Torture and College Life

[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.

Then how would you explain why AQ never bothered with Iraq before it's invasion, which split the two major Iraqi factions of Shia and Sunni? If their intent was to slither into any region where Muslims were pissed off going back 30 years, Iraq should have been ripe for recruitment. Oh wait! Bin Laden DID offer to help Saddam Hussein stave off another invasion by Iran, and SH said thanks but no thanks. Al Qaeda only appeared in large numbers AFTER the U.S. invasion and successfully recruited the sudden minority, which was once the majority, the Sunnis. It's a classic Qaeda MO.

Numerous mistakes.

"Bin Laden DID offer to help Saddam Hussein stave off another invasion by Iran, and SH said thanks but no thanks." Documentation?

On the contrary, "Saddam Hussein rebuffed meeting requests from an al-Qaeda operative. The Intelligence Community has not found any other evidence of meetings between al-Qaeda and Iraq."
Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In your statement "If their intent was to slither into any region where Muslims were pissed off," you miss the point of radical Islam. There are many different groups of jihadists, some like Al Qaeda are internationalst, interested in a caliphate.

Some are nationalist, such as we see in Mehsud and the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP).

As far as appearing in Iraq, 90% of the fighter in AQ Iraq were Iraqi, although leadership was mostly foreign fighters."Al Qaeda In Iraq is part of the global al Qaeda movement. AQI, as the U.S. military calls it, is around 90 percent Iraqi. Foreign fighters, however, predominate in the leadership..."
Al Qaeda In Iraq

The ideology is so strict, that countries that control the religious establishment are able to isolate them as deviant. So Saddam's Baath secular party had a leg up, as did the Saudi royal family.

The point is, the radicals enter, less where "Muslims were pissed off" than were there is weakness or a power vacuum.

You need to rework your view of the history of the region, and incorporate items such as:
"Al Qaeda's ideology is the lineal descendant of a school of thought articulated most compellingly by the Egyptian revolutionary Sayyid Qutb in the 1950s and 1960s, with an admixture of Wahhabism, Deobandi thought, or simple, mainstream Sunni chauvinism, depending on where and by what group it is propounded."
Al Qaeda In Iraq

And the following:
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.
Begin here for your study of Al Qaeda, which then adds Qutb's Lenin-Marxism, and the resentment of the Afghanistan invasion by the Russians, the efforts of the ISI of Pakistan to enforce strict Islam on the resistence, and the removal of Saddam's foot from the neck of those unhappy in Iraq. Include those who were suddenly out of work when Saddam was overthrown and had grown used to being in charge.

Now include:
"Yemen has become a jihadist hub where Saudi jihadists have regrouped along with their counterparts from Iraq, Somalia, etc. Yemen’s north-south divide is re-emerging, meaning that there are two competing nationalisms in the country."
More jihadis in Afghanistan and Pakistan, both different that Iraq, or Saudi Arabia:
"Afghanistan and Pakistan both have highly fragmented religious landscapes consisting of rival Islamist groups, competing Sunni sects and networks of madrassas, the Deobandis (the sect of the Taliban and other Islamist militant groups) are a growing movement, posing a challenge to the Shia and the majority Barelvis (a South Asian form of Sufi Islam)."
Stratfor.com

Even Saudi Arabia has suffered attacks by what you would call Al Qaeda, or pre-Al Qaeda jihadis, including the dramatic attack on the Kaaba in 1979. See "The Siege of Mecca," by Trofimov.

In summary, the argument that the US either created Al Qaeda or served as a recruiting tool is false. The philosophy must be traced back to the Ikhwan prior to 1900, and a time-line can be created to show the incorporations and permutations that resulted in the radical groups we see today.

The talking point "the attack (invasion) of Iraq is the reason for the fighters in Iraq" or its corollary, "we are less safe today" is therefore, bogus.

Do a little more work before your next post.

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

 

[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?

Didn't I just read you complaining about others ad hominem attacks on you? Your credibility slips about another 50 points when you engage in blatant hypocrisy.

Hey, are you stickin' up for the Rat?

Don't worry, it rolls right off her pelt. And I'll bet she really likes cheese.

Actually, "An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim,..."
Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, you see, you are wrong. It's not an ad hominem, in the sense that I am not using it to respond to an argument...it's a direct assault.

But thank you for assuming that I am perfect. I'll try to do a good deed to make up for it.

 

[Pyrite]

Numerous mistakes.

"Bin Laden DID offer to help Saddam Hussein stave off another invasion by Iran, and SH said thanks but no thanks." Documentation?

On the contrary, "Saddam Hussein rebuffed meeting requests from an al-Qaeda operative. The Intelligence Community has not found any other evidence of meetings between al-Qaeda and Iraq."
Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In your statement "If their intent was to slither into any region where Muslims were pissed off," you miss the point of radical Islam. There are many different groups of jihadists, some like Al Qaeda are internationalst, interested in a caliphate.

Some are nationalist, such as we see in Mehsud and the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP).

As far as appearing in Iraq, 90% of the fighter in AQ Iraq were Iraqi, although leadership was mostly foreign fighters."Al Qaeda In Iraq is part of the global al Qaeda movement. AQI, as the U.S. military calls it, is around 90 percent Iraqi. Foreign fighters, however, predominate in the leadership..."
Al Qaeda In Iraq

The ideology is so strict, that countries that control the religious establishment are able to isolate them as deviant. So Saddam's Baath secular party had a leg up, as did the Saudi royal family.

The point is, the radicals enter, less where "Muslims were pissed off" than were there is weakness or a power vacuum.

You need to rework your view of the history of the region, and incorporate items such as:
"Al Qaeda's ideology is the lineal descendant of a school of thought articulated most compellingly by the Egyptian revolutionary Sayyid Qutb in the 1950s and 1960s, with an admixture of Wahhabism, Deobandi thought, or simple, mainstream Sunni chauvinism, depending on where and by what group it is propounded."
Al Qaeda In Iraq

And the following:
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.
Begin here for your study of Al Qaeda, which then adds Qutb's Lenin-Marxism, and the resentment of the Afghanistan invasion by the Russians, the efforts of the ISI of Pakistan to enforce strict Islam on the resistence, and the removal of Saddam's foot from the neck of those unhappy in Iraq. Include those who were suddenly out of work when Saddam was overthrown and had grown used to being in charge.

Now include:
"Yemen has become a jihadist hub where Saudi jihadists have regrouped along with their counterparts from Iraq, Somalia, etc. Yemen’s north-south divide is re-emerging, meaning that there are two competing nationalisms in the country."
More jihadis in Afghanistan and Pakistan, both different that Iraq, or Saudi Arabia:
"Afghanistan and Pakistan both have highly fragmented religious landscapes consisting of rival Islamist groups, competing Sunni sects and networks of madrassas, the Deobandis (the sect of the Taliban and other Islamist militant groups) are a growing movement, posing a challenge to the Shia and the majority Barelvis (a South Asian form of Sufi Islam)."
Stratfor.com

Even Saudi Arabia has suffered attacks by what you would call Al Qaeda, or pre-Al Qaeda jihadis, including the dramatic attack on the Kaaba in 1979. See "The Siege of Mecca," by Trofimov.

In summary, the argument that the US either created Al Qaeda or served as a recruiting tool is false. The philosophy must be traced back to the Ikhwan prior to 1900, and a time-line can be created to show the incorporations and permutations that resulted in the radical groups we see today.

The talking point "the attack (invasion) of Iraq is the reason for the fighters in Iraq" or its corollary, "we are less safe today" is therefore, bogus.

Do a little more work before your next post.

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

the history of how Al-Qaeda was founded has little to do with their success in recruiting Iraqis into their organization. It seems as if your only response at this point is to copy and paste ancillary information in order to try to browbeat your opponent into submission.

for example when you countered my example of "sleep deprivation for five days" with "sleep deprivation for more than 96 hours" (more than four days)

The declaration of victory at the end of these posts is even more disingenuous.

Perhaps at this point you can admit your OP was a trite and inaccurate comparison in order to attempt to trivialize a serious matter.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Numerous mistakes.

"Bin Laden DID offer to help Saddam Hussein stave off another invasion by Iran, and SH said thanks but no thanks." Documentation?

On the contrary, "Saddam Hussein rebuffed meeting requests from an al-Qaeda operative. The Intelligence Community has not found any other evidence of meetings between al-Qaeda and Iraq."
Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In your statement "If their intent was to slither into any region where Muslims were pissed off," you miss the point of radical Islam. There are many different groups of jihadists, some like Al Qaeda are internationalst, interested in a caliphate.

Some are nationalist, such as we see in Mehsud and the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP).

As far as appearing in Iraq, 90% of the fighter in AQ Iraq were Iraqi, although leadership was mostly foreign fighters."Al Qaeda In Iraq is part of the global al Qaeda movement. AQI, as the U.S. military calls it, is around 90 percent Iraqi. Foreign fighters, however, predominate in the leadership..."
Al Qaeda In Iraq

The ideology is so strict, that countries that control the religious establishment are able to isolate them as deviant. So Saddam's Baath secular party had a leg up, as did the Saudi royal family.

The point is, the radicals enter, less where "Muslims were pissed off" than were there is weakness or a power vacuum.

You need to rework your view of the history of the region, and incorporate items such as:
"Al Qaeda's ideology is the lineal descendant of a school of thought articulated most compellingly by the Egyptian revolutionary Sayyid Qutb in the 1950s and 1960s, with an admixture of Wahhabism, Deobandi thought, or simple, mainstream Sunni chauvinism, depending on where and by what group it is propounded."
Al Qaeda In Iraq

And the following:
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.
Begin here for your study of Al Qaeda, which then adds Qutb's Lenin-Marxism, and the resentment of the Afghanistan invasion by the Russians, the efforts of the ISI of Pakistan to enforce strict Islam on the resistence, and the removal of Saddam's foot from the neck of those unhappy in Iraq. Include those who were suddenly out of work when Saddam was overthrown and had grown used to being in charge.

Now include:
"Yemen has become a jihadist hub where Saudi jihadists have regrouped along with their counterparts from Iraq, Somalia, etc. Yemen’s north-south divide is re-emerging, meaning that there are two competing nationalisms in the country."
More jihadis in Afghanistan and Pakistan, both different that Iraq, or Saudi Arabia:
"Afghanistan and Pakistan both have highly fragmented religious landscapes consisting of rival Islamist groups, competing Sunni sects and networks of madrassas, the Deobandis (the sect of the Taliban and other Islamist militant groups) are a growing movement, posing a challenge to the Shia and the majority Barelvis (a South Asian form of Sufi Islam)."
Stratfor.com

Even Saudi Arabia has suffered attacks by what you would call Al Qaeda, or pre-Al Qaeda jihadis, including the dramatic attack on the Kaaba in 1979. See "The Siege of Mecca," by Trofimov.

In summary, the argument that the US either created Al Qaeda or served as a recruiting tool is false. The philosophy must be traced back to the Ikhwan prior to 1900, and a time-line can be created to show the incorporations and permutations that resulted in the radical groups we see today.

The talking point "the attack (invasion) of Iraq is the reason for the fighters in Iraq" or its corollary, "we are less safe today" is therefore, bogus.

Do a little more work before your next post.

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

the history of how Al-Qaeda was founded has little to do with their success in recruiting Iraqis into their organization. It seems as if your only response at this point is to copy and paste ancillary information in order to try to browbeat your opponent into submission.

for example when you countered my example of "sleep deprivation for five days" with "sleep deprivation for more than 96 hours" (more than four days)

The declaration of victory at the end of these posts is even more disingenuous.

Perhaps at this point you can admit your OP was a trite and inaccurate comparison in order to attempt to trivialize a serious matter.

Let's start with the minor point. In answering the M & M post, I use facts and document same. My opinion is backed up by my research and I reference same.

It seems that you don't understand the word 'ancillary.' It means 'furnishing added support.' This is exactly the way I see the board work at its best, not with unsupported opinion, or vituperation.

The argument was that the US invasion of Iraq was responsible for (mild, unassuming) Iraqis to take up arms and become rabid terrorist. I dispensed with this by documenting two things: 1. the radicalization of certain Islamists go back well beyoud the Iraq war, and
2. It exists and attempts to exist in other countries in the Middle East and South Asia.

Now, "in order to try to browbeat your opponent into submission, " the tone of this sentence is really unfair. I really like this back and forth, and I assume you do as well, since we do this regularly. I think that each of us would like to win the argument by a preponderance of the evidence. But I also must admit I like to needle and tease an opponent as well. But browbeat?

I read a great deal, subscribe to numerous publications, and rely on much of this for my posts. Why is this wrong?

Major point. This post was based on my premise that if the US really wanted to 'torture,' we would have no limit to what could have been done. I direct you to consideration of the torture and maiming of Senator McCain. We did not do these things.

Consider the abuse that you pointed out that resulted in the deaths at Bagram. Recall my response? In fact, it was inappropriate for you to include that episode as the actual tortures listed in the news articles were not the techniques included in the OP.

To draw a fine line, I believe that those who call the enhanced interrogation techniques 'torture' fall into one of two camps: either the 'Blame America First' camp or those who are so feminized that they don't recognize the threat, or are unable to respond to it.

You are perfectly free to disagree.

Note, the government's first obligation is to protect the lives of its citizens. I recall the episode of Teddy Roosevelt who responded to the kidnapping of American citizen Ion Pedicaris by the Berber bandit Rasuli, in Tangiers, with this telegram: " ‘Perdicaris alive, or Rasuli dead!’

That's my kind of President.

 

[Ravi]

Hi Rati,

What brings you here?

Did someone put out some cheese?

Didn't I just read you complaining about others ad hominem attacks on you? Your credibility slips about another 50 points when you engage in blatant hypocrisy.

Hey, are you stickin' up for the Rat?

Don't worry, it rolls right off her pelt. And I'll bet she really likes cheese.

Actually, "An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim,..."
Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, you see, you are wrong. It's not an ad hominem, in the sense that I am not using it to respond to an argument...it's a direct assault.

But thank you for assuming that I am perfect. I'll try to do a good deed to make up for it.

You should go back to school...you've no real understanding of anything. But you do whine well, I'll give you that.

 

[Nik]

Hi Rati,

What brings you here?

Did someone put out some cheese?

Didn't I just read you complaining about others ad hominem attacks on you? Your credibility slips about another 50 points when you engage in blatant hypocrisy.

Hey, are you stickin' up for the Rat?

Don't worry, it rolls right off her pelt. And I'll bet she really likes cheese.

Actually, "An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim,..."
Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, you see, you are wrong. It's not an ad hominem, in the sense that I am not using it to respond to an argument...it's a direct assault.

But thank you for assuming that I am perfect. I'll try to do a good deed to make up for it.

Ravi said:

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.

This qualifies as an argument.

Now, you quoted that statement of Ravi when you said

Hi Rati,

What brings you here?

Did someone put out some cheese?

Which is a personal attack. Or as you said, a "direct attack". Hmm. Replying to an argument with a personal attack. Hey, thats pretty much the definition of ad hominem.

Logic fail.

 

[Nik]

Numerous mistakes.

"Bin Laden DID offer to help Saddam Hussein stave off another invasion by Iran, and SH said thanks but no thanks." Documentation?

On the contrary, "Saddam Hussein rebuffed meeting requests from an al-Qaeda operative. The Intelligence Community has not found any other evidence of meetings between al-Qaeda and Iraq."
Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In your statement "If their intent was to slither into any region where Muslims were pissed off," you miss the point of radical Islam. There are many different groups of jihadists, some like Al Qaeda are internationalst, interested in a caliphate.

Some are nationalist, such as we see in Mehsud and the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP).

As far as appearing in Iraq, 90% of the fighter in AQ Iraq were Iraqi, although leadership was mostly foreign fighters."Al Qaeda In Iraq is part of the global al Qaeda movement. AQI, as the U.S. military calls it, is around 90 percent Iraqi. Foreign fighters, however, predominate in the leadership..."
Al Qaeda In Iraq

The ideology is so strict, that countries that control the religious establishment are able to isolate them as deviant. So Saddam's Baath secular party had a leg up, as did the Saudi royal family.

The point is, the radicals enter, less where "Muslims were pissed off" than were there is weakness or a power vacuum.

You need to rework your view of the history of the region, and incorporate items such as:
"Al Qaeda's ideology is the lineal descendant of a school of thought articulated most compellingly by the Egyptian revolutionary Sayyid Qutb in the 1950s and 1960s, with an admixture of Wahhabism, Deobandi thought, or simple, mainstream Sunni chauvinism, depending on where and by what group it is propounded."
Al Qaeda In Iraq

And the following:
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.
Begin here for your study of Al Qaeda, which then adds Qutb's Lenin-Marxism, and the resentment of the Afghanistan invasion by the Russians, the efforts of the ISI of Pakistan to enforce strict Islam on the resistence, and the removal of Saddam's foot from the neck of those unhappy in Iraq. Include those who were suddenly out of work when Saddam was overthrown and had grown used to being in charge.

Now include:
"Yemen has become a jihadist hub where Saudi jihadists have regrouped along with their counterparts from Iraq, Somalia, etc. Yemen’s north-south divide is re-emerging, meaning that there are two competing nationalisms in the country."
More jihadis in Afghanistan and Pakistan, both different that Iraq, or Saudi Arabia:
"Afghanistan and Pakistan both have highly fragmented religious landscapes consisting of rival Islamist groups, competing Sunni sects and networks of madrassas, the Deobandis (the sect of the Taliban and other Islamist militant groups) are a growing movement, posing a challenge to the Shia and the majority Barelvis (a South Asian form of Sufi Islam)."
Stratfor.com

Even Saudi Arabia has suffered attacks by what you would call Al Qaeda, or pre-Al Qaeda jihadis, including the dramatic attack on the Kaaba in 1979. See "The Siege of Mecca," by Trofimov.

In summary, the argument that the US either created Al Qaeda or served as a recruiting tool is false. The philosophy must be traced back to the Ikhwan prior to 1900, and a time-line can be created to show the incorporations and permutations that resulted in the radical groups we see today.

The talking point "the attack (invasion) of Iraq is the reason for the fighters in Iraq" or its corollary, "we are less safe today" is therefore, bogus.

Do a little more work before your next post.

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

the history of how Al-Qaeda was founded has little to do with their success in recruiting Iraqis into their organization. It seems as if your only response at this point is to copy and paste ancillary information in order to try to browbeat your opponent into submission.

for example when you countered my example of "sleep deprivation for five days" with "sleep deprivation for more than 96 hours" (more than four days)

The declaration of victory at the end of these posts is even more disingenuous.

Perhaps at this point you can admit your OP was a trite and inaccurate comparison in order to attempt to trivialize a serious matter.

Let's start with the minor point. In answering the M & M post, I use facts and document same. My opinion is backed up by my research and I reference same.

It seems that you don't understand the word 'ancillary.' It means 'furnishing added support.' This is exactly the way I see the board work at its best, not with unsupported opinion, or vituperation.

The argument was that the US invasion of Iraq was responsible for (mild, unassuming) Iraqis to take up arms and become rabid terrorist. I dispensed with this by documenting two things: 1. the radicalization of certain Islamists go back well beyoud the Iraq war, and
2. It exists and attempts to exist in other countries in the Middle East and South Asia.

Now, "in order to try to browbeat your opponent into submission, " the tone of this sentence is really unfair. I really like this back and forth, and I assume you do as well, since we do this regularly. I think that each of us would like to win the argument by a preponderance of the evidence. But I also must admit I like to needle and tease an opponent as well. But browbeat?

I read a great deal, subscribe to numerous publications, and rely on much of this for my posts. Why is this wrong?

Major point. This post was based on my premise that if the US really wanted to 'torture,' we would have no limit to what could have been done. I direct you to consideration of the torture and maiming of Senator McCain. We did not do these things.

Consider the abuse that you pointed out that resulted in the deaths at Bagram. Recall my response? In fact, it was inappropriate for you to include that episode as the actual tortures listed in the news articles were not the techniques included in the OP.

To draw a fine line, I believe that those who call the enhanced interrogation techniques 'torture' fall into one of two camps: either the 'Blame America First' camp or those who are so feminized that they don't recognize the threat, or are unable to respond to it.

You are perfectly free to disagree.

Note, the government's first obligation is to protect the lives of its citizens. I recall the episode of Teddy Roosevelt who responded to the kidnapping of American citizen Ion Pedicaris by the Berber bandid Rasuli, in Tangiers, with this telegram: " ‘Perdicaris alive, or Rasuli dead!’

That's my kind of President.

Oy. You dispensed of the argument that the invasion of Iraq caused some Muslims to become radicalized by pointing to other things that caused them to be radicalized? I don't know if you knew this about the world, but many things actually are caused by a number of variables. Its really quite amazing how that works.

 

[Pyrite]

Let's start with the minor point. In answering the M & M post, I use facts and document same. My opinion is backed up by my research and I reference same.

It seems that you don't understand the word 'ancillary.' It means 'furnishing added support.' This is exactly the way I see the board work at its best, not with unsupported opinion, or vituperation.

My point is that you've essentially been posting background material by which you might have supported another argument AS the main argument.

The argument was that the US invasion of Iraq was responsible for (mild, unassuming) Iraqis to take up arms and become rabid terrorist. I dispensed with this by documenting two things: 1. the radicalization of certain Islamists go back well beyoud the Iraq war, and
2. It exists and attempts to exist in other countries in the Middle East and South Asia.

You are exaggerating M & M's argument. M & M's argument was, as I interpretted it, that our actions in the region have made it easier for Al-Qaeda to operate within, and recruit from the population of, Iraq. Not that Al-Qaeda was formed by those actions.

Now, "in order to try to browbeat your opponent into submission, " the tone of this sentence is really unfair. I really like this back and forth, and I assume you do as well, since we do this regularly. I think that each of us would like to win the argument by a preponderance of the evidence. But I also must admit I like to needle and tease an opponent as well. But browbeat?

It's seemed that way, as much of the information you post isn't directly relevant. I admit to enjoying this argument as well.

I read a great deal, subscribe to numerous publications, and rely on much of this for my posts. Why is this wrong?

It's not. Having information is good. But you've been presenting it as if having more information than your opponent, by itself, is enough to win the argument. it isn't.

Major point. This post was based on my premise that if the US really wanted to 'torture,' we would have no limit to what could have been done. I direct you to consideration of the torture and maiming of Senator McCain. We did not do these things.

If we had done to people what had been done to McCain, it would have been far more directly obvious to more Americans that it was wrong. As it is, it's still wrong, but less obvious. John McCain, a man who knows what torture is, still believes that these techniques were torture, and has argued against them.

Consider the abuse that you pointed out that resulted in the deaths at Bagram. Recall my response? In fact, it was inappropriate for you to include that episode as the actual tortures listed in the news articles were not the techniques included in the OP.

Alright, you have a point there, but I still feel you dismissed the red cross article out of hand.

To draw a fine line, I believe that those who call the enhanced interrogation techniques 'torture' fall into one of two camps: either the 'Blame America First' camp or those who are so feminized that they don't recognize the threat, or are unable to respond to it.

You are perfectly free to disagree.

And I do. Out of curiosity, which camp do you think John McCain belongs to?

I don't "blame America first" I hold America to a high standard as the greatest of nations. I want America to live up to that standard.

Note, the government's first obligation is to protect the lives of its citizens. I recall the episode of Teddy Roosevelt who responded to the kidnapping of American citizen Ion Pedicaris by the Berber bandid Rasuli, in Tangiers, with this telegram: " ‘Perdicaris alive, or Rasuli dead!’

That's my kind of President.

As you might recall, Obama didn't exactly coddle those Somali pirates, in a situation which was, if you think about it, very similar.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Didn't I just read you complaining about others ad hominem attacks on you? Your credibility slips about another 50 points when you engage in blatant hypocrisy.

Hey, are you stickin' up for the Rat?

Don't worry, it rolls right off her pelt. And I'll bet she really likes cheese.

Actually, "An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim,..."
Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, you see, you are wrong. It's not an ad hominem, in the sense that I am not using it to respond to an argument...it's a direct assault.

But thank you for assuming that I am perfect. I'll try to do a good deed to make up for it.

You should go back to school...you've no real understanding of anything. But you do whine well, I'll give you that.

Whine with your cheese, my little mousey?

 

[Iriemon]

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

Are these examples of "less honorable" neg reps that you are talking about?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1218343-post76.html

 

[Valerie]

Hey, are you stickin' up for the Rat?

Don't worry, it rolls right off her pelt. And I'll bet she really likes cheese.

Actually, "An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim,..."
Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, you see, you are wrong. It's not an ad hominem, in the sense that I am not using it to respond to an argument...it's a direct assault.

But thank you for assuming that I am perfect. I'll try to do a good deed to make up for it.

You should go back to school...you've no real understanding of anything. But you do whine well, I'll give you that.

Whine with your cheese, my little mousey?

Don't look now, your well bred intellect is showing!

It, of course, indicates a higher level of upbringing and education.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You should go back to school...you've no real understanding of anything. But you do whine well, I'll give you that.

Whine with your cheese, my little mousey?

Don't look now, your well bred intellect is showing!

It, of course, indicates a higher level of upbringing and education.

Girls, thanks for paying attention!

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

Are these examples of "less honorable" neg reps that you are talking about?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1218343-post76.html

And exactly where do you find me sending neg reps?

I have always done my fighting out front and in public.

Pyx, lax, dax.

 

[wihosa]

I'm fifty four years old but I work physically every day (when I have work). I bet I could bend any of you computer nerds like a pretzel.

Trust me, I could slap anyone of you in the face (between the chin and ear lobe with fingers slightly spread) hard enough to make anyone of you beg me not to do it again.

The premise of this thread is contemptable and it is shocking to think that this is what the cowardly right has sunk to.

 

[Ravi]

The premise of this thread is contemptable and it is shocking to think that this is what the cowardly right has sunk to.

You're joking, right? These are the assholes that claimed for 8 years that liberals were treasonous terrorists.

 

[Nik]

The premise of this thread is contemptable and it is shocking to think that this is what the cowardly right has sunk to.

You're joking, right? These are the assholes that claimed for 8 years that liberals were treasonous terrorists.

Right because we...*gasp* dared to criticize the president!

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm fifty four years old but I work physically every day (when I have work). I bet I could bend any of you computer nerds like a pretzel.

Trust me, I could slap anyone of you in the face (between the chin and ear lobe with fingers slightly spread) hard enough to make anyone of you beg me not to do it again.

The premise of this thread is contemptable and it is shocking to think that this is what the cowardly right has sunk to.

Bogus.

Where was your outrage when President Clinton sent prisoners to actual torture?

Where is the outrage about President Obama agreeing to continue the Rendition Program?

Kind of blows your cover: it's not the procedures you love to attack, it's only when a Repub does it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The premise of this thread is contemptable and it is shocking to think that this is what the cowardly right has sunk to.

You're joking, right? These are the assholes that claimed for 8 years that liberals were treasonous terrorists.

Right because we...*gasp* dared to criticize the president!

See the last post and show me where you "...*gasp* dared to criticize the [Democrat] president!"

Like the petard?

 

[Old Rocks]

I don't want to critisize Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. I want to ship them off to stand before the Hague on war crimes charges. Starting a aggressive war on the basis of self fabricated lies. Using Torture. All facts which you people do not contradict, you just try to twist logic to defend the illegality and immorality of the acts. Good little Nazi recruits. That is how the Germans defended their crimes after WW2.

 

[garyd]

Bush didn't start a war dumbass he ended one. We were already at war with Saddam Hussein when Bush took office. You don't drop bombs on purpose on people you aren't at war with. Various locales within Iraq were being bombed almost daily by US aircraft during the latter days of the Clinton administration.