Torture and College Life

[PoliticalChic]

They got radicalized because we invaded their country. That tends to piss people off, moron.

What a strange idea of a "real man". A mass murdering, torturing, fuckhead.

We all produce a slip of the tongue now and again, but you are abusing the privilege.

Do you actually want to build an argument around the concept that the terrorists were even-temper, moderate students and merchants prior to the Iraq war?

How about you simply retract and start over.

Some of them were, actually. You should try reading some of the literature on AQ. People tend to get pissed off when you invade their country, gee I wonder why.

"Some of them were." You lose, I win.

 

[Nik]

We all produce a slip of the tongue now and again, but you are abusing the privilege.

Do you actually want to build an argument around the concept that the terrorists were even-temper, moderate students and merchants prior to the Iraq war?

How about you simply retract and start over.

Some of them were, actually. You should try reading some of the literature on AQ. People tend to get pissed off when you invade their country, gee I wonder why.

"Some of them were." You lose, I win.

Umm, no. My argument was never that all of them were, merely some of them. But good job declaring yourself the winner. It seems that you've given up on actual arguments and instead have just taken to declaring yourself the winner

 

[Nik]

Bank of America? Citi? Which bank will honor the "almost guarantee"?

And did you make a similar guarantee before the Iraq War along the lines of "if there are no WMD's, they'll plant some"?

Have faith, M & M, have faith.

But if you don't respect the Church report as reported in the NYTimes, do I get to say the same about any report out of, say, a Democrat Administrtion?

Any particular reason you've avoided addressing the Army Committee report which directly says there is a link between "enhanced interrogation techniques" and deaths?

Sure, if you choose the one report, why can't I choose the other, after all you provided both.

And since you have not shown any deaths associated with the techniques listed in the NYTimes article, which is central to this thread, you lose, I win.

Umm, see Dilawar. Thanks. I've shown you the information, you just refuse to see it.

 

[catzmeow]

I'm so glad than I get a chance to reply, unlike the less than honorable 'neg rep' that you applied.

Get a grip on your girdle, myrtle. There is nothing, whatsoever, that is dishonorable about neg-repping a post full of idiocy.

1. My premise is that the techniques outlined in the NYTimes are far from torture.

The New York Times did not have access to the latest information, including the released CIA memos, and the testimony of FBI agents.

Way to be dishonest and downplay what was actually done to these prisoners.

3. I asked for the detainees were were killed, maimed, or hospitalized for extended time due to these techniques. None were provided.

So, being killed, maimed, or hospitalized is the only way in which something qualifies, in your head, as torture?

Jesus Christ.

Now, notice. Folks offer opinion, and defend them. They debate points with evidence. But none of the others, as strongly as they felt, chose the dubious method of 'neg rep'ing. But you.

I neg-repped you because your post was truly worthy of a neg-rep, more worthy than any post I've ever read on this board. It was truly REPUGNANT on a level that I've not seen to date, even from Huggy and others.

Well done, PC.

You've truly reached new lows in posting.

Again, as Robert Mueller, director of the FBI said, when confronted with the CIA's tactics: "We're America. We don't DO THAT."

I think I'm on pretty firm ground, ethically speaking, when agreeing with him.

I'll also note that you sent me a PM telling me to "get some courage."

Let me tell you what courage is, bitch.

Courage is going out on the streets and working daily with kids who might shoot me for doing my job, but still doing it, because it needs to be done. That's courage.

Courage is NOT sitting on your computer in your nice clean house advocating that OTHER PEOPLE BE TORTURED so you can sleep in your safe little bed tonight.

That is NOT fucking courage, you dumb scared of your fucking shadow bitch.

 

[catzmeow]

Apparently, in the minds of some people, the best way to uphold America's constitution and moral values involves using those things as toilet paper.

There are all too many Americans who are willing to forget the constitution to feel safe. I haven't felt "safe" in years, so I guess it's nothing new.

 

[Valerie]

I'm so glad than I get a chance to reply, unlike the less than honorable 'neg rep' that you applied.

Get a grip on your girdle, myrtle. There is nothing, whatsoever, that is dishonorable about neg-repping a post full of idiocy.

1. My premise is that the techniques outlined in the NYTimes are far from torture.

The New York Times did not have access to the latest information, including the released CIA memos, and the testimony of FBI agents.

Way to be dishonest and downplay what was actually done to these prisoners.

3. I asked for the detainees were were killed, maimed, or hospitalized for extended time due to these techniques. None were provided.

So, being killed, maimed, or hospitalized is the only way in which something qualifies, in your head, as torture?

Jesus Christ.

Now, notice. Folks offer opinion, and defend them. They debate points with evidence. But none of the others, as strongly as they felt, chose the dubious method of 'neg rep'ing. But you.

I neg-repped you because your post was truly worthy of a neg-rep, more worthy than any post I've ever read on this board. It was truly REPUGNANT on a level that I've not seen to date, even from Huggy and others.

Well done, PC.

You've truly reached new lows in posting.

Again, as Robert Mueller, director of the FBI said, when confronted with the CIA's tactics: "We're America. We don't DO THAT."

I think I'm on pretty firm ground, ethically speaking, when agreeing with him.

I'll also note that you sent me a PM telling me to "get some courage."

Let me tell you what courage is, bitch.

Courage is going out on the streets and working daily with kids who might shoot me for doing my job, but still doing it, because it needs to be done. That's courage.

Courage is NOT sitting on your computer in your nice clean house advocating that OTHER PEOPLE BE TORTURED so you can sleep in your safe little bed tonight.

That is NOT fucking courage, you dumb scared of your fucking shadow bitch.

 

[PoliticalChic]

They got radicalized because we invaded their country. That tends to piss people off, moron.

What a strange idea of a "real man". A mass murdering, torturing, fuckhead.

We all produce a slip of the tongue now and again, but you are abusing the privilege.

Do you actually want to build an argument around the concept that the terrorists were even-temper, moderate students and merchants prior to the Iraq war?

How about you simply retract and start over.

Some of them were, actually. You should try reading some of the literature on AQ. People tend to get pissed off when you invade their country, gee I wonder why.

The radicalization preceded the Iraq war.
"To understand why more and more Muslims are becoming radicalized, one can look to the original currents that fed into the violent Islamic extremism of the 1980s and '90s, culminating on September 11, 2001. Along with a majority of the 9/11 hijackers, Osama bin Laden is a Saudi who embraces the fundamentalist Wahhabi version of Islam, puritanical in its strictures and extremely intolerant of nonbelievers."
FRONTLINE/WORLD . Canada - The Cell Door . Reversing Islamic Radicalization . PBS

I guess that puts a stake through the heart of your argument.

 

[catzmeow]

The radicalization preceded the Iraq war....

I guess that puts a stake through the heart of your argument.

Not really, no, because the torture story of Abu Ghraib, and others, exacerbated the existing radical problem, and made recruiting easier for the Taliban and Al Qaeda. We made the problem WORSE by abdicating our core values.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Some of them were, actually. You should try reading some of the literature on AQ. People tend to get pissed off when you invade their country, gee I wonder why.

"Some of them were." You lose, I win.

Umm, no. My argument was never that all of them were, merely some of them. But good job declaring yourself the winner. It seems that you've given up on actual arguments and instead have just taken to declaring yourself the winner

There are posters who simply scatter words the way the flower girl scatters rose petals at a wedding, and with as much significance.

That would be you.

"given up on actual arguments." Re-read post # 73 for specifics.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm so glad than I get a chance to reply, unlike the less than honorable 'neg rep' that you applied.

Get a grip on your girdle, myrtle. There is nothing, whatsoever, that is dishonorable about neg-repping a post full of idiocy.

1. My premise is that the techniques outlined in the NYTimes are far from torture.

The New York Times did not have access to the latest information, including the released CIA memos, and the testimony of FBI agents.

Way to be dishonest and downplay what was actually done to these prisoners.

3. I asked for the detainees were were killed, maimed, or hospitalized for extended time due to these techniques. None were provided.

So, being killed, maimed, or hospitalized is the only way in which something qualifies, in your head, as torture?

Jesus Christ.

Now, notice. Folks offer opinion, and defend them. They debate points with evidence. But none of the others, as strongly as they felt, chose the dubious method of 'neg rep'ing. But you.

I neg-repped you because your post was truly worthy of a neg-rep, more worthy than any post I've ever read on this board. It was truly REPUGNANT on a level that I've not seen to date, even from Huggy and others.

Well done, PC.

You've truly reached new lows in posting.

Again, as Robert Mueller, director of the FBI said, when confronted with the CIA's tactics: "We're America. We don't DO THAT."

I think I'm on pretty firm ground, ethically speaking, when agreeing with him.

I'll also note that you sent me a PM telling me to "get some courage."

Let me tell you what courage is, bitch.

Courage is going out on the streets and working daily with kids who might shoot me for doing my job, but still doing it, because it needs to be done. That's courage.

Courage is NOT sitting on your computer in your nice clean house advocating that OTHER PEOPLE BE TORTURED so you can sleep in your safe little bed tonight.

That is NOT fucking courage, you dumb scared of your fucking shadow bitch.

Amazing that you take on the challenge of patting yourself on the back. But, then, somebody has to do it.

Now back to facts. So your argument boils down to " New York Times did not have access to the latest information, including the released CIA memos, and the testimony of FBI agents."

The Times didn't do a good enough job for you?

It listed the enhanced techniques, and specified the restrictions on same, and that it was supervised by medical doctors.

BTW, maybe we can get some of those docs to accompany you "on the streets and working daily with kids who might shoot me." Does that mean you're doing a good job, or a bad job?

Now as for style, it strikes me that making assumptions about my personal life and surroundings shows a weakness in both your arguments and your character. And of course the real give-away is the " bitch."

Debate is to offer opinion, to discuss, to consider ideas, not the use of the above language, the personal or ad hominem attack.

Wise up, grow up.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The radicalization preceded the Iraq war....

I guess that puts a stake through the heart of your argument.

Not really, no, because the torture story of Abu Ghraib, and others, exacerbated the existing radical problem, and made recruiting easier for the Taliban and Al Qaeda. We made the problem WORSE by abdicating our core values.

A common talking point, but without proof.

I guess you couldn't translate your sig.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Any particular reason you've avoided addressing the Army Committee report which directly says there is a link between "enhanced interrogation techniques" and deaths?

Sure, if you choose the one report, why can't I choose the other, after all you provided both.

And since you have not shown any deaths associated with the techniques listed in the NYTimes article, which is central to this thread, you lose, I win.

Umm, see Dilawar. Thanks. I've shown you the information, you just refuse to see it.

Now, on, that case has been discussed and dispensed with. It did not involve either trained interrogators nor the techniques discussed in the Times article.

It seems the only law being broken is the one that prohibits beginning each post with "Umm."

 

[Nik]

We all produce a slip of the tongue now and again, but you are abusing the privilege.

Do you actually want to build an argument around the concept that the terrorists were even-temper, moderate students and merchants prior to the Iraq war?

How about you simply retract and start over.

Some of them were, actually. You should try reading some of the literature on AQ. People tend to get pissed off when you invade their country, gee I wonder why.

The radicalization preceded the Iraq war.
"To understand why more and more Muslims are becoming radicalized, one can look to the original currents that fed into the violent Islamic extremism of the 1980s and '90s, culminating on September 11, 2001. Along with a majority of the 9/11 hijackers, Osama bin Laden is a Saudi who embraces the fundamentalist Wahhabi version of Islam, puritanical in its strictures and extremely intolerant of nonbelievers."
FRONTLINE/WORLD . Canada - The Cell Door . Reversing Islamic Radicalization . PBS

I guess that puts a stake through the heart of your argument.

Really? Did you even read the article you posted? From it:

Evidence of a growing radicalization in the Islamic world is substantive and quantifiable. Data points include the recent deadly riots by Muslims infuriated over cartoon depictions of the Prophet Mohammad published in a Danish newspaper, and extended rioting and vandalism in France by disaffected Muslim youth. In Europe, intelligence officials report a significant rise in radicalized Muslims joining terrorist networks by the hundreds, and perhaps thousands, in order to wage jihad against the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq. In the most recent Pew global attitudes polls, approximately 15 percent of Muslims surveyed in Britain, France, and Spain believed suicide bombings and other forms of violence were at least sometimes justified in the defense of Islam.

By the way, thats only one authors view. Any particular reason you treat it as sancrosanct and as a complete answer to the question?

 

[Ravi]

Y'all are arguing with someone that buys what the lawyers from the Justice Department were selling...what it has listed is basically the tortured reasoning that some lawyers used to claim that torture was legal.

 

[mightypeon]

One simple question for the torture advoactes:

Do you believe that splitting your nation in half, seriously weakening Nato (there was an incident in Afghanistan were, shorty after Abu Ghraib, German soldiers refused to comply with orders to hand over prisoners to the US, raised quite a ruckus in Germany) is worth the benefit of some unreliable information and the fullfilliment of some not really personal vengeance?

I think its not.
This was different in the past, in the longer past, your population and your allies wouldnt care about torturing/impaling random "enemies", but today, even from a totally machieavellian standpoint, torture is "not worth it".

Apart from that, torture is seen as a cruel act, Machiavelli rightly recomends to commit all your cruelties at one time, rather than beeing not quite as cruel over a longer period.

 

[Nik]

Sure, if you choose the one report, why can't I choose the other, after all you provided both.

And since you have not shown any deaths associated with the techniques listed in the NYTimes article, which is central to this thread, you lose, I win.

Umm, see Dilawar. Thanks. I've shown you the information, you just refuse to see it.

Now, on, that case has been discussed and dispensed with. It did not involve either trained interrogators nor the techniques discussed in the Times article.

It seems the only law being broken is the one that prohibits beginning each post with "Umm."

Actually it did involve some of the techniques. And care to tell me if what happened to Dilawar was so horrible, nobody received a real sentence?

 

[catzmeow]

Amazing that you take on the challenge of patting yourself on the back. But, then, somebody has to do it.

I'm not the one who questioned your courage. You questioned mine. I think we are both now clear on who you are, and who I am. You're a housewife who sits in her pad in Brooklyn posting online, and considers it courage.

Now back to facts. So your argument boils down to " New York Times did not have access to the latest information, including the released CIA memos, and the testimony of FBI agents."

You're now suggesting that the bastion of liberalism, the NYT, is your preferred source? Heh.

No. The Times article that you are referencing predates the testimony from YESTERDAY, as well as some of the exploratory work that has been done by other publications such as the L.A. Times, which I'm sure you're avoiding like the plague because it makes the CIA contractors look like fucking banana republic thugs.

The Times didn't do a good enough job for you?

When have they ever?

It listed the enhanced techniques, and specified the restrictions on same, and that it was supervised by medical doctors.

Did it note that much of the work of these interrogations was conducted by private contractors?

BTW, maybe we can get some of those docs to accompany you "on the streets and working daily with kids who might shoot me." Does that mean you're doing a good job, or a bad job?

It means that I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is, re: my courage that you called into question. What have you done lately?

Now as for style, it strikes me that making assumptions about my personal life and surroundings shows a weakness in both your arguments and your character. And of course the real give-away is the " bitch."

I assume nothing that you haven't posted on here. And, what do you believe that the term "bitch" gives away? I'd love to hear this.

Again...YOU are the one who brought up the issue of courage, as if posting on the internet in advocacy of torturing other people requires it.

Debate is to offer opinion, to discuss, to consider ideas, not the use of the above language, the personal or ad hominem attack.

Next time, look in the mirror and tell yourself that before you call someone else's courage into question, aight?

 

[Pyrite]

What I have been trying to say throughout this thread, and what still has yet to be addressed, is that the worst of these techniques, the ones people are ACTUALLY objecting to, do not resemble anything people go through in their daily lives. I am sorry, but you are being intellectually dishonest for trying to stretch your argument to cover waterboarding and sleep deprivation for over four days in stress positions. Your argument has failed.

Your definition of torture is self serving, in that nearly every medical definition of torture in existence includes practices that leave no physical evidence. Torture methods that leave no physical evidence were first devised so it would be impossible to prove they had been used.

Evidence of detainee injuries and deaths has been brought forward, and you have dismissed it, in some cases out of hand.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Some of them were, actually. You should try reading some of the literature on AQ. People tend to get pissed off when you invade their country, gee I wonder why.

The radicalization preceded the Iraq war.
"To understand why more and more Muslims are becoming radicalized, one can look to the original currents that fed into the violent Islamic extremism of the 1980s and '90s, culminating on September 11, 2001. Along with a majority of the 9/11 hijackers, Osama bin Laden is a Saudi who embraces the fundamentalist Wahhabi version of Islam, puritanical in its strictures and extremely intolerant of nonbelievers."
FRONTLINE/WORLD . Canada - The Cell Door . Reversing Islamic Radicalization . PBS

I guess that puts a stake through the heart of your argument.

Really? Did you even read the article you posted? From it:

Evidence of a growing radicalization in the Islamic world is substantive and quantifiable. Data points include the recent deadly riots by Muslims infuriated over cartoon depictions of the Prophet Mohammad published in a Danish newspaper, and extended rioting and vandalism in France by disaffected Muslim youth. In Europe, intelligence officials report a significant rise in radicalized Muslims joining terrorist networks by the hundreds, and perhaps thousands, in order to wage jihad against the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq. In the most recent Pew global attitudes polls, approximately 15 percent of Muslims surveyed in Britain, France, and Spain believed suicide bombings and other forms of violence were at least sometimes justified in the defense of Islam.

By the way, thats only one authors view. Any particular reason you treat it as sancrosanct and as a complete answer to the question?

Since you require a more complete answer, here is your history lesson for today.
King Abdel-Aziz was the founder of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. He found himself battling the Ikhwan, a tribal religious militia of extremist Wahhabibs. This was in the 1920's. An alliance between Abdel-Aziz and the family of Mohammad bin Abdel-Wahhab resulted in the conquest of what is now the kingdom, and the kingdom assumed he religious preference of Abdel-Wahhab as far back as the start of the 20th century.

The Saudi's have used religion both to retain control of the kingdom and as a projection of foreign policy. The radical Wahhabi elements have resurfaced in the kingdom many times, but the royal family has been able to use tribalism, familism, religion with Quranic imprecations of obedience against Islamic rebels.

I recommend a facinating book, "The Siege of Mecca,' by Trofimov, if you wish to understand the wars between Riyadh's Islam and radical Islam, which covers the conquest of Mecca by radical Wahhabis in 1979, and the subsequent re-taking by the Saudis with the help of the French. The brother of ringleader Juhayman was later involved in the assassination of Sadat.

Summary: radicalization goes back before 1900, and has been an element that few countries besides Saudi Arabia have been able to control and even direct.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Y'all are arguing with someone that buys what the lawyers from the Justice Department were selling...what it has listed is basically the tortured reasoning that some lawyers used to claim that torture was legal.

Hi Rati,

What brings you here?

Did someone put out some cheese?