supporters of these barbarians....now I know were truly fcked when our own people support islam and terrorism over their own countries.

You would get along great with the user Radja on this site,,,that guy would rather stand behind the insurgents and the taliban than his own countries soldiers.

you should be ashamed.

 

[searl12]

Abu Ghraib Prison Photos

Invalid Link Removed

those people would cut your head off in 30 frckn seconds....blow up your city, rape your women.....so what , they get 3 meals a day and a quaran to falsely worship...its more than all their victims got isnt it!
no mercy for these scumbags...and as far as im concerned no more prisoner taking , than we wouldnt need guantonamo, or abu garhab.

 

[searl12]

Yeah, so what? So what if the reaction to that particular aggression was based on intelligence that has since been revealed to be faulty and erroneous. So what if the "success" of "enhanced interrogation techniques" depends on the premise that the "interviewee" is already guilty; and so what if the information he/she provides is fabricated as a direct result of the interrogation technique, which has consistently occurred. So what if the laws, or decimation of laws, enacted to allow those techniques trample all over your civil liberties too. So what if the moral conscience and normative values of a group of nations - you know, the actual substance separating the societies we hold dear from the sites of these aforementioned conflicts - necessarily must be pissed on in order to justify a certain foreign policy decision. I mean, so what, right? All any of that means to you is that the dual American-Canadian flag you bought from Wal-Mart can hang a little higher on your antenna because you "support the troops", without having a god-damn clue about the actual reasons which bring them to these conflicts.

and this intelligence was partially debunked, but the US knew they had chemical weapons because america gave them to them during the iran iraq war, they could not risk having them fall into the hands of the barbaric islamic jihadists.

 

[poison]

Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is:

...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.

—UN Convention Against Torture

I know what torture is. Abu Ghraib was more of a hazing than torture, and I still disagree with it. I'm not down with unfair treatment of prisoners, and would stop it with force, if I were present. As wrong as it was, it wasn't torture, it was demeaning and debasing.

Water-boarding IS torture.

 

[somewhatgifted]

Man there are some narrow minded, delusional and brainwashed people in here.

Id like to know how killing people liberates them? Id like to know how you can blindly hate someone for being different and how you can ever justify torture?
If i torture my enemies family its telling the world that my family is open season and that is ruthless and evil.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Actually dude I guarantedd I could withoutr a doubt match you in any arguement or fact as to why america invaded iraq and Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein had WMD...you know why America knew this??because America gave them to him!

You know why they invaded Iraq....because they wanted to set up a front linethere where any jihadists could come and fight them, that and establishing massive military bases in the most volatile region in the world...just because it seems wrong doesnt mean it is, dont you for one second maybe think that your government knew that they were doing? that it was in your countrys best interest? fck this conspiract theory garbage, Hussein put out a ht on George Bush Sr. he destabilized the region, used chemical weapons on his own people and was str8 up a tyrant. America was just trying to kill 2 birds with 1 stone..... Iran is a MASSIVE THREAT, pretty smart to have a military presence inthe 2 neighbouring countries of your REAL BIGGEST THREAT a nucleur Iran which has sworn to wipe Israel off the map.

There are things going on that we cannot comprehend, do you really think America just went in there for the fun of it? just for oil?

Do I even need to mention that these countries are also close to North Korea?

America is simply establishing a ,military presence in that region so it can never be attacked like it was again!

whats funny is I bet none of you will believe this, or even thought oof this being the reason for both of these wars.

Jesus ****ing Christ...

 

[searl12]

Jesus ****ing Christ...

you think I made all this up do you? I just out of nowhere conjured this all up?

Its funny how smart you all think you are, dont you realize how close the world is to the brink of a massive war? dont you see it? no you dont! you live for yourself in yor fckn fairytale world!

Just remember the crazy canadian, who predicted all of this, and when it all hits the fan and I was right, you can come back and apoligize.

 

[roids1]

Abu Ghraib Prison Photos

It's not a pretty sight, but there is no evidence of true torture in those photos, certainly nothing like you would've seen in that same prison when Saddam was in control. In a supermax prison in the US, you might see a photo of a guy lying on the ground bleeding with several correctional officers around him. That wouldn't be evidence of torture. In the pic where the guy's nose is bleeding, I seriously doubt the American was sitting behind him slicing off his nose. Sorry Luther, but your cutting and pasting didn't support your arguement bud.

 

[lutherblsstt]

I know what torture is. Abu Ghraib was more of a hazing than torture, and I still disagree with it. I'm not down with unfair treatment of prisoners, and would stop it with force, if I were present. As wrong as it was, it wasn't torture, it was demeaning and debasing.

Water-boarding IS torture.

People were killed,is that hazing?



One pic shows Spc. Charles Graner and Spc. Sabrina Harmon posing over the body of a detainee who was allegedly beaten to death by CIA or civilian interrogators in the prison's showers. The detainee's name was Manadel al-Jamadi.

Invalid Link Removed

 

[poison]

luther, those guys are ****tards, and I'd go to bat against them any day. But that's not standard practice, and it's not even torture. It's mistreatment by some retard ****wads.

 

[somewhatgifted]

Those images accomplish alot in my mind. While it sickens me all i can think is what if i were them? I dont think i could ever carry out orders or condone such behavior and i thank god that i have not been beaten to death on a suspicion. It shows just how unglamourous this false war for freedom is. If you want to test a mans character give him power.

Any war for "freedom" or against "terror" is a unwinnable war that will never end until there is nothing to be gained for the few who perpetuate it.

 

[searl12]

I am an angry man, angry at these people for killing our people, no matter if were right or wrong Im still hurt and upset, I dont know if these guys were guilty or not, and until they were found guilty I obviosuly dont think this is right, even if guilty I mean its not right.

War is nothing but misery, sadness and loss, i say these things because I am hurt, I just dont know how to let go of my h8.

It isnt all of these people who are bad, when I say it is I am fueled with passion and bitterness for all our dead.

I think h8 and these wars are destroying my life, I might have take a step back here, make no mistake though I could post a neheading video right now, and I promise you it makes these jihadists look worse than these americans.

Ive spread enough h8 for the day, believe it or not Id give almost anyone the shirt off my back...and feel happy and joyful in the process.

No matter what I love our soldiers, not these above us...I still care for even them though, what they did is wrong , ok, i know that within, who knows what drove them to this? the same h8 that drives me to my hateful posts? anyone know what its like to hear someone you know had their face blown off? a 8 month old baby at home, new wife...and only at 23 years of age?

nothing but loss and sadness, and this loss and sadness in turn brings out the worst in man, in me, in our soldiers, in their soldiers.

I really just want things to be different, I dont want to h8 anymore, I dont want to look at muslims on the street and feel so much anger, I just dont know how. I cant figure out how to stop.

If anyone can help me please do, im not feeling so well right now.

 

[somewhatgifted]

I am an angry man, angry at these people for killing our people, no matter if were right or wrong Im still hurt and upset, I dont know if these guys were guilty or not, and until they were found guilty I obviosuly dont think this is right, even if guilty I mean its not right.

War is nothing but misery, sadness and loss, i say these things because I am hurt, I just dont know how to let go of my h8.

It isnt all of these people who are bad, when I say it is I am fueled with passion and bitterness for all our dead.

I think h8 and these wars are destroying my life, I might have take a step back here, make no mistake though I could post a neheading video right now, and I promise you it makes these jihadists look worse than these americans.

Ive spread enough h8 for the day, believe it or not Id give almost anyone the shirt off my back...and feel happy and joyful in the process.

No matter what I love our soldiers, not these above us...I still care for even them though, what they did is wrong , ok, i know that within, who knows what drove them to this? the same h8 that drives me to my hateful posts? anyone know what its like to hear someone you know had their face blown off? a 8 month old baby at home, new wife...and only at 23 years of age?

nothing but loss and sadness, and this loss and sadness in turn brings out the worst in man, in me, in our soldiers, in their soldiers.

I really just want things to be different, I dont want to h8 anymore, I dont want to look at muslims on the street and feel so much anger, I just dont know how. I cant figure out how to stop.

If anyone can help me please do, im not feeling so well right now.

Well the main thing is if you set your sights on joy and love that is what you shall find. Its like life is here, all around us, happening right before our eyes. Its the same life for everyone and the only difference is how we choose to feel it, see it and respond to it. Its easy to be consumed by anger and hatred but like i said earlier hating people only really manages to hurt you. You are the one who has to live with this corrosive emotion inside yourbody and that is not accomplishing anything besides creating more and more of the same type of feelings.
Its great to have passion, but when a strong minded person gets fixed on something destructive, their best attribute becomes their worst.
Its difficult to stay focused on the best parts of life and the best tool i have to combat hatred is to picture myself as another. What if i wanted love, happiness, to find god and to bring peace to my people... what if i was islamic and doing MY best to do what i thought was right. I cant truly imagine what other people go through in life but if you can accomplish to understand for one second that they are doing the EXACT same thing as we are, trying to make the most of this lifetime.
I promise creating hate, being angry and killing do not accomplish anything good for anyone and by that it brings great power and great weight to the heart of a soldier. We owe it to them to make sure they are never asked to give their lives unless ABSOLUTLY for the best interest of all mankind.
I see the same shattered families on both sides and wonder if a country invaded my home would i be a god hating terrorist? tortured, defiled and dying in agony over my thoughts and dreams?
When you fight your already losing, its just who will lose the most.

 

[searl12]

im sorry gifted for showing you the worst of me these last few days, tomorrow im gonna go out and look for the good instead of the bad, look at anoher man of another race and just see him as I see myself, like you said, hes just a man trying to make the best of this life, he wants to be loved, have a family, love his family....not much different than me I guess.

Your were spot on...hate is corroding me from the inside, a few years ago all I ever did was make people laugh, my friends say im the funniest guy they know, I know after hearing my hate thats the last thing one would think of me.

 

[lutherblsstt]

luther, those guys are ****tards, and I'd go to bat against them any day. But that's not standard practice, and it's not even torture. It's mistreatment by some retard ****wads.

So you are basically saying the US cannot torture no matter what it does to detainees/prisoners.

They could flambé dudes and you would come up with any word to describe it but torture.

I can hear you now "oh no,that is not torture,it's just turning up the heat a little."

 

[CDB]

Apparently I must spread some reps around before giving more to you.

Yeah, so what? So what if the reaction to that particular aggression was based on intelligence that has since been revealed to be faulty and erroneous. So what if the "success" of "enhanced interrogation techniques" depends on the premise that the "interviewee" is already guilty; and so what if the information he/she provides is fabricated as a direct result of the interrogation technique, which has consistently occurred. So what if the laws, or decimation of laws, enacted to allow those techniques trample all over your civil liberties too. So what if the moral conscience and normative values of a group of nations - you know, the actual substance separating the societies we hold dear from the sites of these aforementioned conflicts - necessarily must be pissed on in order to justify a certain foreign policy decision. I mean, so what, right? All any of that means to you is that the dual American-Canadian flag you bought from Wal-Mart can hang a little higher on your antenna because you "support the troops", without having a god-damn clue about the actual reasons which bring them to these conflicts.

 

[CDB]

I have served in the army reserves...and my reg force infantry application is in the process of being filed, i havent done enough yet, but I will have my chance, dont worry.

No doubt, you'll likely make more people hate the US than all those before you. Good luck.

those people would cut your head off in 30 frckn seconds....blow up your city, rape your women..

Actually it turns out quite of few of them were just regular Joes, owned businesses, and really like most people just wanted to be left alone. No one is arguing the existence of evil people in this world, just your naive, uninformed, provincial, juvenile, malignant, moronic claim that all Muslims are evil.

do all you people forget they launched an attack on your homeland? so what if they get waterboarded

Are you so pathetically uninformed on this issue as to not know the nationalities of the people who attacked us? They weren't Iraqis. They were mostly Saudi, one or two from the UAE and also Egypt as well. Maybe one or two other middle eastern nationalities in there, but none from Iraq.

dont you see that their one in the same...its islam man, islam preaches hate and uses violence to progress its barbaric ideoligies....I really expected more from my friends from to the south.

Are you once more so pitifully ignorant of the facts to not know that one of the things about Iraq that was different was their tendency toward secularism, at least by Middle Eastern standards?

Who's talking about CHristians? Sure, CHristians have killed more people than nearly anyone on Earth. We can talk about that if you like, but that's not the topic at hand.

It is the topic at hand when you try to imply that violence and nonconformity to the 'modern world' are the sole purview one religion and not all of them. It is also relevant to this discussion because of the high correlation between zealous Christians and NeoCon foreign policy leanings favoring mass military interventionism around the globe.

Sure, I generalized, but there's far more than a grain of truth there. I never said 'Muslims don't do any good'. The fact is even the 'do-gooders' are sometimes more vehemently anti-West than Joe-Mohammed-Blow, and you simply don't have average Muslims standing up against Muslim terror in any meaningful fashion.

Just as would happen here if, per chance, Muslims decideds to occupy significant portions of our land and kill a few million of us. You'd find partisan differences fade rather quickly when the topic of Muslims came up were that the case. That people like you seem to miss the fact that even moderates are inflamed by our presence there, just as moderates here would be inflamed by their presence here were that the case, is one of the major problems informing ourt failed policies.

It's all very simple in the end. Very few people want to be helped so bad they'd tolerate an invading/occupying force. Those who do want help are usually incompetent and will need it in perpetuity, meaning a permanent military presense in whatever area is in question which guarantees a majorly pissed off indigenous population. Those competent ones who neither need or don't want help resent it when it is forced upon them at gun point. In other words a foreign policy based on anything but defense against clear and present dangers is doomed to fail.

Go look at the number of terror attacks perpetrated by Muslims, and how many innocents it affects, and in how many countries:

Invalid Link RemovedNow tell me it's the US fault, or Israel, that they have NO OTHER way to express their outrage.

Whether they have another way to express their outrage is irrelevant. The point of the matter is it would not be directed at us to such an extent, nor would these 'leaders' be able to recruit so easily, were it not for the thousand if not millions of dead our policies in the middle east have resulted in. How many dead because of coups and counter coups when we were done ****ing around in Syria? How many dead and ****ed over under the British alliance with the Sunnis in the 20s? How about when we worked with Nasser in Egypt? Because of the Shah in Iran and our meddling there? How many screwed and/or dead because of our initial support for Saddam in Iraq? Because of our meddling in Lebanon in the 50s and 80s? In Libya in the 60s and 80s? The first Iraq war, the sanctions that followed, the second Iraq war? And now how many are going to die or be significantly worse off when we start actively ****ing around in Iran again which looks likely? The US and the modern west in general have damn a century of poorly thought out and often disastrous policies that have left significant amounts of people in the middle east impoverished, tyrranized, and/or just plain ****ing dead. I hate to break this to you, but they are humans and have a right to be pissed at us.

THere's ALWAYS an objective, and usually it's to save someone else, as well as protect its best interests.

The objective is irrelevant. People don't care about your intentions when they're holding their kid's intestines in their hands or looking at the bodies of their dead loved ones being carted off to be burned en masse to avoid disease. And we have no ****ing business, not to mention zero constitutional authority, to use the US army to police the world and 'save' anybody. Ignoring for the moment that those we try and 'save' usually end up ****ed over worse than before we 'saved' them.

 

[CDB]

Invalid Link Removed
by Isabel Paterson

"The humanitarian in theory is the terrorist in action."

Most of the harm in the world is done by good people, and not by accident, lapse, or omission. It is the result of their deliberate actions, long persevered in, which they hold to be motivated by high ideals toward virtuous ends.

This is demonstrably true; nor could it occur otherwise. The percentage of positively malignant, vicious, or depraved persons is necessarily small, for no species could survive if its members were habitually and consciously bent upon injuring one another. Destruction is so easy that even a minority of persistently evil intent could shortly exterminate the unsuspecting majority of well-disposed persons. Murder, theft, rapine, and destruction are easily within the power of every individual at any time. If it is presumed that they are restrained only by fear or force, what is it they fear, or who would turn the force against them if all men were of like mind?

Certainly if the harm done by willful criminals were to be computed, the number of murders, the extent of damage and loss, would be found negligible in the sum total of death and devastation wrought upon human beings by their kind. Therefore it is obvious that in periods when millions are slaughtered, when torture is practiced, starvation enforced, oppression made a policy, as at present over a large part of the world, and as it has often been in the past, it must be at the behest of very many good people, and even by their direct action, for what they consider a worthy object. When they are not the immediate executants, they are on record as giving approval, elaborating justifications, or else cloaking facts with silence, and discountenancing discussion.

Obviously this could not occur without cause or reason. And it must be understood, in the above passage, that by good people we mean good people, persons who would not of their own conscious intent act to hurt their fellow men, nor procure such acts, either wantonly or for a personal benefit to themselves. Good people wish well to their fellow men, and wish to guide their own actions accordingly. Further, we do not here imply any "transvaluation of values," confusing good and evil, or suggesting that good produces evil, or that there is no difference between good and evil, or between good- and ill-disposed persons; nor is it suggested that the virtues of good people are not really virtues.

Then there must be a very grave error in the means by which they seek to attain their ends. There must even be an error in their primary axioms, to permit them to continue using such means. Something is terribly wrong in the procedure, somewhere. What is it?

Certainly the slaughter committed from time to time by barbarians invading settled regions, or the capricious cruelties of avowed tyrants, would not add up to one-tenth the horrors perpetrated by rulers with good intentions.

As the story has come down to us, the ancient Egyptians were enslaved by Pharaoh through a benevolent scheme of "ever normal granaries." Provision was made against famine; and then the people were forced to barter property and liberty for such reserves which had previously been taken from their own production. The inhuman hardness of the ancient Spartans was practiced for a civic ideal of virtue.

The early Christians were persecuted for reasons of state, the collective welfare; and they resisted for the right of personality, each because he had a soul of his own. Those killed by Nero for sport were few compared to those put to death by later emperors for strictly "moral" reasons. Gilles de Retz, who murdered children to gratify a beastly perversion, killed no more than fifty or sixty in all. Cromwell ordered the massacre of thirty thousand people at once, including infants in arms, in the name of righteousness. Even the brutalities of Peter the Great had the pretext of a design to benefit his subjects.

The present war, begun with a perjured treaty made by two powerful nations (Russia and Germany), that they might crush their smaller neighbors with impunity, the treaty being broken by a surprise attack on the fellow conspirator, would have been impossible without the internal political power which in both cases was seized on the excuse of doing good to the nation.

The lies, the violence, the wholesale killings, were practiced first on the people of both nations by their own respective governments.

It may be said, and it may be true, that in both cases the wielders of power are vicious hypocrites; that their conscious objective was evil from the beginning; nonetheless, they could not have come by the power at all except with the consent and assistance of good people.

The Communist regime in Russia gained control by promising the peasants land, in terms the promisers knew to be a lie as understood. Having gained power, the Communists took from the peasants the land they already owned — and exterminated those who resisted. This was done by plan and intention; and the lie was praised as "social engineering," by socialist admirers in America. If that is engineering, then the sale of fake mining stock is engineering.

The whole population of Russia was put under duress and terror; thousands were murdered without trial; millions were worked to death and starved to death in captivity. Likewise the whole population of Germany was put under duress and terror, by the same means. With the war, Russians in German prison camps, Germans in Russian prison camps, are enduring no worse and no other fate than that their compatriots in as great numbers have endured and are enduring from their own governments in their own countries. If there is any slight difference, they suffer rather less from the vengeance of avowed enemies than from the proclaimed benevolence of their compatriots. The conquered nations of Europe, under the Russian or German heel, are merely experiencing what Russians and Germans have been through for years, under their own national regimes.

Further, the principal political figures now wielding power in Europe, including those who have sold their countries to the invader, are socialists, ex-socialists, or communists — men whose creed was the collective good.

With all this demonstrated to the hilt, we have the peculiar spectacle of the man who condemned millions of his own people to starvation admired by philanthropists whose declared aim is to see to it that everyone in the world has a quart of milk. A graduate professional charity worker has flown half around the world to seek an interview with this master of his trade, and to write rhapsodies on being granted such a privilege. To keep themselves in office, for the professed purpose of doing good, similar idealists welcome the political support of grafters, convicted pimps, and professional thugs. This affinity of these types invariably reveals itself, when the occasion arises. But what is the occasion?

Why did the humanitarian philosophy of 18th-century Europe usher in the Reign of Terror? It did not happen by chance; it followed from the original premise, objective, and means proposed. The objective is to do good to others as a primary justification of existence; the means is the power of the collective; and the premise is that "good" is collective.

The root of the matter is ethical, philosophical, and religious, involving the relation of man to the universe, of man's creative faculty to his Creator. The fatal divergence occurs in failing to recognize the norm of human life.

Obviously there is a great deal of pain and distress incidental to existence. Poverty, illness, and accident are possibilities which may be reduced to a minimum, but cannot be altogether eliminated from the hazards mankind must encounter. But these are not desirable conditions, to be brought about or perpetuated.

Naturally children have parents, while most adults are in fair health most of their lives, and are engaged in useful activity which brings them a livelihood. That is the norm and the natural order. Ills are marginal. They can be alleviated from the marginal surplus of production; otherwise nothing at all could be done. Therefore it cannot be supposed that the producer exists only for the sake of the nonproducer, the well for the sake of the ill, the competent for the sake of the incompetent; nor any person merely for the sake of another. (The logical procedure, if it is held that any person exists only for the sake of another, was carried out in semibarbarous societies, when the widow or followers of a dead man were buried alive in his grave.)

The great religions, which are also great intellectual systems, have always recognized the conditions of the natural order. They enjoin charity, benevolence, as a moral obligation, to be met out of the producer's surplus. That is, they make it secondary to production, for the inescapable reason that without production there could be nothing to give. Consequently they prescribe the most severe rule, to be embraced only voluntarily, for those who wish to devote their lives wholly to works of charity, from contributions. Always this is regarded as a special vocation, because it could not be a general way of life. Since the almoner must obtain the funds or goods he distributes from the producers, he has no authority to command; he must ask. When he subtracts his own livelihood from such alms, he must take no more than bare subsistence. In proof of his vocation, he must even forego the happiness of family life, if he were to receive the formal religious sanction. Never was he to derive comfort for himself from the misery of others.

The religious orders maintained hospitals, reared orphans, distributed food. Part of such alms was given unconditionally, that there might be no compulsion under the cloak of charity. It is not decent to make a man strip his soul in return for bread. This is the real difference when charity is enjoined in the name of God, and not on humanitarian or philanthropic principles. If the sick were cured, the hungry fed, orphans cared for until they grew up, it was certainly good, and the good cannot be computed in merely physical terms; but such actions were intended to tide the beneficiaries over a period of distress and restore them to the norm if possible. If the distressed could partly help themselves, so much the better. If they could not, that fact was recognized. But most of the religious orders made a concurrent effort to be productive, that they might give of their own surplus, as well as distributing donations. When they performed productive work, such as building, teaching for a reasonable fee, farming, or incidental industries and arts, the results were lasting, not only in the particular products, but in enlargement of knowledge and advanced methods, so that in the long run they raised the norm of welfare. And it should be noted that these enduring results derived from self-improvement.

What can one human being actually do for another? He can give from his own funds and his own time whatever he can spare. But he cannot bestow faculties which nature has denied; nor give away his own subsistence without becoming dependent himself. If he earns what he gives away, he must earn it first. Surely he has a right to domestic life if he can support a wife and children. He must therefore reserve enough for himself and his family to continue production. No one person, though his income be ten million dollars a year, can take care of every case of need in the world.

But supposing he has no means of his own, and still imagines that he can make "helping others" at once his primary purpose and the normal way of life, which is the central doctrine of the humanitarian creed, how is he to go about it? Lists have been published of the neediest cases, certified by secular charitable foundations which pay their own officers handsomely. The needy have been investigated, but not relieved. Out of donations received, the officials pay themselves first. This is embarrassing even to the rhinoceros hide of the professional philanthropist. But how is the confession to be evaded? If the philanthropist could command the means of the producer, instead of asking for a portion, he could claim credit for production, being in a position to give orders to the producer. Then he can blame the producer for not carrying out orders to produce more.

If the primary objective of the philanthropist, his justification for living, is to help others, his ultimate good requires that others shall be in want. His happiness is the obverse of their misery. If he wishes to help "humanity," the whole of humanity must be in need. The humanitarian wishes to be a prime mover in the lives of others. He cannot admit either the divine or the natural order, by which men have the power to help themselves. The humanitarian puts himself in the place of God.

But he is confronted by two awkward facts; first, that the competent do not need his assistance; and second, that the majority of people, if unperverted, positively do not want to be "done good" by the humanitarian. When it is said that everyone should live primarily for others, what is the specific course to be pursued? Is each person to do exactly what any other person wants him to do, without limits or reservations? and only what others want him to do? What if various persons make conflicting demands? The scheme is impracticable.

Perhaps then he is to do only what is actually "good" for others. But will those others know what is good for them? No, that is ruled out by the same difficulty. Then shall A do what he thinks is good for B, and B do what he thinks is good for A? Or shall A accept only what he thinks is good for B, and vice versa? But that is absurd. Of course what the humanitarian actually proposes is that he shall do what he thinks is good for everybody. It is at this point that the humanitarian sets up the guillotine.

What kind of world does the humanitarian contemplate as affording him full scope? It could only be a world filled with breadlines and hospitals, in which nobody retained the natural power of a human being to help himself or to resist having things done to him. And that is precisely the world that the humanitarian arranges when he gets his way.

When a humanitarian wishes to see to it that everyone has a quart of milk, it is evident that he hasn't got the milk, and cannot produce it himself, or why should he be merely wishing? Further, if he did have a sufficient quantity of milk to bestow a quart on everyone, as long as his proposed beneficiaries can and do produce milk for themselves, they would say no, thank you. Then how is the humanitarian to contrive that he shall have all the milk to distribute, and that everyone else shall be in want of milk?

There is only one way, and that is by the use of the political power in its fullest extension. Hence the humanitarian feels the utmost gratification when he visits or hears of a country in which everyone is restricted to ration cards. Where subsistence is doled out, the desideratum has been achieved, of general want and a superior power to "relieve" it. The humanitarian in theory is the terrorist in action.

The good people give him the power he demands because they have accepted his false premise. The advance of science lent it a specious plausibility, with the increase in production. Since there is enough for everybody, why cannot the "needy" be provided for first, and the question thus disposed of permanently?

At this point it is asked, how are you to define the "needy," and from what source and by what power is provision to be made for them?

Kind-hearted persons may exclaim indignantly:

"This is quibbling; narrow the definition to the very limit, but at the irreducible minimum you cannot deny that a man who is hungry, ill-clad, and without shelter is needy. The source of relief can only be the means of those who are not in such need. The power already exists; if there can be a right to tax people for armies, navies, local police, road making, or any other imaginable purpose, surely there must be a prior right to tax people for the preservation of life itself."

 

[CDB]

Very well; take a specific case. In the hard times of the 1890s, a young journalist in Chicago was troubled by the appalling hardships of the unemployed. He tried to believe that any man honestly willing to work could find employment; but to make sure, he investigated a few cases. Here was one, a youth from a farm, where the family maybe got enough to eat but was short of everything else; the farm boy had come to Chicago looking for a job, and would certainly have taken any kind of work, but there was none. Let it be supposed he might have begged his way home; there were others who were half a continent and an ocean from their homes. They couldn't get back, by any possible effort of their own; and there is no quibbling about that. They couldn't. They slept in alleyways, waited for meager rations at soup kitchens; and suffered bitterly.

There is another thing; among these unemployed were some persons — it is impossible to say how many — who were exceptionally enterprising, gifted, or competent; and that is what got them into their immediate plight. They had cut loose from dependence at a peculiarly hazardous time; they had taken a long chance. Extremes met among the unemployed — the extremes of courageous enterprise, of sheer ill-luck, and of downright improvidence and incompetence.

A blacksmith working near Brooklyn Bridge who gave a penniless wanderer ten cents to pay the bridge toll couldn't know he was making that advance to immortality in the person of a future Poet Laureate of England. But John Masefield was the wanderer. So it is not implied that the needy are necessarily "undeserving."

There were also people in the country, in drought or insect-plagued areas, who were in dire want, and must have literally starved if relief had not been sent them. They didn't get much either, and that in haphazard, ragbag sort. But everyone struggled through to an amazing recovery of the whole country.

Incidentally, there would have been much more severe distress instead of simple poverty at the subsistence line, but for neighborly giving which was not called charity. People always give away a good deal, if they have it; it is a human impulse, which the humanitarian plays on for his own purpose. What is wrong with institutionalizing that natural impulse in a political agency?

Very well again; had the farm boy done anything wrong in leaving the farm, where he did have enough to eat, and going to Chicago on the chance of getting a job?

If the answer is yes, then there must be a rightful power which shall prevent him leaving the farm without permission. The feudal power did that. It couldn't prevent people from starving; it merely compelled them to starve right where they were born.

But if the answer is no, the farm boy didn't do wrong, he had a right to take that chance, then exactly what is to be done to make certain he will not be in hard luck when he gets to his chosen destination? Must a job be provided for any person at any place he chooses to go? That is absurd. It can't be done. Is he entitled to relief anyhow, when he gets there, as long as he chooses to stay; or at least to a return ticket home? That is equally absurd. The demand would be unlimited; no abundance of production could meet it.

Then what of the people who were impoverished by drought; could they not be given political relief? But there must be conditions. Are they to receive it just as long as they are in need, while they stay where they are? (They cannot be financed for indefinite travel.) That is just what has been done in recent years; and it kept relief recipients for seven years together in squalid surroundings, wasting time, work, and seed grain in the desert.

The truth is that if any proposed method of caring for the marginal want and distress incident to human life by establishing a permanent fixed charge upon production would be adopted most gladly by those who now oppose it, if it were practicable.

They oppose it because it is impracticable in the nature of things. They are the people who have already devised all the partial expedients possible, in the way of private insurance; and they know exactly what the catch is, because they come up against it when they try to make secure provision for their own dependents.

The insuperable obstacle is that it is absolutely impossible to get anything out of production ahead of maintenance.

If it were a fact that the producers generally, the industrial managers and others, had hearts of chilled steel, and cared nothing whatever about human suffering, still it would be most convenient for them if the question of relief for all kinds of distress, whether unemployment, illness, or old age, could be settled once for all, so they need hear no more of it. They are always under attack on this point; and it doubles their trouble whenever industry hits a depression. The politicians can get votes out of distress; the humanitarians land lucrative white-collar jobs for themselves distributing relief funds; only the producers, both capitalists and workingmen, have to take the abuse and pay the shot.

The difficulty is best shown in a concrete instance. Suppose a man owning a profitable business in sound condition with a long record of good management wishes to arrange that his family shall have their support from it indefinitely. He might as owner be in a position to give first lien bonds yielding a certain amount; say it was only $5,000 a year on a business which was paying $100,000 a year net profit. That is the very best he could do; and if ever the business failed to produce $5,000 net profit, his family wouldn't get the money, and that's all there is to it. They might put the concern through bankruptcy and take the assets, and the assets after bankruptcy might be worth nothing at all. You can't get anything out of production ahead of maintenance.

Aside from that, of course his family might hypothecate the bonds, hand them over to the "management" of some "benevolent" friend — a thing which has been known to happen — and then they wouldn't get the money anyhow. That is about what occurs with organized charities having endowments. They support a lot of kind friends in cushy jobs.

But what if the businessman, through the warmth of his generous affection, fixed it irrevocably so that his wife and family had an open checking account on the company's funds, to draw just what they pleased. He might feel innocently sure they would not take more than a small percentage, for their reasonable needs. But the day might come when the cashier must tell the happy wife there was no money to honor her check; and with such an arrangement it is certain that the day would come rather soon. In either case, just when the family needed money most, the business would yield least.

But the procedure would be completely insane if the businessman gave to a third party an irrevocable power to draw as much as he pleased from the company's funds, with only an unenforceable understanding that the third party would support the owner's family. And that is what the proposal to care for the needy by the political means comes to. It gives the power to the politicians to tax without limit; and there is absolutely no way to ensure that the money shall go where it was intended to go. In any case, the business will not stand any such unlimited drain.

Why do kind-hearted persons call in the political power? They cannot deny that the means for relief must come from production. But they say there is enough and to spare. Then they must assume that the producers are not willing to give what is "right." Further they assume that there is a collective right to impose taxes, for any purpose the collective shall determine. They localize that right in "the government," as if it were self-existent, forgetting the American axiom that government itself is not self-existent, but is instituted by men for limited purposes. The taxpayer himself hopes for protection from the army or navy or police; he uses the roads; hence his right to insist on limiting taxation is self-evident. The government has no "rights" in the matter, but only a delegated authority.

But if taxes are to be imposed for relief, who is the judge of what is possible or beneficial? It must be either the producers, the needy, or some third group. To say it shall be all three together is no answer; the verdict must swing upon majority or plurality drawn from one or other group. Are the needy to vote themselves whatever they want? Are the humanitarians, the third group, to vote themselves control of both the producers and the needy? (That is what they have done.)

The government is thus supposed to be empowered to give "security" to the needy. It cannot. What it does is to seize the provision made by private persons for their own security, thus depriving everyone of every hope or chance of security. It can do nothing else, if it acts at all. Those who do not understand the nature of the action are like savages who might cut down a tree to get the fruit; they do not think over time and space, as civilized men must think.

We have seen the worst that can happen when there is only private relief and improvised municipal doles of a temporary character. Unorganized private giving is random and sporadic; it has never been able to prevent suffering completely. But neither does it perpetuate the dependence of its beneficiaries. It is the method of capitalism and liberty. It involves extraordinary downswings and upswings, but the upswings were always higher each time, and of longer duration than the downswings. And in the most distressful periods, there was no real famine, no black despair, but a queer kind of angry, active optimism and an unfaltering belief in better times ahead, which the outcome justified. Unofficial, sporadic private donations did actually serve the purpose. It worked, however imperfectly.

On the other hand, what can the political power do? One of the alleged "abuses" of capitalism was the sweatshop. Immigrants came to America, penniless and ignorant of the language and with no skilled trade; they were hired for very low wages, worked long hours in slum surroundings, and were said to be exploited. Yet mysteriously in time they improved their condition; the great majority attained comfort, and some gained wealth.

Could the political power have provided lucrative jobs for everyone who wished to come? Of course it could not and cannot. Nevertheless, the good people called in the political power to alleviate the hard lot of these newcomers. What did it do? Its first requirement was that each immigrant should bring with him a certain sum of money. That is to say, it cut off the most needy abroad from their sole hope. Later, when the political power in Europe had reduced life to a gloomy hell, but a large number of persons might still have scraped together the requisite sum for admittance to America, the political power here simply cut down admission to a quota. The more desperate the need, the less chance could the political power allow them. Would not many millions in Europe be glad and grateful if they could have even the poorest chance the old system afforded, instead of convict camps, torture cellars, vile humiliations, and violent death?

The sweatshop employer hadn't much capital. He risked the little he had in hiring people. He was accused of doing them a horrible wrong, and his business cited as revealing the intrinsic brutality of capitalism.

The political official is tolerably well paid, in a permanent job. Risking nothing himself, he gets his pay for thrusting desperate people back from the borders, as drowning men might be beaten back from the sides of a well-provisioned ship. What else can he do? Nothing. Capitalism did what it could; the political power does what it can. Incidentally, the ship was built and stored by capitalism.

As between the private philanthropist and the private capitalist acting as such, take the case of the truly needy man, who is not incapacitated, and suppose that the philanthropist gives him food and clothes and shelter — when he has used them up, he is just where he was before, except that he may have acquired the habit of dependence. But suppose someone with no benevolent motive whatever, simply wanting work done for his own reasons, should hire the needy man for a wage. The employer has not done a good deed. Yet the condition of the employed man has actually been changed. What is the vital difference between the two actions?

It is that the unphilanthropic employer has brought the man he employed back into the production line, on the great circuit of energy — whereas the philanthropist can only divert energy in such manner that there can be no return into production, and therefore less likelihood of the object of his benefaction finding employment.

This is the profound, rational reason why human beings shrink from relief, and hate the very word. It is also the reason why those who perform works of charity under a true vocation do their best to keep it marginal, and gladly yield the opportunity to "do good" in favor of any chance for the beneficiary to work on any half-tolerable terms. Those who cannot avoid going on relief feel and exhibit the results in their physical being; they are cut off from the living springs of self-renewing energy, and their vitality sinks.

The result, if they are kept on relief long enough by the determined philanthropists and politicians in concert, has been described by a relief agent. At first, the "clients" applied reluctantly. "In a few months all that changes. We find that the fellow who wanted just enough to tide him over has settled back to living on relief as a matter of course."

The relief agent who said that was himself "living on relief as a matter of course"; but he was a long step lower than his client, in that he did not even recognize his own condition. Why was he able to evade the truth? Because he could hide himself behind the philanthropic motive. "We help to prevent starvation, and we see to it that these people have some sort of shelter and bedding."

If the agent were asked, do you grow the food, do you build the shelter, or do you give the money out of your own earnings to pay for them, he would not see that that made any difference. He has been taught that it is right to "live for others," for "social aims" and "social gains." As long as he can believe he is doing that, he will not ask himself what he is necessarily doing to those others, nor where the means must come from to support him.

If the full roll of sincere philanthropists were called, from the beginning of time, it would be found that all of them together by their strictly philanthropic activities have never conferred upon humanity one-tenth of the benefit derived from the normally self-interested efforts of Thomas Alva Edison, to say nothing of the greater minds who worked out the scientific principles which Edison applied. Innumerable speculative thinkers, inventors, and organizers, have contributed to the comfort, health, and happiness of their fellow men — because that was not their objective.

When Robert Owen tried to run a factory for efficient production, the process incidentally improved some very unpromising characters among his employees, who had been on relief, and were therefore sadly degraded; Owen made money for himself; and while so engaged, it occurred to him that if better wages were paid, production could be increased, having made its own market. That was sensible and true. But then Owen became inspired with a humanitarian ambition, to do good to everybody. He collected a lot of humanitarians, in an experimental colony; they were all so intent upon doing good to others that nobody did a lick of work; the colony dissolved acrimoniously; Owen went broke and died mildly crazy. So the important principle he had glimpsed had to wait a century to be rediscovered.

The philanthropist, the politician, and the pimp are inevitably found in alliance because they have the same motives, they seek the same ends, to exist for, through, and by others. And the good people cannot be exonerated for supporting them. Neither can it be believed that the good people are wholly unaware of what actually happens. But when the good people do know, as they certainly do, that three million persons (at the least estimate) were starved to death in one year by the methods they approve, why do they still fraternize with the murderers and support the measures? Because they have been told that the lingering death of the three millions might ultimately benefit a greater number. The argument applies equally well to cannibalism.

 

[poison]

Right on, thanks for posting that. It'll take me a bit to digest that. BTW, damn her and her commas, some seriously long sentences there. :lol:

 

[somewhatgifted]

im sorry gifted for showing you the worst of me these last few days, tomorrow im gonna go out and look for the good instead of the bad, look at anoher man of another race and just see him as I see myself, like you said, hes just a man trying to make the best of this life, he wants to be loved, have a family, love his family....not much different than me I guess.

Your were spot on...hate is corroding me from the inside, a few years ago all I ever did was make people laugh, my friends say im the funniest guy they know, I know after hearing my hate thats the last thing one would think of me.

Like me, you wear your heart on your sleeve, that can be good and bad. Use your powers for good and not for evil, lol.

Some of the ways i said things were out of frustration, poor show on my part. You seemed absolutely focused on a fight and no matter what i wrote had an angry response. Sometimes i go back a re-read things and they dont seem so bad with an open mind and a good attitude. Its hard to tell whos being a dyck and who is just a good guy having a bad day when you are reading typing. All the best.

 

[poison]

Are you so pathetically uninformed on this issue as to not know the nationalities of the people who attacked us? They weren't Iraqis. They were mostly Saudi, one or two from the UAE and also Egypt as well. Maybe one or two other middle eastern nationalities in there, but none from Iraq.



Are you once more so pitifully ignorant of the facts to not know that one of the things about Iraq that was different was their tendency toward secularism, at least by Middle Eastern standards?

9/11 was no justification for the invasion of Iraq. However, I'm not sure that the invasion will end up being wholly bad, only time, and history, will tell. As it is, the ME looks drastically different: Libya gave up its arms program voluntarily, Iraq IS a better place (though the question is 'at what price?'), Afganistan is a work in progress, etc.

Iraq didn't go as well as it should have. Politicians ignored the brass, and EVERYONE paid a heavy price. Things would look MUCH different if they had followed Tommy Franks advice instead of Rumsfeld, and there'd be a whole lot less disgust and angst over Iraq all around. In other words, a large part of the problem with Iraq is not the invasion itself, but how it was carried out.

It is the topic at hand when you try to imply that violence and nonconformity to the 'modern world' are the sole purview one religion and not all of them. It is also relevant to this discussion because of the high correlation between zealous Christians and NeoCon foreign policy leanings favoring mass military interventionism around the globe.

I never said 'sole'. However, suicide terror IS the domain of Islam, with VERY few exceptions.

I'm not a fan of Neocon-ism, however...Iraq was their only mistaken military intervention (and even that, however mistaken it may or may not have been, was a cluster becaue of mismanagement, not spite).

You can't equate Islamic terror in over twenty countries targeting largely innocents, to US military interventionism which does not deliberately target innocents. You may not like either, but there is a distinct difference.

Just as would happen here if, per chance, Muslims decideds to occupy significant portions of our land and kill a few million of us. You'd find partisan differences fade rather quickly when the topic of Muslims came up were that the case. That people like you seem to miss the fact that even moderates are inflamed by our presence there, just as moderates here would be inflamed by their presence here were that the case, is one of the major problems informing ourt failed policies.

Many Iraqis are very grateful to the US for ousting SAddam. The problem, again, is HOW we went about it. WE went in severely under-manned, at Rumsfelds orders, and this cost us several YEARS, several thousand dead US troops, billions of dollars, and TENS OF THOUSANDS of dead Iraqis. It could easily have been much quicker and cleaner, in which case no one would be bitching. Hey, no one is hauling mass numbers of girls out of their home and raping them, or wood-chipping fathers for disagreeing with Saddam under their breaths.

Iraqi's want us out, and we're slowly leaving (as quickly as possible). We would still be seen as liberators if we hadn't come in blazing, to make up for a lack of manpower, then used rogue soldiers like BlackWater to make up the initial difference. THeir behavior cost us the goodwill of the Iraqi people.

So it's not as simple as saying 'they hate us', or 'we inflame the moderates', when speaking of Iraq specifically.

You have to take each country and its peoples on an individual basis. Jordanians have no problem with the US, in general. Egypt's leadership very much enjoys our monetary support ($2-4b a year), and our carrot keeps the peace very nicely in that respect. Egyptians are more hardline Islamist than their gov't, but the gov't keeps them on a short rope.

It's all very simple in the end. Very few people want to be helped so bad they'd tolerate an invading/occupying force. Those who do want help are usually incompetent and will need it in perpetuity, meaning a permanent military presense in whatever area is in question which guarantees a majorly pissed off indigenous population. Those competent ones who neither need or don't want help resent it when it is forced upon them at gun point. In other words a foreign policy based on anything but defense against clear and present dangers is doomed to fail.

I'm just not so sure it's that simple, see my comments about Iraq above. You do the Iraqis a disservice when you say 'Those who do want help are usually incompetent and will need it in perpetuity'. Iraqi's aren't lazy and incompetant by nature, which is what that implies. They have a steep learning curve, but they'll get it.

Kosovo was NO danger to the US. We did a good thing. I don't believe in total isolationism.

Whether they have another way to express their outrage is irrelevant. The point of the matter is it would not be directed at us to such an extent, nor would these 'leaders' be able to recruit so easily, were it not for the thousand if not millions of dead our policies in the middle east have resulted in.

Oh really? It is totally, and completely relevant. I don't give two ****s WHAT the suicide bombers motivations are or were when he stepped into the kiosk with my friend at Bet Leid junction in Israel, and blew up my cute, smart, funny friend Maya Kopstein and 21 others.

Whatever the grievances were or are, THAT is not the way to solve them. It's immoral, and counter-productive. In the case of Israel, if the Palestinians eschewed violence, marched peacefully en masses on Jerusalem, and demanded a 1 or 2 state solution, they'd have it in a month flat without a shot being fired. They know it, and Israel knows it. So why doesn't it happen? The majority don't want to live next to Jews. THey don't want peace with Jews, they want no Jews.

They have legitimate grievances, but when they purposely target women and clubs full of high school kids, they lose every shred of legitimacy they ever had. If they limited suicide terror to only IDF troops, I'd call that somehow legitimate, even though I wouldn't like it. But they target the weak, defenseless, and innocent. That's inexcusable, anywhere, and any time.

Because they choose to use these methods, they pic the stage for the battle. They kill women and children, and hide among women and children. They use women and children as pawns to inflict damage. And it's wrong.

It doesn't matter if its Israel or Indonesia or Iraq, Muslim against Jew, or Sunni against Shiite. It's wrong, and a failing policy. It rallies support against them, and hardens resolve, whereas a more measured approach would leave the enemy room to consider their plight or desires.

How many dead because of coups and counter coups when we were done ****ing around in Syria? How many dead and ****ed over under the British alliance with the Sunnis in the 20s? How about when we worked with Nasser in Egypt? Because of the Shah in Iran and our meddling there? How many screwed and/or dead because of our initial support for Saddam in Iraq? Because of our meddling in Lebanon in the 50s and 80s? In Libya in the 60s and 80s? The first Iraq war, the sanctions that followed, the second Iraq war? And now how many are going to die or be significantly worse off when we start actively ****ing around in Iran again which looks likely? The US and the modern west in general have damn a century of poorly thought out and often disastrous policies that have left significant amounts of people in the middle east impoverished, tyrranized, and/or just plain ****ing dead. I hate to break this to you, but they are humans and have a right to be pissed at us.

The US has had limited effect in comparison to Britain (which ****ed half the world for pure selfish colonialist gain), or ANY OTHER world superpower throughout history. The US is at the bottom of the list when it comes to damage done, and at the top when it comes to good done.

This is not to excuse the US and its indiscretions, it simply put them in the context of history, and its peers.

The ME has been ****ed for centuries. You can't just view the present, or the last century of their history, because they sure don't. THey see the last 2000 years, and themselves as being part of it. Americans don't and can't think this way. The Muslim world spent plenty of time ****ing the West to the fullest extent of their abilities, and would never have stopped if it weren't for them getting their asses handed to them eventually. Many Muslims still feel the sting of this. What's going on now is simply a continuation of 2000 years of history. At times they won; lately, they're on a massive losing streak.

If they spent more time educating their children about more than Islam, raising them to be tolerant and kind, and less time on hate and killing, and living in the past, reliving past failures over and over, maybe they'd be winning today. If they've been taken advantage of, they can take a majority of that blame. They're not passive partners in the transaction.

The objective is irrelevant. People don't care about your intentions when they're holding their kid's intestines in their hands or looking at the bodies of their dead loved ones being carted off to be burned en masse to avoid disease.

By that philosophy, Cambodians, Jews, most Africans, Burmese, Tibetans, and scores more peoples should be strapping on the bombs and lashing out by blowing up as many innocents as possible. I know Israelis who lost kids to suicide bombers, and NOT A SINGLE ONE is ready to go kill innocent Palestinians, and most don't even hate Palestinians. They hate the terrorists, but realize all of them aren't bad.

Arabs/Muslims are having it easy compared to those I mentioned above. And they're the only ones killing thousands of innocents worldwide every year.

There is NO justification. It's a terrible convergence of religious teachings, culture, and ignorance (as was Christianity during the Dark Ages and INquisition, the difference being Christianity pulled itself out of the ****ty hole it was in and does not condone that behavior or partake of it today).

And we have no ****ing business, not to mention zero constitutional authority, to use the US army to police the world and 'save' anybody. Ignoring for the moment that those we try and 'save' usually end up ****ed over worse than before we 'saved' them.

Sometimes, sometimes not. You can't make a blanket statement like that.

 

[searl12]

whole lot of Blood on Donald Rumsfelds hands isnt here. I swear ive seen a video or phote of him once shaking Saddam husseins hand in the 80,s.........ironic isnt it, allies then, once saddam stopped listening...they get rid of him, ala manuel Noreaga

 

[poison]

So you are basically saying the US cannot torture no matter what it does to detainees/prisoners.

They could flambé dudes and you would come up with any word to describe it but torture.

I can hear you now "oh no,that is not torture,it's just turning up the heat a little."

Well, it's funny, luther, that was confined to one location, it's not common practice in the US military, and whatever it was, it's now illegal.

You'll still see US troops heads being carved off with a smile and a dull knife though.

That's the difference. Our prisoners are treated VERY WELL, and there are very strict rules about their treatment, lapses notwithstanding. Their treatment of THEIR prisoners is one big ****ing lapse, so don't try to equate the two.

BTW, I remember a story about a US officer who captured a guy who attacked some troops, and was supposed to know when another attack was to occur. The officer tried to get him to spill the beans without torture, and finally either fired a blank at the guys head or a round into the ground next to the guy, I forget. The guy spilled the beans, and a patrol was saved from walking into an ambush. Either way, the guy was unharmed, but the action was illegal, and the officer was prosecuted for torture. This was before Aby Ghraib.

 

[poison]

whole lot of Blood on Donald Rumsfelds hands isnt here. I swear ive seen a video or phote of him once shaking Saddam husseins hand in the 80,s.........ironic isnt it, allies then, once saddam stopped listening...they get rid of him, ala manuel Noreaga

Once the US decided it wanted to invade Iraq, Tommy Franks job was to figure out the best way to do it. His end plan required 250k US troops to do it properly.

Rummy, the civilian, disagreed. His nouveau thinking was that a fast, light strike force could take Iraq with less buildup and less risk. Obviously, we could have beat Iraq with a squadron of Marines and Jack Bauer, or Chuck Norris alone; the problem was protecting the perimeter in the short run (the lack of which Iran and dissident Iraqis took full advantage of), and in the long term maintaining peace in the power vacuum. That takes massive troops. If we had followed Franks advice, we would've won just as fast, but there would'nt have been the struggle with the insurgency.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Well, it's funny, luther, that was confined to one location, it's not common practice in the US military, and whatever it was, it's now illegal.

You'll still see US troops heads being carved off with a smile and a dull knife though.

That's the difference. Our prisoners are treated VERY WELL, and there are very strict rules about their treatment, lapses notwithstanding. Their treatment of THEIR prisoners is one big ****ing lapse, so don't try to equate the two.

BTW, I remember a story about a US officer who captured a guy who attacked some troops, and was supposed to know when another attack was to occur. The officer tried to get him to spill the beans without torture, and finally either fired a blank at the guys head or a round into the ground next to the guy, I forget. The guy spilled the beans, and a patrol was saved from walking into an ambush. Either way, the guy was unharmed, but the action was illegal, and the officer was prosecuted for torture. This was before Aby Ghraib.

What is your position on the so-called "midnight renditions" to, shall we say, less-than-morally-conscious nations where torture was carried out? Most important to keep in mind: this was done under CIA supervision, most often in CIA-sanctioned 'secret' detention centers, in a wide-range of countries. Acceptable tactics, or no?

 

[poison]

What is your position on the so-called "midnight renditions" to, shall we say, less-than-morally-conscious nations where torture was carried out? Most important to keep in mind: this was done under CIA supervision, most often in CIA-sanctioned 'secret' detention centers, in a wide-range of countries. Acceptable tactics, or no?

That's a tough question. People really jumped on that, but the fact is that stuff has ALWAYS been going on, from time immemorial. I'm not sure it's possible for a country to survive without these kind of antics; the question is "is it only being done against certain enemies when absolutely necessary?"

I'd like to be able to say, as a human, that it's unacceptable. Unfortunately, I believe it's sometimes necessary, and IF it's a known terrorist, and capturing him and/or extracting info will save lives, I'm ok with it. (I doubt ANYONE would have a problem if they found out the US had rendered OBL to TUrkey and was dismembering him piece by piece).

I'm not OK with using it to probe a possibility, and to be honest, I'd be more comfortable with the US keeping it a damn secret, and doing it ourselves, instead of shirking the responsibility and foisting it on others.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

...and IF it's a known terrorist, and capturing him and/or extracting info will save lives, I'm ok with it. (I doubt ANYONE would have a problem if they found out the US had rendered OBL to TUrkey and was dismembering him piece by piece).

I'm not OK with using it to probe a possibility, and to be honest, I'd be more comfortable with the US keeping it a damn secret, and doing it ourselves, instead of shirking the responsibility and foisting it on others.

And, unfortunately, your sentence here surmises the unfortunate nature of how this debate begs its own question - eg) "Torture and rendition are only acceptable on known terrorists." --> "How do you ascertain whether or not an individual is a terrorist?" --> "Interrogate them." --> "What is our method of interrogation?" --> "Torture and rendition." --> "Therefore, we ascertain who is a known terrorist vis-a-vi torture and rendition." These types of logical contortions are what the torture debate, as a matter of fact, degenerates into.

As I said to searl prior, torture operates fundamentally on the premise that the "torturees" are already guilty, and already possess necessary information that warrants the use of torture; however, as I said, the reverse is often true. Allowing these types of activities is how the Geneva [...and, possibly more importantly, when dealing with the nature of 'covert' warfare, the Hague Addendums...] ultimately gets the stick.

 

[poison]

And, unfortunately, your sentence here surmises the unfortunate nature of how this debate begs its own question - eg) "Torture and rendition are only acceptable on known terrorists." --> "How do you ascertain whether or not an individual is a terrorist?" --> "Interrogate them." --> "What is our method of interrogation?" --> "Torture and rendition." --> "Therefore, we ascertain who is a known terrorist vis-a-vi torture and rendition." These types of logical contortions are what the torture debate, as a matter of fact, degenerates into.

As I said to searl prior, torture operates fundamentally on the premise that the "torturees" are already guilty, and already possess necessary information that warrants the use of torture; however, as I said, the reverse is often true. Allowing these types of activities is how the Geneva [...and, possibly more importantly, when dealing with the nature of 'covert' warfare, the Hague Addendums...] ultimately gets the stick.

You're not 100% correct. They aren't snatching random folks off the street for kicks, despite what several ecent Hollywood movies have suggested, or aren't when the system is working properly. Generally they rendition only high value individuals, not half-way low-life terrorists. There isn't any doubt that OBL is guilty as charged, or that he wouldn't be a wealth of life-saving knowledge about future al qaeda plans. Same for Zarqawi and hundreds more. You can't assume the CIA is operating on the assumption of guilt.