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

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
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

Our retaliation is always justified, theirs is never justified. Interesting
rulebook.

KLC Lewis wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
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

Our retaliation is always justified, theirs is never justified. Interesting
rulebook.

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

"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.

"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

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.

"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

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

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?
Is that less or more suspicion than there was about the weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq?
So who decides who gets tortured?
You?
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.
You are too stupid to even understand what I just said, or you
wouldn't have even made those lame-ass 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.
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."
Ever hear the term "banality of evil?"
You exemplify it. You are one banal dude.
Did I mention you're stupid?
Of all the ****-ups of the Bush administration, getting saps to
believe that torture is acceptable conduct is the worst by far.

--Vic