( OT ) Torture begins at the top
 

Every captive is a potential
source of information, and we need to get that information, whatever the
cost. Tit for tat, and when you're dealing with folks who behead innocents
for the sheer terror it creates, the gloves of legalism are off.

Are you personally satisfied that every prisoner subjected to interrogation
beyond that generally recognized as legal and civilized has "beheaded innocents
for the sheer terror it creates", or is it enough that they are of the same
ethnicity as the criminal *******s and that there's a very slim chance one or
two of them *could be* involved in beheadings?

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Every captive is a potential
source of information, and we need to get that information, whatever the
cost. Tit for tat, and when you're dealing with folks who behead
innocents
for the sheer terror it creates, the gloves of legalism are off.

Are you personally satisfied that every prisoner subjected to
interrogation
beyond that generally recognized as legal and civilized has "beheaded
innocents
for the sheer terror it creates", or is it enough that they are of the
same
ethnicity as the criminal *******s and that there's a very slim chance one
or
two of them *could be* involved in beheadings?

Point taken , Gould... but do you recognize that Americans are targeted for
simply looking and talking like Americans? Or that places that Americans
are know to gather are targeted in the hopes that a few Americans will be
there?

And these Americans civilians are infinitely more innocent than the illegal
combatant terrorist that you are concerned about?

I'll wager the dead from the twin towers wish they could be illegally
interrogated by the US Army instead of burning to death, eh?

Jack

Jack

It seems funny that you are "for" the values that were set back in a
different time (Geneva, etc), but seemingly against other values that sprung
forth during that same time (wholesome, christian family values).

Not guilty. I am not against wholesome family values, Christian or otherwise.

Maybe
those "rules" of war are outdated in these modern times, as you liberals say
the Christian values are?

Since you introduced Christianity- how would Jesus treat these prisoners? Would
he inflict painful or demeaning punishments while proclaiming "An eye for an
eye and a tooth for a tooth?" Maybe not, according to passages like Matthew 5:
39-50

If Christianity isn't obsolete, how could an agreement (convention) that people
captured during a war would be treated humanely be obsolete? I don't think that
can swing two ways.

In
some cases, we simply sweep a neighborhood and scoop up all the military
age
men.

Cite?

The release of almost 2000 prisoners after the Abu Grhaib scandal broke last
spring.
They would never have let these people go
if they had any real evidence they had been shooting at US troops.

Meanwhile, we did just *arrest* Sadam, proving we
aren't barbarians, huh?

It will take more than one isolated act to prove, or disprove, our barbarity.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...

The release of almost 2000 prisoners after the Abu Grhaib scandal broke
last
spring.
They would never have let these people go
if they had any real evidence they had been shooting at US troops.

And how many of those 2000 are now shooting at our troops and making IEDs?
It's very likely that many more of our soldiers would be alive today if
those 2000 were still in custody.


Meanwhile, we did just *arrest* Sadam, proving we
aren't barbarians, huh?

It will take more than one isolated act to prove, or disprove, our
barbarity.

See Abu Grhaib above.

And how many of those 2000 are now shooting at our troops and making IEDs?


A greater number than would have been if they hadn't been treated to our
hospitality at Abu G.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
And how many of those 2000 are now shooting at our troops and making
IEDs?


A greater number than would have been if they hadn't been treated to our
hospitality at Abu G.

Nice try, no cigar. We released a lot of baddies to appease the idiot media
and libs. Besides, your reasoning above is a great reason to have kept them
in there. At least until the hostilities are over and the GIs out of there.
After all, there were in there for a reason, eh?

Jack

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jack Goff wrote:
Shhh, Harry... adults are talking. Didn't your parents teach you any
manners?

Go do what you do best, Jackoff...but cover your keyboard.

Experience is the best teacher, eh?

Jack

FishWisher wrote:
I mean armchair quarterbacks like you.

Your point is that we should "fight fair". I think that's your point.

You should think harder.

... This
war is like nothing we've dealt with before. Every captive is a potential
source of information, and we need to get that information, whatever the
cost.

By torture?

Frankly, any method that turns us into the bad guys means that we lose.
Is this the "higher level of morality" that President Bush is supposed
to adhere to?

DSK

Dave Hall wrote:
I'll tell you what, you convince the insurgents to stop cutting off
the heads of our people, and laying booby traps in corpses and in
vehicles, and maybe we'll back off on the "comfort tactics' we employ
on our prisoners.....


Aren't you forgetting something?

1- we invaded their country

2- we're supposed to be the good guys

3- we control what we do, not them

DSK

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 09:14:30 -0500, DSK wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
I'll tell you what, you convince the insurgents to stop cutting off
the heads of our people, and laying booby traps in corpses and in
vehicles, and maybe we'll back off on the "comfort tactics' we employ
on our prisoners.....


Aren't you forgetting something?

1- we invaded their country

Irrelevant.


2- we're supposed to be the good guys

Yea, but it's all relative.

3- we control what we do, not them


It seems to me, that we place ourselves a great tactical disadvantage
by steadfastly proclaiming to adhere to "the rules", while our enemy
freely flaunts its indifference to following "the rules".

Dave

2- we're supposed to be the good guys


Dave Hall wrote:
Yea, but it's all relative.

In other words, you don't believe there is really such a thing as good
and evil? Only varying shades of gray?



3- we control what we do, not them



It seems to me, that we place ourselves a great tactical disadvantage
by steadfastly proclaiming to adhere to "the rules", while our enemy
freely flaunts its indifference to following "the rules".

Well, if by being "realitvely" good compared to terrorists, we create
more new terrorists faster than we can kill them, *and* give world
opinion a solid reason to like them more than us, then we lose. Isn't
that kinda dumb?

2ndly, if you set aside principles for convenience, then you do not
really have any principles.

DSK

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...



Then maybe we should just nuke the whole place then? If we're destined
to follow the inevitable path to another dictatorship, followed by
civil war, which would lead to a continual increase in anti-western
sentiment, then the obvious conclusion is that we should just take
them all out now.


Yee-haw! Dave for President!!!

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 08:04:01 -0500, DSK wrote:

2- we're supposed to be the good guys


Dave Hall wrote:
Yea, but it's all relative.

In other words, you don't believe there is really such a thing as good
and evil? Only varying shades of gray?

I look at it as a long line. On the one end of the line is "good" the
opposite end of the line is marked "evil". Most people fall somewhere
in between those extremes, and the increments are infinite.


3- we control what we do, not them



It seems to me, that we place ourselves a great tactical disadvantage
by steadfastly proclaiming to adhere to "the rules", while our enemy
freely flaunts its indifference to following "the rules".

Well, if by being "realitvely" good compared to terrorists, we create
more new terrorists faster than we can kill them, *and* give world
opinion a solid reason to like them more than us, then we lose. Isn't
that kinda dumb?

What's the alternative? We wear white uniforms and smile when they
drive suicide bombers through our gates?

We are not, BTW, "creating" new terrorists. We are only exposing them
for what they really are. This sentiment has been festering in that
region for a long while now. We're just bringing the situation to a
head now, rather than later when those "dark" forces are much
stronger.


2ndly, if you set aside principles for convenience, then you do not
really have any principles.

I can't argue with the essence of your statement. But sometimes, you
have to bend the rules a little for the greater good. Life is a
series of compromises. Many times that greater good will not be
realized until many years later.


Dave

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 16:21:12 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .



Then maybe we should just nuke the whole place then? If we're destined
to follow the inevitable path to another dictatorship, followed by
civil war, which would lead to a continual increase in anti-western
sentiment, then the obvious conclusion is that we should just take
them all out now.


Yee-haw! Dave for President!!!



I wouldn't want that level of responsibility. I wouldn't want to make
a decision that 50% of the people, at any one time, will not like.


Dave

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Dave Hall wrote:
Who's killing their families?

Ever seen mention of "collateral damage"?

It's around 15,000 as near as anybody can guess... that's innocent women &
children killed by US military.

Does that figure include those women and children who were blown up by a
terrorist's IED, car bomb, or suicide vest? Does it include women and
children who were killed because some scumbag piece of **** terrorist
decided to use them as human shields?

I'm interested how you (or anybody) arrived at that figure...and then
further concluded that it was the US military which was responsible for all
15,000.

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 14:31:05 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Dave Hall wrote:
Who's killing their families?

Ever seen mention of "collateral damage"?

It's around 15,000 as near as anybody can guess... that's innocent women &
children killed by US military.

Does that figure include those women and children who were blown up by a
terrorist's IED, car bomb, or suicide vest? Does it include women and
children who were killed because some scumbag piece of **** terrorist
decided to use them as human shields?

I'm interested how you (or anybody) arrived at that figure...and then
further concluded that it was the US military which was responsible for all
15,000.


If an insurgent is killed and another picks up his weapon, the dead
insurgent becomes a civilian.


John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

"DSK" wrote in message
...


Wrong. The figures I've cited specifically exclude hostages, bomb victims,
and include only verified civilian casualties of US miltary action.


Nope. The Lancet numbers don't exclude casualties caused by the other side.

In addition, the Lancet study used a sample of 988 households. In those 988
households, there were 73 deaths from violence. However, 2/3 of the violent
deaths were in Fallujah (n=52). Since Fallujah was one of the hot spots for
terrorists, it makes sense that they accounted for the most casualties.
However, the Lancet folks decided to extrapolate those numbers across the
entire population and came up with this:


Somewhere between 8000 and 194,000 more deaths occurred in the 17 1/2 month
period after the war than the 14 1/2 month period before it. First of all,
that's a pretty big spread. Second of all, how can they extrapolate data
from 988 households, and include data from a city that had the most severe
fighting, and then tell us "8000-194,000 more people died"!?!? Their
"scientific" methods are almost laughable.

Finally, they don't quantitatively differentiate between folks killed by
terrorists and folks killed by US forces. They simply state "coalition
forces caused most of them". The "study" is an absolute joke. It's a null
hypothesis...and the theory that US forces are causing the deaths has not
been proven.

http://www.thelancet.com/journal/vol...search.31264.1

NOBBY wrote:
Nope. The Lancet numbers don't exclude casualties caused by the other side.

Sorry, you're wrong.

In addition, the Lancet study used a sample of 988 households.

???

It looks to me like you're either talking about something else entirely,
or else just making **** up.

Which probably your best tactic.

The study I'm referring to used independent reports of casualties due to
US force, minus irregular combatants (ie insurgents). Each casualty,
to be counted, had to be reported in at least two independent agencies.

The Lancet cites numbers around 100,000 casualties, which is not what I
was claiming. You can't have it both ways, if you want to debunk the
Lancet's study then go ahead but don't mix up the numbers.

Of course, considering that you have nothing else on your side except
blatant lies and obfuscation, you're not doing too badly.

DSK

NOBBY wrote:
I'm the one citing the actual article, and you have the nerve to say that
I'm the one lying? Ha!


Ha indeed. Your citing the Lancet article has *nothing* to do with the
info I was posting earlier.

In any event, your cites of the Lancet article prove nothing
conclusively... nor does it claim to... about the civilian casualties do
to US force. However there are other studies of this.

Are you claiming that the US has killed no innocent civilians? Are you
claiming that the Lancet says we've killed 198,000? Are you claiming
that because this study is based on crude statistics, that no study cna
be relied on and therefor we should ignore the issue?

You're just obfuscating... same thing as lying when you are deliberately
trying to deny the truth.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOBBY wrote:
I'm the one citing the actual article, and you have the nerve to say that
I'm the one lying? Ha!


Ha indeed. Your citing the Lancet article has *nothing* to do with the
info I was posting earlier.

In any event, your cites of the Lancet article prove nothing
conclusively... nor does it claim to... about the civilian casualties do
to US force. However there are other studies of this.

Are you claiming that the US has killed no innocent civilians? Are you
claiming that the Lancet says we've killed 198,000? Are you claiming that
because this study is based on crude statistics, that no study cna be
relied on and therefor we should ignore the issue?

You're just obfuscating... same thing as lying when you are deliberately
trying to deny the truth.

DSK


We've killed far fewer than one hundred thousand *innocent* civilians. In
fact, we've likely killed fewer than a couple of thousand *innocent*
civilians. In any case, over the last 6 months, we've killed a lot less
civilians than the terrorists have. And we aren't specifically targeting
civilians like the terrorists are doing.