"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

"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

"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

"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

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

"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?

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

"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.

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

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)