Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message
...

And, of course any politician who isn't doing what I think is right
must be taking bribes form somebody to vote the way he does...... :-)

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Heh...

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Again, there is a level of immorality that justifies treating people
badly. Recently the badness of human took a big step downward with the
advent of extremists who actually target and are able to murder large
groups of innocent people. This new level of badness requires a
modification of the normal response. In other words, if you strongly
suspect someone of being about to kill a large group of innocent people,
there is justification in torturing him or of course even killing him if
it helps you stop it from happening.

Nope. There's no justification for torture. It's easy to claim the ticking
bomb scenario, but it just doesn't happen. None of the torture that went on
produced any useful intelligence.

Now having said that, lets contrast the US response, compared to those we
are fighting. The entire country was and still is up in arms for years in
questioning the morality of dunking vicious criminals in water and scaring
them. We may have done it, but we are concerned about doing it and spend
much time trying to figure out if it is over the line so we can stop.
Meanwhile, as a recruiting tool, the enemy makes videotapes of themselves
cutting off innocent kidnap victims heads in order to attract more people
to their cause. No remorse of any sort, only further celebration and
congratulations have ever been evident. See the massive difference? So we
haven't really sunk anywhere at all, morally.

We are directly comparable to those we are fighting if we follow the line of
reasoning that torture in some cases is ok. It isn't. That's what would
separate us from them, but since we have tortured are argument is really
watered down.

Meanwhile, if we've got a line on someone who we've discovered is about to
murder another few thousand people, what actions are justified to get him
to reveal information that can stop it? Harsh language only?

It's a fun strawman argument, but it hasn't happened. The fastest method of
getting information from a suspect is to treat that person with some
respect. Read Matthew Alexander's book "How to Break a Terrorist."


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
...

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
No, a retaliation is merited based upon the objective basis of the
offense and objective moral imperative to do something. I have stated
these above. If we are targeting their innocent civilians, trying to kill
as many as possible, based upon our religion, they are justified to use
violence to stop us.


Stephen

We are killing people, even today, with robots and "smart bombs." From
hundreds, or even thousands, of miles away, these devices are pointed at
their targets and told to go explode. As these devices are incapable of
determining for themselves whether or not they are targeting innocent
people, they just do as they are told and kill everyone within the
immediate blast zone.

Now, you tell me: Are we "targeting their innocent civilians"?

We have the audacity to call people who are defending themselves from an
invading army "terrorists," while our weapons are launched at them from a
safe distance. We shudder at the thought of civilians who strap explosives
to themselves and give their lives to take out the enemy, calling them
"cowards," while we kill them from another continent at no danger to
ourselves. And any innocents we happen to kill are "regretable accidents,"
or "collateral damage."

Excuse me while become I sick to my stomach.



Exactly. We need to have very clear objectives if we're going to go after
terrorists. There's certainly a military element to it, but that needs to be
understood to increase the terrorist threat as well as deal with it. We also
must have a social policy to deal with the root causes of terrorist
behavior. This includes dumb stuff like PR and not so dumb stuff like
diplomacy and infrastructure efforts.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 17:30:36 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 10:12:51 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:47:50 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"slide" wrote in message
...
Bruce in Bangkok wrote:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 21:49:23 -0800, "Capt. JG"

wrote:


As I said, I really didn't pay much attention and it was only a
impression I was left with.

But good on him if he can get out of that mess. Of course, there is
another 70,000 tip-toeing off to Afghanistan but apparently we are
getting out of Iraq... well, except for some that will be left to
ensure peace, aid the locals, or whatever.

I do wonder about the Afghan thing though. It is my certain, sure,
recollection that a number of people have gone over there to teach
'em
"what is what". None successfully, but they went. the Brits even
went
twice if my memory serves me. There is that quote about "those who
refuse
to read history are doomed
to repeat it".


First, Obama is just another dishonest misdirecting politician in
the
mold
of Clinton. His claim that he'll get US 'combat troops' out of Iraq
by
X
date only means he'll switch their title from combat troops to
something
else - probably 'peace keepers'. So we'll remain in the morass
indefinitely but change the names we're in the morass under.

Afghanistan is scary and dangerous. I am plugged into an Afghan
local
community which has close ties to the home nation and whose members
travel
there regularly. The place is a mess - kept afloat by the heroin
trade,
being fought over by the Russians, Pakistanis, al Qeada, and Taliban
as
well as the US and the US backed government in Kabul. It makes Iraq
look
like a well organized peaceful kingdom.

We cannot fix these places. We can only ruin our economy further
while
leaving our dead and wounded soldiers on the field of battle. Obama
is
just Bush sporting even less fiscal responsibility. He's disgusting.


Sounds like you're pretty bitter about your buddies losing the
election.
You
should probably get over it. Obama has been in for a month. Bush was
on
vacation for the first eight months.

I've said a number of times that I haven't lived in the US for years
and have little interest in the US political system; except to wonder
at the things that are done.

It is a bit difficult to understand why they try to turf one guy out
of office for getting a blow job and don't even seem to notice when
another guy "legalizes" such things as torture and searches without a
warrant - things that you are preaching to the world are "human
rights".


Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Maybe you should take an interest. No longer a US citizen? Well, ok
then.


Why should I take an interest in a place where I no longer reside?
Other then a sort of idle interest, mostly excited by what appears to
be the rather violent disagreements between adherents of the two
political parties - at least verbally.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


No idea.... usually citizens of a country care about that country no
matter
where they live. If you've got a nice life in Bangkok, that's great. No
relatives or friends in the US?


Probably some sort of cousins or perhaps second cousins. Kids or grand
kids of my mother's sisters but if there are any left I haven't seen
them in 50 years, or more, and probably wouldn't even remember their
names.

I suppose I do care about the old country but it certainly seems like
a strange place to me now.

The quote I saw somewhere that the AVERAGE American owes $10,000 on
his credit card, for instance. I don't know whether it is true but I
read it on Usenet :-) But when I lived there nobody that I knew owed
$10,000 except on a house. Certainly not on a credit card.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


It's probably pretty accurate. We're a debt society, which needs to change.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 07:32:06 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:
Again, there is a level of immorality that justifies treating people
badly. Recently the badness of human took a big step downward with the
advent of extremists who actually target and are able to murder large
groups of innocent people. This new level of badness requires a
modification of the normal response. In other words, if you strongly
suspect someone of being about to kill a large group of innocent people,
there is justification in torturing him or of course even killing him if
it helps you stop it from happening.

That's a big load of hogswaller used to justify sadistic tendencies.
Antithetical to concepts of law we cherish, most importantly "innocent
until proven guilty."
It is absolutely amazing to me that Americans - who grew up with a
menu of films and print where sadistic Nazi's, Japs and mobsters
tortured innocent people and are reviled for it - fall for this 24
Hours and Dirty Harry TV crap to make decisions.
"Strongly suspect."
What the **** does that mean?

You're right that my wording is not objective enough. There must be
actual evidence, reasonable, to justify violence. For example, if
someone is about to invade your home and you have a pretty good idea
that they want to hurt you, aren't you justified in using violence to
stop them?

Is that less or more suspicion than there was about the weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq?
So who decides who gets tortured?
You?

Someone has to decide, and they have to be right, or close. But if moral
people decry all violence then the immoral people will take over. That's
obvious, isn't it? Aren't you glad we have a police force prepared to
use violence to stop criminals? Aren't you glad we have weapons and an
army who can take out people targeting places like the WTC?

I'm going to let you decide who to torture based on your "morality?"
You, a torturer?
Why would anybody trust the moral judgement of a torturer?
**** you pal.

What matters is not whether someone is using violence, but why. I'm sure
you agree now, if they have a good reason, they should use violence.

You are too stupid to even understand what I just said, or you
wouldn't have even made those lame-ass comments.

We'll see who's too stupid to understand the other person's comments.

I've got no problem with GI's shooting and killing just about anything
in sight on the battlefield. Even when their hands are up.
It's the warrior's call. Spare the girls and babies.

So you *will* let them decide. Good.

But even less of a problem for a bullet to the head of a torturer.
That's the guy who might "strongly suspect" and torture my son
when his only crime was to get the girl the torturer wanted.
We call this end result "the slippery slope of taking a stroll outside
the rule of law."

Of course that concern is incidental if we just change the law, and we
should. We should allow "pressure" or even "torture" for a good enough
cause. That should be the new law. No more slippery slope.

Ever hear the term "banality of evil?"
You exemplify it. You are one banal dude.
Did I mention you're stupid?

I should mention that people resort to name calling when they have weak
arguments. Usually they are calling the names that apply more to
themselves than anyone else. Sweet irony IMO.

Of all the ****-ups of the Bush administration, getting saps to
believe that torture is acceptable conduct is the worst by far.

So here's your argument: Bullet to the brain on the battlefield even if
you mistakenly hit innocents, but if you have a prisoner who is part of
a group of mass murderers, and they have information you can use to stop
it, hands off! --Hopefully you're smart enough to see that makes no sense.

Stephen

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...

You're right that my wording is not objective enough. There must be actual
evidence, reasonable, to justify violence. For example, if someone is
about to invade your home and you have a pretty good idea that they want
to hurt you, aren't you justified in using violence to stop them?
Stephen

In most jurisdictions, no you are not. You would only be justified in using
"violence" (i.e. "deadly force") if they actually ENTER your home. Being
outside of your house is not sufficient, and you cannot know their
intentions. Shooting someone because you "have a pretty good idea" of what
they might do is not sufficient. Once they are in your house, however, shoot
away.

Let's take the situation outside. You are accosted by someone who has a
deadly weapon. Are you free to shoot them in self defense? In some
jurisdictions, yes. In others, you are expected to attempt to flee, removing
yourself from danger, before you can respond with deadly force.

But let's change the situation yet again to make the analogy more fitting
with the subject at hand:

You're camped-out in your neighbor's yard when he comes out and threatens
you, ordering you off his property. He says that he will kill you if you
don't leave. You pull out your gun and shoot him, then lob a grenade into
his house because you saw someone behind the curtains and you have a tip
that there are other members of that family in the house. If they weren't up
to no good, they would have surrendered to you already. Were your actions
justified?

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

KLC Lewis wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
No, a retaliation is merited based upon the objective basis of the offense
and objective moral imperative to do something. I have stated these above.
If we are targeting their innocent civilians, trying to kill as many as
possible, based upon our religion, they are justified to use violence to
stop us.


Stephen

We are killing people, even today, with robots and "smart bombs." From
hundreds, or even thousands, of miles away, these devices are pointed at
their targets and told to go explode. As these devices are incapable of
determining for themselves whether or not they are targeting innocent
people, they just do as they are told and kill everyone within the immediate
blast zone.

Now, you tell me: Are we "targeting their innocent civilians"?

Well, of course those bombs are better at avoiding innocent civilians
than any weapon previously used by mankind.

We have the audacity to call people who are defending themselves from an
invading army "terrorists," while our weapons are launched at them from a
safe distance. We shudder at the thought of civilians who strap explosives
to themselves and give their lives to take out the enemy,

You mean, to take out innocent civilians, usually their fellow citizens.

calling them
"cowards,"

"Barbarians"

while we kill them from another continent at no danger to
ourselves. And any innocents we happen to kill are "regretable accidents,"
or "collateral damage."

Excuse me while become I sick to my stomach.

Your desire for self loathing is blinding you to reality. You seriously
can't see the difference between smart bombs targeted directly at bad
guys, and suicide bombers who are trying to kill as many innocents as
possible.

Stephen

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Well, of course those bombs are better at avoiding innocent civilians than
any weapon previously used by mankind.

Really? They have installed "Innocent Civilian Detectors"? I wasn't aware of
that. Sorry.


Your desire for self loathing is blinding you to reality. You seriously
can't see the difference between smart bombs targeted directly at bad
guys, and suicide bombers who are trying to kill as many innocents as
possible.

Stephen

It is not myself that I loathe, but the warmongers. As for the smart bombs
being targeted "directly at bad guys," we're back to the mythical "Innocent
Civilian Detector." Get back to me when you've invented it.

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 12:36:20 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:



I should mention that people resort to name calling when they have weak
arguments. Usually they are calling the names that apply more to
themselves than anyone else. Sweet irony IMO.

Don't care for torturers. Dickhead.
And I don't fall for the torturer's guilt transference ploy.
Go find a sucker who will buy it. You ****ing torturer.

Of all the ****-ups of the Bush administration, getting saps to
believe that torture is acceptable conduct is the worst by far.

So here's your argument: Bullet to the brain on the battlefield even if
you mistakenly hit innocents, but if you have a prisoner who is part of
a group of mass murderers, and they have information you can use to stop
it, hands off! --Hopefully you're smart enough to see that makes no sense.

You still don't get it. The difference between a battlefield and a
torture chamber. And you won't. Ever.
Because you are a ****ing torturer. That's your mentality.
And I'm done with you. Scum.

--Vic

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 07:32:06 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 11:44:07 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

Aragorn wrote:
It is a bit difficult to understand why they try to turf one guy out
of office for getting a blow job and don't even seem to notice when
another guy "legalizes" such things as torture and searches without a
warrant - things that you are preaching to the world are "human
rights".
All societies, including ours, consider it reasonable that some level of
criminal or enemy should lose many of their rights by virtue of
protecting society. When you find yourself defending the very lowest
scum of the earth, you should at least question the moral strength of
what you are arguing, shouldn't you?


I'm not defending anyone. I'm simply stating that people (perhaps men
mostly) find the rather violent reaction to one man doing something
that comes rather naturally and a different man doing something that
caused (and don't think it didn't) considerable loss of face for the
nation. How can a country that advocates justice and the rule of law
to foreign countries turn around and carryout the excesses that
happened?

It isn't that you tortured the people, it is that you preach justice
and rule of law to all the developing countries. Do as I say, not as I
do.

Again, there is a level of immorality that justifies treating people
badly. Recently the badness of human took a big step downward with the
advent of extremists who actually target and are able to murder large
groups of innocent people. This new level of badness requires a
modification of the normal response. In other words, if you strongly
suspect someone of being about to kill a large group of innocent people,
there is justification in torturing him or of course even killing him if
it helps you stop it from happening.

Now having said that, lets contrast the US response, compared to those
we are fighting. The entire country was and still is up in arms for
years in questioning the morality of dunking vicious criminals in water
and scaring them. We may have done it, but we are concerned about doing
it and spend much time trying to figure out if it is over the line so we
can stop. Meanwhile, as a recruiting tool, the enemy makes videotapes of
themselves cutting off innocent kidnap victims heads in order to attract
more people to their cause. No remorse of any sort, only further
celebration and congratulations have ever been evident. See the massive
difference? So we haven't really sunk anywhere at all, morally.

Meanwhile, if we've got a line on someone who we've discovered is about
to murder another few thousand people, what actions are justified to get
him to reveal information that can stop it? Harsh language only?

Stephen

You don't seem to see what I was saying. the US advocates and attempts
to influence countries around the world toward a democratic government
that operates under the rule of law. An admiral aim.

Countries that perceive themselves to the threatened by outside forces
often act in violent ways to combat that perceived threat. the US
frequently condemns these countries for violating human rights, not
following lawful means, etc.

The US has supported a substantial number of autocratic and despotic
governments at various times. The various Vietnam governments, the
Indonesian government, the Singapore Government, the Iraq government,
the Iranian government.....

Then the US is threatened and suddenly is seen to be engaged in
organized torturing, entering and searching without warrant, tapping
of telephones, etc., all authorized by the elected President.

Now, what do you think other countries believe about the US? You
critique Burma (Myanmar) for example, for doing the same things that
you do yourself - except that the Burmese don't seem to have embarked
on an adventure of unrestricted torture.


Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Stephen Trapani" wrote
..... if you strongly
suspect someone of being about to kill a large group of innocent people,
there is justification in torturing him or of course even killing him if
it helps you stop it from happening.


And why would torturing him or killing him "help stop it from
happening"? He is already a prisoner and not in a position to be any
threat.

BTW information obtained by torture is not reliable. People being
tortured say anything. And usually, a competently-organized military
or paramilitary organization operates on a 'Need To Know' basis....
hence anything short of capturing a General willnot yield any useful
info.

For example, the Nazis would have tortured low-ranking Allied soldiers
(and certainly did) but did not find out where or when the Normandy
invasion was to take place.

But you have chosen your level of morality, logic & facts are not
going change your mind.

DSK

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et...

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Well, of course those bombs are better at avoiding innocent civilians
than any weapon previously used by mankind.

Really? They have installed "Innocent Civilian Detectors"? I wasn't aware
of that. Sorry.


Your desire for self loathing is blinding you to reality. You seriously
can't see the difference between smart bombs targeted directly at bad
guys, and suicide bombers who are trying to kill as many innocents as
possible.

Stephen

It is not myself that I loathe, but the warmongers. As for the smart bombs
being targeted "directly at bad guys," we're back to the mythical
"Innocent Civilian Detector." Get back to me when you've invented it.



He might have to be tortured to get the information!


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...


He might have to be tortured to get the information!


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

And it would be justifiable. ;-)

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 12:36:20 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:


I should mention that people resort to name calling when they have weak
arguments. Usually they are calling the names that apply more to
themselves than anyone else. Sweet irony IMO.

Don't care for torturers. Dickhead.
And I don't fall for the torturer's guilt transference ploy.
Go find a sucker who will buy it. You ****ing torturer.

Of all the ****-ups of the Bush administration, getting saps to
believe that torture is acceptable conduct is the worst by far.
So here's your argument: Bullet to the brain on the battlefield even if
you mistakenly hit innocents, but if you have a prisoner who is part of
a group of mass murderers, and they have information you can use to stop
it, hands off! --Hopefully you're smart enough to see that makes no sense.

You still don't get it. The difference between a battlefield and a
torture chamber. And you won't. Ever.
Because you are a ****ing torturer. That's your mentality.
And I'm done with you. Scum.

You called it. You weren't smart enough to understand. Hilarious!

Stephen

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...


He might have to be tortured to get the information!


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

And it would be justifiable. ;-)



I don't know. I'd give Fredo Gonzales a call and ask him, but he probably
can't remember if it's legal or not.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

KLC Lewis wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Well, of course those bombs are better at avoiding innocent civilians than
any weapon previously used by mankind.

Really? They have installed "Innocent Civilian Detectors"? I wasn't aware of
that. Sorry.

Get educated. Of course they have enemy detectors (advance scouts who
call in coordinates) and bombs that are so accurate that less innocent
civilians are harmed than any previous bombs in history.

Your desire for self loathing is blinding you to reality. You seriously
can't see the difference between smart bombs targeted directly at bad
guys, and suicide bombers who are trying to kill as many innocents as
possible.

Stephen

It is not myself that I loathe, but the warmongers.

Only of your own country. Like I said, it's a psychology of self
loathing. People can't stand to face their own inadequacies so they take
aim at the next nearest targets, in representation of themselves.

As for the smart bombs
being targeted "directly at bad guys," we're back to the mythical "Innocent
Civilian Detector." Get back to me when you've invented it.

Google should help you there.

Stephen

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

yes the "smart bombs" do less damage to the surroundings than the old
carpet bombing. a bomb is a bomb it has a blast radius smart bomb just
means it "hits" what it was dropped to hit sometimes. and laser guided
just means it homes in on a target that is "painted" by an observer
this can be on the ground or from the air. some bombs are set up to
penetrate a hardened target. all of them have a blast radius of
several yards to several hundred feet depending on payload and
fragmentation characteristics. most of what the us drops are 500lb
bombs and they have a nice big blast radius. in a small village this
means that you get to hit almost all the huts. so if you hit your
target the folks next door get to die as the plaster, glass, jars,
stone work and crockery turns into shrapnel. air to ground missiles
are a bit better but only on surgical strikes cause they cost alot. we
call the civilian casualties collateral damage and this "war" has had
more than its share of that. oh sorry but thats not on the news cause
our govment has blocked any but the embedded reporters and wont let
folk release the civilian casualty numbers and show the real
destruction.

you cant make war on a feeling and this is exactly what terror is.
the organization of al kiada has weathered this storm and grows
stronger because of it. we are feeding the enemy and we are the ones
who planted the seed.
folks who think like you write made todays reality. they do it behind
closed doors and cloak it so the public wont see and they depend on
peoples patriotic fervor to forgive them.
they are cowards that fester in the dark, parsitizing the people of
the US with propaganda and justifications. those solders on the field,
even the most craven of them; are better than the cowards playing
cloak and dagger.

the ends do not justify the means.

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 23:12:13 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 12:36:20 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:


I should mention that people resort to name calling when they have weak
arguments. Usually they are calling the names that apply more to
themselves than anyone else. Sweet irony IMO.

Don't care for torturers. Dickhead.
And I don't fall for the torturer's guilt transference ploy.
Go find a sucker who will buy it. You ****ing torturer.

Of all the ****-ups of the Bush administration, getting saps to
believe that torture is acceptable conduct is the worst by far.
So here's your argument: Bullet to the brain on the battlefield even if
you mistakenly hit innocents, but if you have a prisoner who is part of
a group of mass murderers, and they have information you can use to stop
it, hands off! --Hopefully you're smart enough to see that makes no sense.

You still don't get it. The difference between a battlefield and a
torture chamber. And you won't. Ever.
Because you are a ****ing torturer. That's your mentality.
And I'm done with you. Scum.

You called it. You weren't smart enough to understand. Hilarious!

Stephen

Vic fancies himself a usenet tough-guy gunslinger. Sorta Like Mike
Dukakis driving the tank in that famous photo.

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 09:20:08 -0500, wrote:


Vic fancies himself a usenet tough-guy gunslinger. Sorta Like Mike
Dukakis driving the tank in that famous photo.

When I saw Ted Koppel run all over Dukakis, I decided to vote for
Bush. Sometimes you just don't have much choice.
Figured Dukakis for a torturer - like this Trepani guy.
He had The Look. Too smart to admit it though.
Hung up my gunbelt years ago. Slowed down too much.
Besides, caps were getting scarce, and my ma was sick of the noise.

--Vic

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 09:20:08 -0500, wrote:


Vic fancies himself a usenet tough-guy gunslinger. Sorta Like Mike
Dukakis driving the tank in that famous photo.

When I saw Ted Koppel run all over Dukakis, I decided to vote for
Bush. Sometimes you just don't have much choice.
Figured Dukakis for a torturer - like this Trepani guy.
He had The Look. Too smart to admit it though.
Hung up my gunbelt years ago. Slowed down too much.
Besides, caps were getting scarce, and my ma was sick of the noise.

--Vic


In retrospect, at least GHWB had a clue about Iraq. When he stopped short of
marching into Baghdad, I thought it was a mistake. But, he was right.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

Two meter troll wrote:
yes the "smart bombs" do less damage to the surroundings than the old
carpet bombing. a bomb is a bomb it has a blast radius smart bomb just
means it "hits" what it was dropped to hit sometimes. and laser guided
just means it homes in on a target that is "painted" by an observer
this can be on the ground or from the air. some bombs are set up to
penetrate a hardened target. all of them have a blast radius of
several yards to several hundred feet depending on payload and
fragmentation characteristics. most of what the us drops are 500lb
bombs and they have a nice big blast radius.

There were quite a few 5000 pounders dropped, takes out most of a city
block,,, but damned accurately....

Cheers
Martin

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

Stephen Trapani wrote:
I'm sure you would agree that *if* you obtain information that prevents
slaughter of innocents by dunking someone in water a few times, you have
not done something wrong, you have done something good.


No, actually I woould not agree that torture is "good" under any
realistic circumstances.

You can construct all sorts of theoretical justifications; but the
facts are pretty clear... torture does not yield useful or reliable
intel. OTOH it's great if you want to convert a few heretics before
you burn them; but fortunately most of the civilizedworld has out
grown that.



.... I am not arguing that all torture is okay, I'm arguing
that there is such a thing as torture that is okay.


And that's what makes you sick in the head.... or at least not
civilized enough to be making serious decisions that affect the rest
of our society.


On the contrary, I'm arguing points that all reasonable humans should
agree on.


Yep... check the definition of neurotic vs psychotic.

True whackoes always think they're "reasonable."

Tell you what, how about sticking to posting about boats & sailing.

DSK

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 19:29:08 -0800 (PST), wrote:

how about sticking to posting about boats & sailing.

Excellent advice - for everyone,

and don't cross post.

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

On Mar 7, 3:13 pm, Marty wrote:
Two meter troll wrote:
yes the "smart bombs" do less damage to the surroundings than the old
carpet bombing. a bomb is a bomb it has a blast radius smart bomb just
means it "hits" what it was dropped to hit sometimes. and laser guided
just means it homes in on a target that is "painted" by an observer
this can be on the ground or from the air. some bombs are set up to
penetrate a hardened target. all of them have a blast radius of
several yards to several hundred feet depending on payload and
fragmentation characteristics. most of what the us drops are 500lb
bombs and they have a nice big blast radius.

There were quite a few 5000 pounders dropped, takes out most of a city
block,,, but damned accurately....

Cheers
Martin

LOL ayep accurate all right.

thanks Martin

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 18:13:48 -0500, Marty wrote:

There were quite a few 5000 pounders dropped, takes out most of a city
block,,, but damned accurately....

What 5000 pounders? Nobody ever built that particular size.

Casady

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
I'm so glad Obama and the congress won. In fact, I voted for Obama. I
wanted all the kook lefties to see all the mistakes Obama was going to
make and all the "corruption" that would still exist. This stuff is
inherent in the system and had little to do with Bush. Did you see
yesterday where the Obama administration reached a deal with the Justice
department so the Bush AG firing scandal didn't go to trial? They didn't
want to take the chance that the executive branch would lose any power
that the Bush admin. had gained.

The kooky left has been jumping on Bush for stuff that has been going on
for 200 years. Now the chickens will come home to roost.

Stephen

Boy are you going to have egg on your face if he turns out to be a good
President. What'cha gonna do then? Vote for the Crushed Lintball?

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 12:18:29 GMT, (Richard
Casady) wrote:

On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 18:13:48 -0500, Marty wrote:

There were quite a few 5000 pounders dropped, takes out most of a city
block,,, but damned accurately....

What 5000 pounders? Nobody ever built that particular size.

Casady

Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28)

A pair of chartered Airbus A310 transport aircraft carrying 5,000-lb
GBU-28 bunker buster bombs staged through Scotland's Prestwick
International Airport outside Glasgow on 22 July 2006 to refuel and
give the crew a rest before continuing to deliver the bombs to Israel.
At least two more flights were anticipated before mid-August.

The GBU-28 laser guided bomb was developed, built, tested, and used in
combat in a 17 day period. The deepest Iraqi bunkers were secure from
the best penetrating bomb, the GBU-24A/B, with the I-2000 warhead.
Coalition leaders required the capability to destroy these vital
command and control facilities. Texas Instruments and Lockheed
combined their efforts to build the 18 ft long bomb. TI adapted the
seeker from the GBU-24 and Lockheed built the bomb body from discarded
eight inch howitzer barrels. The Air Force initially contracted for 30
bombs but the cease fire started after only two were employed. Two
more of the bombs were used in testing before the bombs were dropped
in combat and the Air Force expended two or three more in additional
tests after the war. The Air Force ordered an additional 100 GBU-28s
with the BLU-113 (8 inch gun barrel) bomb body and stocks remained low
due to the limited number of targets and the only fighter capable of
employing it initially was the F-111F.

The Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28) bomb is designed to penetrate
hardened targets before exploding, capable of penetrating 100 feet of
earth or 20 feet of concrete. The GBU-28 was initially developed in
1991 for penetrating hardened Iraqi command centers located deep
underground. This "bunker buster" was required for special targets
during the Desert Storm conflict and was designed, fabricated and
loaded in record time. The GBU-28 is a laser-guided conventional
munition that uses a modified Army artillery tube as the bomb body.
They are fitted with GBU-27 LGB kits, 14.5 inches in diameter and
almost 19 feet long. The operator illuminates a target with a laser
designator and then the munition guides to a spot of laser energy
reflected from the target.

Some considerable confusion exists in the literature concerning the
weight of this bomb. Although nominally a 5,000 pound bomb, it appears
that the actual weight is somewhat less than this, and that the 5,000
figure is arrived at by rounding up [the 250, 500, 1000 and 2000 pound
figures for the Mk80 family are also such approximations. Statements
that it is a 4,000 pound bomb reflect a similar rounding, but rounding
down and rounding rather further from the exact number. Reports that
the bombs weigh 4,637 pounds, and contain 630 pounds of high
explosives, are too precise to be in error. Reports that the bomb
weighs 4,700 pounds are in close agreement with this more precise
number. A report that the bomb incorporates a 4,400-pound penetrating
warhead may reflect the weight of the filled bomb body, minus guidance
head and tail kit.


Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 08:07:06 -0700, Stephen Trapani
said:


wrote:
Stephen Trapani wrote:
I'm sure you would agree that *if* you obtain information that prevents
slaughter of innocents by dunking someone in water a few times, you
have
not done something wrong, you have done something good.


No, actually I woould not agree that torture is "good" under any
realistic circumstances.

You can construct all sorts of theoretical justifications; but the
facts are pretty clear... torture does not yield useful or reliable
intel. OTOH it's great if you want to convert a few heretics before
you burn them; but fortunately most of the civilizedworld has out
grown that.



.... I am not arguing that all torture is okay, I'm arguing
that there is such a thing as torture that is okay.


And that's what makes you sick in the head.... or at least not
civilized enough to be making serious decisions that affect the rest
of our society.

Well, by all civilized standards, allowing the slaughter of innocents to
protect the rights of a killer is sick in the head, isn't it? Clearly
you have taken your rationalizing on the issue so far that it makes no
sense anymore. Common with herd mentality issues like this.

The problem with Doug's argument is that it relies upon labeling as a
substitute for thought. Rather than dealing with the specific question you
pose, he labels your proposal "torture," and deems that sufficient to
foreclose further discussion of the policy question.

The technique is very much of a piece with Neal's game of labeling
specific
actions "socialism" or "fascism," deeming the label an adequate
substitute
for consideration of pluses and minuses of particular actions.

I will credit Doug with possibly adding a substantive claim that
waterboarding doesn't work. I say "possibly" because again rather than
making that specific claim he invokes the T word to claim that "torture"
doesn't work, attempting to sweep the specific action into a much wider
net
full of red herrings.


Torture doesn't work. It's a fact. Unless you watch 24. Then it works.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

Dave wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 08:07:06 -0700, Stephen Trapani
said:

wrote:
Stephen Trapani wrote:
I'm sure you would agree that *if* you obtain information that prevents
slaughter of innocents by dunking someone in water a few times, you have
not done something wrong, you have done something good.

No, actually I woould not agree that torture is "good" under any
realistic circumstances.

You can construct all sorts of theoretical justifications; but the
facts are pretty clear... torture does not yield useful or reliable
intel. OTOH it's great if you want to convert a few heretics before
you burn them; but fortunately most of the civilizedworld has out
grown that.



.... I am not arguing that all torture is okay, I'm arguing
that there is such a thing as torture that is okay.

And that's what makes you sick in the head.... or at least not
civilized enough to be making serious decisions that affect the rest
of our society.
Well, by all civilized standards, allowing the slaughter of innocents to
protect the rights of a killer is sick in the head, isn't it? Clearly
you have taken your rationalizing on the issue so far that it makes no
sense anymore. Common with herd mentality issues like this.

The problem with Doug's argument is that it relies upon labeling as a
substitute for thought. Rather than dealing with the specific question you
pose, he labels your proposal "torture," and deems that sufficient to
foreclose further discussion of the policy question.


How, pray tell, is Doug using "labels" in lieu of substance in this
context, when in the thread you are replying to, Stephen states "I'm
arguing that there is such a thing as torture that is okay"? *Stephen*
stipulates TORTURE, not Doug. Perhaps you should read the threads
you're responding to?



The technique is very much of a piece with Neal's game of labeling specific
actions "socialism" or "fascism," deeming the label an adequate substitute
for consideration of pluses and minuses of particular actions.

The particular action at hand is simply the same rationalization used by
despots since time immemorial. Namely, the ends justify the means.
Immoral acts, performed for moral ends, are justified. Using this
method of "reasoning", it is perfectly moral and ethical for a mother
to, say, kill and eat her parents if that is the only way to save
herself and her 5 children. No problems with that right?

The founding fathers of the US recognized the moral bankruptcy of this
rationalization (having seen it up close and personal, as it were), and
the country agreed, en masse, back in 1791 with the 8th amendment to the
constitution. What Stephen advocates is not even allowed after the
*Suspect* is convicted as a killer, much less before conviction.


I will credit Doug with possibly adding a substantive claim that
waterboarding doesn't work. I say "possibly" because again rather than
making that specific claim he invokes the T word to claim that "torture"
doesn't work, attempting to sweep the specific action into a much wider net
full of red herrings.

While Doug lounges in your largesse, perhaps you should read the thread
again? Stephen began this justification of a 'terrorist pogrom' with:
"In other words, if you strongly suspect someone of being about to kill
a large group of innocent people, there is justification in torturing
him or of course even killing him if it helps you stop it from
happening", back on 3/9. Note, specifically, that only a "strong
suspicion" is required to justify torturing, or killing, individuals or
groups. While you may personally agree with this approach, it is
nevertheless antithetical to the US constitution.

Keith

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 10:19:40 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

I will credit Doug with possibly adding a substantive claim that
waterboarding doesn't work. I say "possibly" because again rather than
making that specific claim he invokes the T word to claim that "torture"
doesn't work, attempting to sweep the specific action into a much wider
net
full of red herrings.


Torture doesn't work.

Guess what I said flew right over your head.


You're claiming torture works? I guess the Spanish Inquisitors had it right!

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 10:22:37 -0700, said:

While you may personally agree with this approach, it is
nevertheless antithetical to the US constitution.

Sigh...went right over your head too, eh.


Sigh...arguing against reality is a tough sell unless you're a preacher, eh.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

Dave wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 10:22:37 -0700, said:

While you may personally agree with this approach, it is
nevertheless antithetical to the US constitution.

Sigh...went right over your head too, eh.

Cogency not your strong suit, eh? Feigning desire to elucidate some
broader underlying principle does not ameliorate faulty attributions;
the predicate of your premise.

Oh, and feel free to elaborate on how, as commonly or etymologically
used, "torture" (the activity in question) is not "cruel" (the
constitutional stricture), if you disagree with the above quoted
statement (and please examine the construction "While you may..." before
feeling unjustly accused).

Keith

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 11:25:22 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

"Dave" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 10:19:40 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

I will credit Doug with possibly adding a substantive claim that
waterboarding doesn't work. I say "possibly" because again rather than
making that specific claim he invokes the T word to claim that
"torture"
doesn't work, attempting to sweep the specific action into a much
wider
net
full of red herrings.


Torture doesn't work.

Guess what I said flew right over your head.


You're claiming torture works?

Here's a hint, Jon. Try dealing with just one fish at a time.


Here's a hint, Dave. Try and being intellectually honest from time to time.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

wrote in message
...
On 9 Mar 2009 13:57:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 11:27:23 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

While you may personally agree with this approach, it is
nevertheless antithetical to the US constitution.

Sigh...went right over your head too, eh.


Sigh...arguing against reality is a tough sell unless you're a preacher,
eh.

The careful reader would have noted that I haven't expressed any view as
to
whether waterboarding has produced useful information. I have simply
observed that trying to stick the generic label "torture" on the procedure
doesn't advance the ball toward resolving the fact question.

Unfortunately there seem to be few careful readers present. Else I
wouldn't
have to provide the Cliff Notes.

Waterboarding was prosecuted as torture and as a war crime by the
United States Government.

The "Guvmint" has already established that it's torture, Dave.

And, it's well-documented that it doesn't work.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

Dave wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 11:52:49 -0700, said:

Cogency not your strong suit, eh?

Actually, it is. Last year I received a fairly prestigious award for it.

Oh well, I hadn't realized that your middle name is "Jax", tell me, did
you also write a definitive tract on the subject?

Here's a suggestion for you. Use shorter sentences and words of fewer
syllables.

Why?

Cheers
Martin

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:41:28 -0400, Marty wrote:

Dave wrote:

Here's a suggestion for you. Use shorter sentences and words of fewer
syllables.


Why?


So, hopefully, Dave can try and keep up.

Cheers
Martin

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

On 9 Mar 2009 14:46:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:08:12 -0400, said:

Waterboarding was prosecuted as torture and as a war crime by the
United States Government.

The "Guvmint" has already established that it's torture, Dave.

Now if you could just figure out what the question is.....

I'm pleased to announce that the "prestigious award Dave won was the
"Alex Trebeck Award"!

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

Dave wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 11:52:49 -0700, said:

Cogency not your strong suit, eh?

Actually, it is. Last year I received a fairly prestigious award for it.

Thanks! I hadn't had my guffaw for the morning, you rectified that.


Here's a suggestion for you. Use shorter sentences and words of fewer
syllables.

Wow, a 'two-fer' in one post! Clearly, irony is not your strong suit
either.

Oh, and your refutation of "torture" equating to "cruel"? Did I miss
that? Twist and squirm all you want Dave, the subject was "Torture",
irrespective of which techniques comprise that term. Stephen says he
sanctions "Torture", not just waterboarding, and that violates a
constitutional prohibition. Time to wake up and smell the 18th century.
Was that too many syllables for you?

Keith