BoatBanter.com - Ping : Don White

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)

- - Ping : Don White (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/104651-ping-don-white.html)

Ping : Don White

Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 6 May 2009 18:27:57 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

Here's another example of how issues become causes. Not too many months
ago the main topic of debate regarding water boarding was if it was indeed a
form of torture. To many, that question still remains. However, the
media coverage and hype has produced a general consensus that it *is*
torture. As I type, I am listening to a Harvard law professor stating that
officials in Bush's administration have admitted to "torturing" detainees.
But, don't you see, that's under the newly adopted, post event definition
that water boarding *is* torture. If public opinion (now an assumption)
was otherwise, then Bush and his administration could not be accused of
torture by authorizing water boarding.

See what I mean?

Problem is, arguing about whether water torture is torture is sort of
meaningless, don't you think? I mean, it's called water torture.
Well it was - until the American government started using it.
Then it became waterboarding. I guess some folks are easily confused.
Anybody who lets a name get in the way of truth isn't thinking
clearly.
"A rose is a rose by any other name."
But some folks are susceptible to Newspeak.

--Vic

It's not illegal if the president okays it...
Richard M. Nixon & Condi Rice (before she recanted)

Ping : Don White

On Wed, 06 May 2009 18:58:42 -0400, BAR wrote:

wrote in message
...

I have a Family Tree tracing my Ancestors back to the 1600's. They
left Virginia when the rabble started acting up. They were one of the
first 20 Familys to settle the Niagara Region. Fought with Brock
against the Americans in the Battle of Queenston Heights.And a direct
relation of mine was the Lady who informed the Brits of the impending
attack by the Americans...... Any guess on who that is? If you know
Canadian History, you'll know who I'm referring to.

My wife's ancestors had the good sense to leave Canada back in the
1850's. They must have seen socialism, especially national health care
coming and got out fast.

Bloody troll.

Ping : Don White

jps wrote:
On Wed, 06 May 2009 18:58:42 -0400, BAR wrote:

wrote in message
...

I have a Family Tree tracing my Ancestors back to the 1600's. They
left Virginia when the rabble started acting up. They were one of the
first 20 Familys to settle the Niagara Region. Fought with Brock
against the Americans in the Battle of Queenston Heights.And a direct
relation of mine was the Lady who informed the Brits of the impending
attack by the Americans...... Any guess on who that is? If you know
Canadian History, you'll know who I'm referring to.
My wife's ancestors had the good sense to leave Canada back in the
1850's. They must have seen socialism, especially national health care
coming and got out fast.

Bloody troll.

Wasn't that about when Canada outlawed bestiality?

Ping : Don White

On Wed, 06 May 2009 21:52:47 -0400, HK wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 06 May 2009 18:58:42 -0400, BAR wrote:

wrote in message
...

I have a Family Tree tracing my Ancestors back to the 1600's. They
left Virginia when the rabble started acting up. They were one of the
first 20 Familys to settle the Niagara Region. Fought with Brock
against the Americans in the Battle of Queenston Heights.And a direct
relation of mine was the Lady who informed the Brits of the impending
attack by the Americans...... Any guess on who that is? If you know
Canadian History, you'll know who I'm referring to.
My wife's ancestors had the good sense to leave Canada back in the
1850's. They must have seen socialism, especially national health care
coming and got out fast.

Bloody troll.

Wasn't that about when Canada outlawed bestiality?

They rode their wives south.

Ping : Don White

On Wed, 6 May 2009 18:27:57 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
.. .

Now I want to see justice done. Those that lied us into this
catastrophe should be willing to face the full measure of what it
means to be nation of laws. It was among the things that Bush
promised us when he campaigned for the presidency.

I understand how you feel. May I ask a question?

If someone says something and is 100 percent convinced that what he/she is
saying is accurate and truthful, did they lie if later events or information
proves them to be in error?

This seems to be the heart of the Bush issue. Many are absolutely
convinced that he and his administration made up a bunch of stories and
justifications to invade Iraq. These accusations ... and that's all they
are ... have somehow become "the truth" in the circle of armchair, Monday
morning generals.

"The truth" becomes more and more confirmed as the people involved jump ship
and change their tune as more accurate information is acquired. Perfect
example are the many Democrats who were all "for the war" before they were
against it, even dating back to Clinton's administration. It also includes
those who, for their own personal objectives, want to distance themselves
from those who had to make the decisions at the time.

It was perfectly obvious to me that they were rushing into war. The
inspectors were pulled out, there was no effort at diplomacy. Saddam
was bluffing and still thought the Americans were his allies.

This was about Bush's ego, finishing the job his father walked away
from, gaining control of a large pool of oil for his and his father's
business buddies and thrusting his military pelvis at the region.

They didn't want to know the truth, they wanted to invade. You really
should do a little research. The plans were in place before 911,
which almost gives some credibility to conspiracy theorists charge
that the administration knew there was going to be an attack in the
US.

I don't share that fantasy but allow for the potential. Stranger
things have happened.

I remain unconvinced that Bush made up the stories. There was (and still
isn't) anything to be gained personally by him. He may have been wrong in
his assessment, but I don't think he outright lied. For that reason, I
keep an open mind.

Too much information says otherwise. They had it in mind before 911.

People who understand interogation techniques know that torture is
more likely to garner bad information than good. The techniques
employed by the administration were developed by the Chinese to foster
false confessions to be used for propaganda. They didn't care about
the truth. Many think these techniques were used by the US for the
same effect. Early use of these methods were focused on trying to
establish a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

Here's another example of how issues become causes. Not too many months
ago the main topic of debate regarding water boarding was if it was indeed a
form of torture. To many, that question still remains. However, the
media coverage and hype has produced a general consensus that it *is*
torture. As I type, I am listening to a Harvard law professor stating that
officials in Bush's administration have admitted to "torturing" detainees.
But, don't you see, that's under the newly adopted, post event definition
that water boarding *is* torture. If public opinion (now an assumption)
was otherwise, then Bush and his administration could not be accused of
torture by authorizing water boarding.

The United States EXECUTED Japanese who performed water torture on our
troops.

Need I say more?

See what I mean?

I do but I respectfully disagre.

Eisboch

Ping : Don White

On Wed, 06 May 2009 18:32:10 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Wed, 6 May 2009 18:27:57 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

Here's another example of how issues become causes. Not too many months
ago the main topic of debate regarding water boarding was if it was indeed a
form of torture. To many, that question still remains. However, the
media coverage and hype has produced a general consensus that it *is*
torture. As I type, I am listening to a Harvard law professor stating that
officials in Bush's administration have admitted to "torturing" detainees.
But, don't you see, that's under the newly adopted, post event definition
that water boarding *is* torture. If public opinion (now an assumption)
was otherwise, then Bush and his administration could not be accused of
torture by authorizing water boarding.

See what I mean?

Problem is, arguing about whether water torture is torture is sort of
meaningless, don't you think? I mean, it's called water torture.
Well it was - until the American government started using it.
Then it became waterboarding. I guess some folks are easily confused.
Anybody who lets a name get in the way of truth isn't thinking
clearly.
"A rose is a rose by any other name."
But some folks are susceptible to Newspeak.

Several names have been used inconjunction with this type of
interrogation technique. The Spanish used to call it tortura del agua
during the Inquisition and it has various other names from
"surfboarding" to "showering" to it's more recent contraction from
water board torture to waterboarding. In my experience, it's always
been called water boarding and described as a form of hydropathic
torture. There are even references to it as far back as Third Dynasty
Egypt where it was called "water trial" and the Romans called it
"water truth telling".

The interesting thing is that the technique has always been true in
terms of practice - cloth, upside down, water forced into nasal
passages and the mouth simulating drowning no matter what it was
called.

Not being a pedant, just pointing something out. :)

In the SERE program, it's always been called water boarding.

Ping : Don White

On May 6, 9:49*pm, jps wrote:
On Wed, 06 May 2009 18:58:42 -0400, BAR wrote:
wrote in message
....

I have a Family Tree tracing my Ancestors back to the 1600's. They
left Virginia when the rabble started acting up. They were one of the
first 20 Familys to settle the Niagara Region. Fought with Brock
against the Americans in the Battle of Queenston Heights.And a direct
relation of mine was the Lady who informed the Brits of the impending
attack by the Americans...... Any guess on who that is? If you know
Canadian History, you'll know who I'm referring to.

My wife's ancestors had the good sense to leave Canada back in the
1850's. They must have seen socialism, especially national health care
coming and got out fast.

Bloody troll.

No ****, they'd rather be slavers in
Florida...ya..riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Ping : Don White

"jps" wrote in message
...

It was perfectly obvious to me that they were rushing into war. The
inspectors were pulled out, there was no effort at diplomacy. Saddam
was bluffing and still thought the Americans were his allies.

Over six months of UN debates, and insistance on compliance with prior UN
resolutions were not an attempt at a diplomatic solution?

This was about Bush's ego, finishing the job his father walked away
from, gaining control of a large pool of oil for his and his father's
business buddies and thrusting his military pelvis at the region.

Another "fact" that has absolutely no basis or evidence of truth.
Please point out how Bush gained control of a large pool of oil for his
father's business buddies.

They didn't want to know the truth, they wanted to invade. You really
should do a little research. The plans were in place before 911,

Indeed. The contingency plans were formulated during the latter part of
Clinton's term.
Clinton didn't execute them for a number of reasons, including the fact that
he was on
his way out and didn't need or want the legacy. So, the issue was handed
over to Bush.

Remember .... Many in Congress who were "in the know" advocated military
action against Iraq *during* Clinton's last years in office. The list
includes a host of well known Democrats who now have changed their tune and
claim Bush lied to them. This is the thing that gets me the most. If
intelligence warranted these people to publically call for Clinton to take
action, how the hell can they later claim that it was Bush who lied to
them?

The answer is that it is politics at it's worst. Somehow these characters
can convincingly explain to many that, "They were for the war before they
were against it" and come out sounding like honest Abes.

Bull****. All you have to do is apply a little common sense to see through
this crap.

Eisboch

Ping : Don White

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"jps" wrote in message
...

It was perfectly obvious to me that they were rushing into war. The
inspectors were pulled out, there was no effort at diplomacy. Saddam
was bluffing and still thought the Americans were his allies.

BTW, I seem to recall that the inspectors were kicked out by Saddam in
violation of UN resolutions to which he had previously agreed. Only after
months of UN debate did Saddam allow limited and controlled access to the
inspectors again and they basically gave up due to the new controls and
limited access. Even that Swedish Chief Inspector (forget his name)
complained bitterly that he couldn't do his job because of the restrictions
imposed by Saddam. Interestingly, he later changed his colors like many
others and claimed that Bush lied to him too. It's all about legacy,
reputation and egos.

Saddam also had begun a practice of shooting at UN resolution authorized
aircraft patrolling the "no fly" zone intended to prevent further Iraqi
aggression against it's neighbors.

Basically, Saddam, after a few short years of recovery from the first Gulf
War was giving the finger to the UN and the rest of the world. Clinton
ignored it, despite warnings from Congress and including members of his own
party. But when Bush took the reigns with a new administration, the
warnings turned into "I was misled and lied to."

Eisboch