Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hortlund on March 03, 2003, 02:21:51 AM
-
(http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/south/03/03/pakistan.arrests/story.ksmohammed.ap.jpg )
hehehe, I bet he regrets his choise of career now.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/south/03/03/pakistan.arrests/index.html
Pakistan held Mohammed "a few hours" before turning him over to the CIA, which immediately took him out of Pakistan, officials said. Mohammed is in U.S. custody at an undisclosed location, they said.
I wonder where they are holding him now...I hope it's Israel, they've got some excellent interrogation techniques.
Lets just say that I doubt he will ever be taken to the US...to many laws and rules protecting him over there.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
(http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/south/03/03/pakistan.arrests/story.ksmohammed.ap.jpg )
hehehe, I bet he regrets his choise of career now.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/south/03/03/pakistan.arrests/index.html
I wonder where they are holding him now...I hope it's Israel, they've got some excellent interrogation techniques.
Lets just say that I doubt he will ever be taken to the US...to many laws and rules protecting him over there.
He is prolly in Egypt, they know how to ask questions and always get answers:D
-
He doesn't look too happy :)
-
Didnt he used to do porn?
-
(http://www.ronjeremy.com/images/Ronsphotoforsale_big.jpg)
-
ROFL! I knew that man looked somehow familiar..:)
What kind of torchering techiques they use nowdays? Or do they just stick with the good ol' christian fingerscrew?
-
Dunno, me thinks he would qualify for the clear tube/gerbil technique. ARMAGEDDON!
-
bwwaahahahaahaha
-
Judging by the pic it looks like sleep deprivation is part of it.
-
its going to suck being him for a while.. they are going to torture the toejam out of him.
-
Looks like he could lose some weight too.
Starve him first, then hang him to stretch him out a bit. The suffocation meathod though - dont want it to be too quick.
-
c'mon guys...
you'de be angry too if you grew up that ugly.
poor fella.
-
I love seeing civilized people condone torture.
Reminds me of what our western nations stand for.
-
Special circumstances prevail, StSanta. This is one of them.
-
I personally agree with the Death Penalty.
-
torture? what torture? you want to see torture, you have to go talk to saddam. but , it's ok if saddam tortures and murders iraq people because we are going to "contain" him for 30-40 years.
i wonder how many iraqis saddam will torture and murder in 30-40 years, maybe the UN knows , maybe france knows.
-
Sub-human pieces of filth have no human rights.
They should systematically and methodically work on him with lead pipes, blow torches and belt sanders for as long as it takes.
And when they are absolutely certain they have squeezed the last drop of useful information from this bag of excrement, he should be garroted with a length of piano wire, his body smeared with pig intestines, and his carcass dumped into a ditch for dogs to feed upon.
And the whole thing should be put on Pay-per-View.
Wab
-
John, no need to bring Iraq into this topic.
We are discussing a Kuwaiti born to Pakistani parents captured in Pakistan Guilty of The WTC terrorist attacks.
-
<<
Reminds me of what our western nations stand for.>>>
So how do you recommend he be treated? Would it be OK to torture him so long as we don't condone it? Or is torture out of the question?
What do our western nations stand for, anyway? This is messy business, no one keeps their hands clean unless they are uninvolved, in which case they should stfu.
ra
-
Originally posted by Ping
John, no need to bring Iraq into this topic.
We are discussing a Kuwaiti born to Pakistani parents captured in Pakistan Guilty of The WTC terrorist attacks.
I guess there's no need to bring North Korea into the dialog on Iraq. And yet so many have.
-
This guy may have "plans" under way. We dont know what they could be but they could mean that a lot of people die. As revolting as torture is, its effective. Theres degrees of torture. In some instances torture can make a person confess or admit to something he has done to avoid the pain. So its not something that could be used in a court.
However, it can be used to get information that may help save lives. And if thats the case then I have no trouble turning back while the guy gets worked over.
Are you telling me that if on 9/8 we captured on the the 9/11 hijackers and knew they had something planned that was as potentially devasting as the wtc attacks you would refrain from torture?
Heck most would rather just put a bullet in this guys head, wrap him in pig skin, stitch the pigs bellybutton to his face then pour 15 tons on pigshit into his grave, then cover the the top with concret. And maybe even have Salman Rushdie take a dump on him after eating Pork Skins and pork bbq.
-
Put him in a room and blare the same episode of Brady Bunch over and over and over again....better yet, no bruises! :D
-
I bet he is only going to get skim milk in his Cheerios.
-
Originally posted by Oedipus
BTW, if he'd been caught in Bagdad I can well imagine the hawks would be rallying for an immediate and damning strike. Yet no one of you is calling for a nOO_queU-LARR bomb to hit Karachi yet?
Oed
so if he had been caught in NYC you would bomb NYC ??, you make no sense. Anyway , i thought we were talking about torture.
-
Right now he best torture would be to leave him in solitary for 72 hours. No light, no sound, no clothes. Just slide him a bagel every 12 hours and let him drink from the toilet.
An--ti--ci-pay--tion.
-
Originally posted by Oedipus
Lousy analogy. I for one never saw anyone in the Us let alone NYC do a jubily of joy after hearing the news. Unlike those I saw in several Middle East countries AND in Karachi. The Pakistani people are far FAR more pro-El Quaeda and OBL than they are for anything to do with the US. Thousands of Pakistani's went to go fight with OBL when the US and Afghanistan forces started fighting El Quaida. How many Iraqi's went?
Oed
Yep, proves psychological theory that if you keep someone impoverished, dumb with lots of extremist religious overtones, that you have total control over their self-esteem, not to mention the other elements of their "heirachy"...this applies to all walks of humans, and religions. Maslow would understand.
-
Originally posted by Oedipus
Lousy analogy. I for one never saw anyone in the Us let alone NYC do a jubily of joy after hearing the news. Unlike those I saw in several Middle East countries AND in Karachi. The Pakistani people are far FAR more pro-El Quaeda and OBL than they are for anything to do with the US. Thousands of Pakistani's went to go fight with OBL when the US and Afghanistan forces started fighting El Quaida. How many Iraqi's went?
Oed
No argument from me. I said a long time ago we should take a harder stance with Pakistan and Saudi.
BTW, most of us quit pronouncing that second "u" in the '60s. And it's really not very politic to make fun of the verbally impaired, even if they are the president. ;)
-
This is the guy that cut Danny Pearl's throat?
-
Sub-human pieces of filth have no human rights.
Over here we called them, "Untermenschen". Literally, sub-humans. Half a century ago. Isn`t it surprising to hear such words from the world`s greatest democracy ?
It`s good they got him. It`s a common practise to use interrogation technique in such cases - those within the borders of the law, mind you (and there`s sufficient room).
But there`s a fine line you don`t want to transcend.
I certainly hope he`ll spill some beans on OBL and the rest of those bastards.
-
Originally posted by devious
Over here we called them, "Untermenschen". Literally, sub-humans. Half a century ago. Isn`t it surprising to hear such words from the world`s greatest democracy ?
There is a difference between judging someone by their actions and judging them by their race.
-
Over here we called them, "Untermenschen". Literally, sub-humans. Half a century ago. Isn`t it surprising to hear such words from the world`s greatest democracy ?
You truly cannot see a difference between calling a mass murderer a sub-human, and calling an entire race sub-human? Or are you just using this as an opportunity to display your own Ubermenschen credentials?
ra
-
Originally posted by AKIron
There is a difference between judging someone by their actions and judging them by their race.
You beat me to it.(not literally, but keyboard..:D)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
You beat me to it.(not literally, but keyboard..:D)
Business has has been slow lately, what can I say. :D
-
Same...since 9/11/01 :(
-
Am I the only one that thinks this guy looks exactly like every New York City Cab Driver I've ever met?
-
Originally posted by AKWabbit
Sub-human pieces of filth have no human rights.
hmmmm ... the language barrier ...
you mean unter-mensch ?
Where did I heard that before ?
as soon as I recall it I'll post inform you
-
Originally posted by AKIron
There is a difference between judging someone by their actions and judging them by their race.
and if you behave like the Nazi you will be different ?
-
They don't really have to rubber hose the guy. That method is unreliable as well. Sometimes a little respiratory trauma using water or other methods may be used to create fear. You don't really have to hook electrodes up to the guys nads anymore.
There are many ways of interrogating folks without using physical violence. Drugs exist that can be very successful when combined sensory and sleep deprovation. A lot of research has been done in this area. You really want to debrief by using interrogation techniques, not just obtain information in bits and pieces.
Granted, such is not a very nice thing to do to another person, but when you have to get information of this type, there are not many other choices. He made the choice to play this game. Now he has to go all the way.
It's just too bad to see a famous porn star take the wrong path once again.
-
When the US invades Canada, Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, etc... with the intent to subjugate and starts gassing the jews, you can call us Nazis.
-
Nah, my bet is he is sitting in some Egyptian or Israeli cellar right now.
Problem is, US intel needs some information really fast, and while there are better interrogation methods than torture if you have enough time, if you need answers fast... Well, lets just say you dont have the time to break him down with sleep depravation or sensory depravation combined with drugs. And right now there are alot of questions that needs fast answers.
The US will have its back free anyway "what do you mean...WE didnt torture him", since there wont be any US agents doing the actual work on him...besides, the Egyptians or Israelis are better at that.
-
Originally posted by rogwar
There are many ways of interrogating folks without using physical violence. Drugs exist that can be very successful when combined sensory and sleep deprovation. A lot of research has been done in this area. You really want to debrief by using interrogation techniques, not just obtain information in bits and pieces.
Have you seen this research? The only research I'm familiar with on sensory deprevation reported that many of the subjects experienced hallucinations - that doesn't sound like the best method to use on someone you're trying to get information from.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
When the US invades Canada, Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, etc... with the intent to subjugate and starts gassing the jews, you can call us Nazis.
I was speaking of the "sub human" expression.
I never spoke of the USA as a country or a whole.
But about some USA citizen who are using the same kind of justification used by the Nazi .
-
Originally posted by straffo
I was speaking of the "sub human" expression.
I never spoke of the USA as a country or a whole.
But about some USA citizen who are using the same kind of justification used by the Nazi .
Straffo,
Now you are being an ass, just to be an ass.
Is it your supposition that all people are kind and loving? Is it possible that among us are people capable of such evil that they are "sub human", and should be treated as such by the world community?
Yes of course there are such people. Adolf Hitler was one. Jeffery Dahmer was one. Osama Bin Laden is one.
I understand you are defensive of late, but don't be an ass.
F.
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
Have you seen this research? The only research I'm familiar with on sensory deprevation reported that many of the subjects experienced hallucinations - that doesn't sound like the best method to use on someone you're trying to get information from.
That is true if you push it too far. Same goes for physical torture as well (although it does not generally cause hallucinations). Any particular method becomes ineffective if applied too much. You have to use a combination of methods and ride a very fine line so to speak. There are scientists in the world that study exactly that sort of thing for all types of criminals and situations.
There has been a lot of dicussion about torture, but it's also highly likely that with a little good guy-bad guy, this tango chief may sing like a bird. The police are very effective all the time with these techniques. It takes quite a bit of training and conviction to be able to resist when there exists a basic human desire to save your own skin. This character may have the cojones to order other people to do sensless acts, but may not have the stones when it comes to self.
-
Originally posted by Furious
Straffo,
Now you are being an ass, just to be an ass.
Is it your supposition that all people are kind and loving? Is it possible that among us are people capable of such evil that they are "sub human", and should be treated as such by the world community?
Yes of course there are such people. Adolf Hitler was one. Jeffery Dahmer was one. Osama Bin Laden is one.
I understand you are defensive of late, but don't be an ass.
F.
Sorry not for me ,if you act like them you are one of them.
Don't take me wrong I don't have pink glasses and I don't like nor support Hitler, Ben Laden or any of this scumbag.
I just don't want to be confused with them by my behaviour.
The only answer I have is jail with the minimal support .
Killing them or giving them pain is the way to have a in close future an abnormal number of potential "martyr" do to some 9/11 attentat, in general I try to be pragmatic.
-
" in general I try to be pragmatic."
In this case a pragmatic action would be to use any means needed to get information out of this captive which could save lives of potential victims of Qaeda operations in progress.
-
Originally posted by straffo
I was speaking of the "sub human" expression.
I never spoke of the USA as a country or a whole.
But about some USA citizen who are using the same kind of justification used by the Nazi .
OK Straffo, assuming you are sincere, why is it nazi like to want to free a country that is heavily oppressed by it's dictator? A dictator that does pose a threat to your country. A dictator you once ran out of a country he invaded and you stopped short of invading his capitol when he promised to be a good boy. A dictator that has thumbed his nose at every agreement he has made with you.
BTW, have you seen any of the documentaries regarding the Gulf War? Did you know that just after his Elite Republican Guard was defeated he called in his top five generals and had them executed? Doesn't that tell you something bad about this guy?
-
Originally posted by funkedup
" in general I try to be pragmatic."
In this case a pragmatic action would be to use any means needed to get information out of this captive which could save lives of potential victims of Qaeda operations in progress.
but I won't claim it in public :)
-
Iron I agree with you but it won't change my mind : it you act like a nazi you are very close to be a nazi.
Not that I'm a supporter of Saddam he represent all that I hate but if we act like him where is the difference ?
-
Originally posted by straffo
Iron I agree with you but it won't change my mind : it you act like a nazi you are very close to be a nazi.
Not that I'm a supporter of Saddam he represent all that I hate but if we act like him where is the difference ?
Yes if he is being a mad dictator type who invades his neighbors and threatens destruction with WMD it sure would be wrong to act "like him" and not give him a chance to "act like him". Straffo your kind of thinking is exactly wht France and europe in general are pretty much worthless and inconsequential in world affairs - you are too thoughful, introsepective and indecisive. I mean this is the same europe that spent 5 years thinking about doing something substantial while 250,000 eurpeans were slaughtered from 1991-1995... Of course the USA finally got involved in 95 and things were squared away real fast.
Blah! Shut up Europe! Lead, follow, or ( France especially) get out of the diddlying way!
-
I'm not Europe don't mix me with European "Diplomatie"
And a contrario to some I don't allways agree with my governement (especially when it's socialist) .
Where did you got that I was part of the waiting gang of idiot seeing mass murderer at less than 1000km from home and doing nothing ?
Do you really think I was just looking at the 8' O'clock news ?.
-
I donno straffo you sure seem bent on giving saddam the milosevic treatment - as in we cant be sure he is a bad guy until he does the same exact bad thing several times over and we must make sure he gets those chances to prove himself.
-
Do be short : I've nothing to be proud about my time in the military especially during this period.
I was just boiling 1000km far from the place I was supposed to be (IMO of course).
It's just the sudden "agitation" about Iraq that irrate me, the sudden concern for the Iraqi/kurds or the even more sudden link between Al Queda and Saddam...
We (westerner) have put Saddam in place we even vetoed a resolution about Gas usage againt Iranian by Saddam ...
And suddenly he is the only enemy ?
What about the Saoudia,Pakistan ?
-
Originally posted by straffo
What about the Saoudia,Pakistan ?
Can you elaborate on this line of thinking please? Because I truly do not understand the line of reasoning here...
The way I understand your argument is along this line:
Saddam is bad, but there are other nations that are bad too, therefore we must not take action against Iraq.
-
You're clever than that Hortlund.
I just say that Saddam is not the real menace, he don't have the $$$ ,the troops,or the support of muslim country.
But do you think that the Pakistani or the Saoudian have really stopped their support of extremist muslim ?
They are less visible than before 9/11 but they didn't have changed their agenda they just are more prudent and stealth.
Lot of poster here speak of the kurds
But none speak of the woman in Saoudia ...
You see where I want to go ?
-
Originally posted by straffo
I just say that Saddam is not the real menace, he don't have the $$$ ,the troops,or the support of muslim country.
[/b]
But you do agree that he has biological and chemical weapons still unaccounted for? Or is that a big US lie?
You do agree that he is supporting, funding and training terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Aqucsa brigades?
You do agree that he has used gas against Iran and on Kurds?
You do agree that his government is upheld by terror, torture, murder?
You do agree that he is not doing his best to cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors?
But do you think that the Pakistani or the Saoudian have really stopped their support of extremist muslim ?
[/b]
It is not the same thing. The Pakistani government is actively supporting the US war on terror. But there are alot of Pakistani citizens that hate the US and wants to help the terrorists.
Same with Saudi. The Saudi government is still considered a US ally. But there are alot of Saudi citizens that hate the US and wants to help the terrorists.
But in Iraq, the government is the one who hates the US and wants to help the terrorists. While the Iraqi citizens spend their days being opressed.
There is a difference, and surely you see that too.
Lot of poster here speak of the kurds
But none speak of the woman in Saoudia ...
You see where I want to go ?
Well, not really... that is why I'm asking. The woman in Saudi is treated bad by the Saudi government, therefore the US should not help the Kurds? I fail to see the connection or the logic in that.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
But you do agree that he has biological and chemical weapons still unaccounted for? Or is that a big US lie?
I agree
You do agree that he is supporting, funding and training terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Aqucsa brigades?
More than the saoudian? I disagreee
You do agree that he has used gas against Iran and on Kurds?
Agree
You do agree that his government is upheld by terror, torture, murder?
agree
You do agree that he is not doing his best to cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors?
Partial agreement the bar look to be rised each time he step in the good direction.
Not fair I swear.
It is not the same thing. The Pakistani government is actively supporting the US war on terror. But there are alot of Pakistani citizens that hate the US and wants to help the terrorists.
Very lately ... ask the Indian (not that the Idian are innocent ...)
Same with Saudi. The Saudi government is still considered a US ally. But there are alot of Saudi citizens that hate the US and wants to help the terrorists.
Don't forget they have a kind of mediaval/tribal form of governement.
Even if the Saoudian governement say they support US ,the Saoudian have enought rich citizen to continue financing terrorism
and they still build mosquée in france where the mufti are far from being moderate muslim.
But in Iraq, the government is the one who hates the US and wants to help the terrorists.
Agitation (I dunno how to translate "gesticulation").
While the Iraqi citizens spend their days being opressed.
Surely , but the US supported Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi long and the SAVAK was very close to the gestapo ...
There is a difference, and surely you see that too.
I see a <> but a very thin and little <>
Well, not really... that is why I'm asking. The woman in Saudi is treated bad by the Saudi government, therefore the US should not help the Kurds? I fail to see the connection or the logic in that.
You never spoke to a Kurd or Afghan woman I bet ?
-
Straffo where in my post did I say stuff like "Do you agree that Iraq supports terrorism more than Saudi Arabia does"?
And yet you want to spin it in that direction with your "More than the saoudian? I disagreee"-answer.
Again you try to turn it into some twisted "well, Iraq supports terrorists, but the Saudis supports terrorists too"-argument...fine...but where does that lead? Iraq supports terrorism, and saudi supports terrorism...therefore we should not take action against Iraq? There is no logic in that, and there is no connection between the two.
And besides, the saudi government is not supporting the terrorists, the Iraqi government is. (But lets ignore that part, just focus on the "why are you trying to spin it like that" question)
You keep coming back to this:
"Even if the Saoudian governement say they support US ,the Saoudian have enought rich citizen to continue financing terrorism."
That is completely irrelevant to, and completely different from the Iraqi issue. How is that line of logic?
"Iraqi government supports terrorism, Saudi government does not support terrorism, but Saudi citizens does, therefore we should not take action against Iraq"?
Explain to me how that logic works.
I have not spoken to any Afghani women lately no...I have spoken to a couple of Kurds though. There is not a single one of them who wants to see Saddam stay in power, and every single one of them wants the US to go to war against Iraq...but what is your point?
I keep coming back to that question...what is the point with your arguments when you want to say that other nations are just as bad or even worse than Iraq? Are you trying to say that because there are other evil nations out there too, we should not deal with any of them simply because we cannot decide who is more evil?
I get the impression that you, Blitz, Duedel, see this as some sort of amusing debate-game where you score points on trying to pick apart the reasons for war, or whatever. Meanwhile the civilians keep on dying in Iraq, and the terrorists keep on working on new ways to attack us.
-
My point is I do find DISGUSTING to have allied as bad as the enemy.
Point is those saoudian bastard have supported and likely are still supporting terrorism in MY country but as the are allied with the US of A no one can start an action against them.
Btw the Saoudian still supporting terrorism are part of the Saoud dinasty and with the kind of governement they have (feodal you know) there is not difference between them and their governement.
Saddam is an abomination and should be defeated.
But I do think that after the collapse of Iraq as today it will be a complete mess in this vital region of the globe.
Actuall I even think that Saddam's dictature contribute to the stabillity of this part of the world (I know it's an horrible sentence).
Have you seen the repartition of population in Iraq ? it's far from being homogenous it's close to Afghanistan ... and will end the same.
Speaking of the kurds woman now are you seriously thinking the kurds are different from the rest of this region's muslim ?
-
Meanwhile the civilians keep on dying in Iraq, and the terrorists keep on working on new ways to attack us.
Oh those poor Iraqi civilians! How your heart must bleed! We must liberate them and let them set-up a democratic, self-determined Arab state!
Let's dig out a few gems concerning this issue. I'll take the liberty of giving it a title:
A Collection of Musings on the Humanitarian Plight of the Palestinians and the Israeli-Palestinian Troubles, By Hortlund:
And the sooner the Pals blow themselves up, the sooner the whole region will be peaceful.
Why should we trust the arabs with a Palestinian state now?
Anyway, the Israelis used a bomb to kill a terrorist leader. The bomb caused collateral damage. Good job on the terrorist leader, too bad about the collateral damage.
In summary, I would like to quote the Right Honourable Gentleman, Sir Hangtime:
Steve, yer ability to condone one protagonists inhumane methods while condeming the others is kinda gay.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Oh those poor Iraqi civilians! How your heart must bleed! We must liberate them and let them set-up a democratic, self-determined Arab state!
[/b]
Yes, I dont see anything wrong with that actually...do you?
A Collection of Musings on the Humanitarian Plight of the Palestinians and the Israeli-Palestinian Troubles, By Hortlund:
[/b]
Yes? Some of those quotes are really taken out of context, but ignoring that...So I dont like terrorists...point being?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Yes? Some of those quotes are really taken out of context, but ignoring that...So I dont like terrorists...point being?
point being if your act or your thoughs are identical how are you different ?
-
Originally posted by straffo
point being if your act or your thoughs are identical how are you different ?
Pardon? (meaning I dont understand what you are saying)
-
If you use the same dialectic where is the difference ?
You don't like terrorist (I don't like them either)
But if you use almost the same wording and hate I'll likely fail to see how you differ from the terrorists.
you or anyone it's a general comment.
-
Originally posted by straffo
If you use the same dialectic where is the difference ?
You don't like terrorist (I don't like them either)
But if you use almost the same wording and hate I'll likely fail to see how you differ from the terrorists.
Im still not sure I understand. Are you saying that because I hate terrorists, I am just as bad as the terrorists?
-
No you're worst ( I'm kidding this time ;))
I say : you should not act(*) like them.
(*) or speak.
-
Ripsnort wrote:
Special circumstances prevail, StSanta. This is one of them. ripsnort
Ah yes, I am quite sure the kidnappers and murderers of Pearl thought the same. And it was under special circumstances terrorists attacked the US on 9/11. My point being; a civilized society cannot afford to have exceptions when it comes to torture.
torture? what torture? you want to see torture, you have to go talk to saddam. but , it's ok if saddam tortures and murders iraq people because we are going to "contain" him for 30-40 years.
MY point being that our societies aren't like Saddam's, and I'd very much like them to stay that way. And it is logically erroneous to argue 'B is morally unjust and does X. Therefore it is morally just for A to do X'.
John9001 wote:
i wonder how many iraqis saddam will torture and murder in 30-40 years, maybe the UN knows , maybe france knows.
Irrelevant as to whether civilized states should condone torture.
AKWabbit wrote:
Sub-human pieces of filth have no human rights.
I've heard the term üntermenschen before. The nazis didn't consider Jews humans and thus in their eyes they weren't comitting crimes against humanity. When we arbitrarily can single out a group of people and remove their humanity on a whim, we're on a very dangerous slope. It goes against everything milliions died defending in WWII, and I'd hate to see it go due to the uneducated rages and emotions of, pardon the expression, couch potatoes.Wabbit, that remark sn't directed at you, just so you know it :) There's a certain ignorance springing from statements where humanity is denied to a human.
They should systematically and methodically work on him with lead pipes, blow torches and belt sanders for as long as it takes.
Perhaps a mob would do that. An objective justice system described as fair would not be that if it allowed what you just mentioned to happen. You prefer mob rule and lynchings to the Rule of Law?
Can understand yer emotions AKWabbit, but Justice is without remorse, guilt, emotions and bias. We pride ourselves on being civilized - on respecting human rights. A man can in your country be sentenced to die, but not sentenced to be tortured.
One either respects human rights or one doesn't. One cannot pick and choose when or why.
So how do you recommend he be treated? Would it be OK to torture him so long as we don't condone it? Or is torture out of the question?
I recommend he be treated according to the laws of the land. He is not a threat to anyone dead, and that punishment is possible. As to information extraction - torture has been widespread in Europe, and it is unquestionably unreliable - that was part of the reason as to why it was disbanded as a method of interrogation. So no torture - there are other methods of making people talk. Of course there is a fussy line where interrogation stops and torture starts. so I'd advise anyone to walk on that line if information is of the utmost importance.
What do our western nations stand for, anyway? This is messy business, no one keeps their hands clean unless they are uninvolved, in which case they should stfu. ra
We stand for freedom, democracy, respect of human rights and so forth. Or we will, until we start pissing on human rights and resort to the methods of those below us. Again sayng it is a mess and therefore we're allowed to do whatever is a logical fallacy. The SS thought the eastern war a mess - yet they were still punished for the atrocities committed there. The US by and large did not participate in atrocities, despite being involved in probably the most messy war of all times.
What I am saying, gentlemen, is that it is easy to hold on to human rights when nothing happens - just as it is easy to be a patriot in a time of peace and prosperity. Or be a good friend to someone rich. But dumping that someone when he gets into financial difficulties isn't the marks of a good person. And dumping human rights because it is in the way is equally disgusting.
Geesh, some of you should feel ashamed. You talk highly of freedom and the honest intent of the US one second, only to laugh and cry with excitement as people are blown to pieces or tortured.
Are you ready to give up what your forefathers, grandfathers etc have fought so hard to attain - just for conveniency? Seriously, I believe your Founding Fathers would want to smack you on top of the head if they read what you've said here. Get it together - you're AMERICANS. You're not some psycho blood thirsty fanatical bunch of ragheads. AMERICANS, not idiots.
So act like you are.
GRUNHERZ I'd kindly ask you to lay off the Euro-trashing, as you have enough brains to do proper arguments. I expect it of stupid, not intelligent, people. It's getting a buit old, and I¨'d hate to go back to USA-bashing again just to even things up. So a friendly request: treat yer friends and allies as just that - friends and allies. DK is in Europe and has backed the US totally since 9/11, with the exception of a Carte Blacnhe for military action in Iraq - and that is only because giving such a one would be political suicide in a country where the vast majority ov voters are against a war. Our current govt has pissed off a lot of voters by their US support. They risk it next election on behalf of the US. So perhaps give them some credit instead of calling 'em Eurorutabagas?
-
Hortlund wrote:
I get the impression that you, Blitz, Duedel, see this as some sort of amusing debate-game where you score points on trying to pick apart the reasons for war, or whatever. Meanwhile the civilians keep on dying in Iraq, and the terrorists keep on working on new ways to attack us.
What I think they are trying to convey is the hypocricy of the US stance - Iraq supports terrorism and is an opressive regime, therefore it must go. Saudi Arabia and other nations also have opressive regimes, but they get support.
It's the 'he is a son of a squeak, but he is OUR son of a squeak' argument. Unquestionably, there are more US blood on Saudi born terrorists than on Iraqi terrorists, the latter being almost unheard of.
And Saudis funnel more money into extremist groups than does Iraq, since Iraq is a much more secular country.
I agree that Saddam needs to go. What I want however, is an offocial recognition of the fact that other regimes around Iraq are only little better. But those are our pals.
-
"Again sayng it is a mess and therefore we're allowed to do whatever is a logical fallacy."
Santa,
Idealism comes after you win the war. Our hairy friend has chosen to play a game in which there are no limits or rules. He has lost, and now he suffers whatever the consequences may be. There is no civilized way to deal with these kinds of crimes. To allow him to keep silent about his plans for mass murder would be to essentially allow him to commit mass murder. If uncivilized methods can save thousands upon thousands of lives, then let's let someone go mideval on his ass. Then later we can condemn those methods as uncivilized.
ra
-
Originally posted by StSanta
...I've heard the term üntermenschen before. The nazis didn't consider Jews humans and thus in their eyes they weren't comitting crimes against humanity. When we arbitrarily can single out a group of people and remove their humanity on a whim, we're on a very dangerous slope...
Don't overstate this point. This has nothing to with singling out "a group of people" as sub-human.
Individual persons are quite capable of such anti-social behaviour that they are rightly labled and treated as sub-human.
For me, in this case, it means, a vigorous interragation (more productive than torture), a fair trail, and a speedy death.
F.
-
What I think they are trying to convey is the hypocricy of the US stance - Iraq supports terrorism and is an opressive regime, therefore it must go. Saudi Arabia and other nations also have opressive regimes, but they get support.
This is another one of those nonsensical Euro arguements.
We are not going after Suddam because we think the Iraqi citizens maybe involved in terrorism. We didnt invade afghanistan because we thought afghanis were all terrorists.
The government of Saudi Arabi are our friends. As a state they are less likely to sponsor terrorism then Suddam. But Suddam, if you believe the hawks, is many times more likely to use the resourse of the nation of Iraq to support terrorists acts against the US then the Saudis. A good portion of Saudi wealth comes from their relationship with the US. They are far less likely as a state to sponsor attacks against us.
The US isnt entertaining the invasion of Iraq because Suddam is a mean guy. He is a mean guy and if allowed to develope wmd and then pass these wmd on to terrorists then he threatens the security of the US.
The reason for the US position is not because Suddam is mean. The US under Bush decided that a shift in policy from containment to prevention is the best way to ensure what happened on 9/11 doesnt happen again. They feel they cant afford to sit back and wait. They feel its better to go ahead and eliminate the threat before it materializes.
Not only that but it then shows to those other Nations, inparticular those in Bush's axis of evil, that a real shift has occurred in US policy. The shift has been termed the "Bush Doctrine". In most of Bush's speeches you hear the same theme come through. That the US will not sit by and wait to be attacked. That no terrorist org or government can hide. The US will act unilaterally ifn necessary, and preventively to elimate threats.
Theres no "hypocracy" in the US position. You can disagree over whether Suddams a threat. But the arguement that inevitably comes from Europe about other "mean leaders" is irrelevant. Just like the "war for oil" bs. Just being mean isnt enough, the hawks feel Suddam is a real threat. Maybe not immediatly but they feel he should dealt with now before hes allowed to develope wmd.
Now dont even bring up NK. These are different situations. NK has a history of sabre rattling in an attempt to get a better deal from the US. The US is in position to work through China to bring pressure on NK. Its a completely different situation then Iraq.
Do a search on the Bush Doctrine, I think if you goto to pbs.org you can find a good bit of info from the program "Frontline".
I am anti-war but these nutty arguements that some put up to support their anti-war stance is just alot of non-sense.
-
This is another one of those nonsensical Euro arguements.
The irony is that this is an official US lie - not one fabricated by me. The current administration has tried to link Iraq to Al Qaeda on several different times and officials have used it to justify a war.
The government of Saudi Arabi are our friends. As a state they are less likely to sponsor terrorism then Suddam.[/i
And they are much more likely to help promote extremist religious views, as long as it is in support of them. From this comes individuals that splinter off and go fly planes into buildings. And it's a country where women are treated like little loved pets and immigrants don't have any human rights. It is an opressive regime, period
But Suddam, if you believe the hawks, is many times more likely to use the resourse of the nation of Iraq to support terrorists acts against the US then the Saudis.
Tell me again how many Iraqis vs Saudis were in those four planes? The Saudi government indirectly supports terrorism by condoning and encouraging the formation of various religious groups, from which it is easy to recruit terrorists.
The US isnt entertaining the invasion of Iraq because Suddam is a mean guy. He is a mean guy and if allowed to develope wmd and then pass these wmd on to terrorists then he threatens the security of the US.
The US gave him VMDs in the 80's. He's had plenty of time to give them to terrorists. So far he knows that if he does it, Iraq will be a glowing glass parking lot. But if he thinks he's going to die anyhow, that the war is about to be lost. Well, am sure he has contigency plans.
reason for the US position is not because Suddam is mean. The US under Bush decided that a shift in policy from containment to prevention is the best way to ensure what happened on 9/11 doesnt happen again. They feel they cant afford to sit back and wait. They feel its better to go ahead and eliminate the threat before it materializes.
Pre emptive strike approach is dangerous. I want to attack you? I say it is a pre-emptive attack. I do not believe the US is wise to go against the world community and attack without a UN resolution. But they will.
Why should other nations go through the UN when the US won't? And why should they listen to the US when they say tat they must? Military might and tnks matter little to leftist guerillas killing villagers.
Theres no "hypocracy" in the US position. You can disagree over whether Suddams a threat. But the arguement that inevitably comes from Europe about other "mean leaders" is irrelevant. Just like the "war for oil" bs. Just being mean isnt enough, the hawks feel Suddam is a real threat. Maybe not immediatly but they feel he should dealt with now before hes allowed to develope wmd.
The hypocricy isn't there in RealPolitik; i.e how things are really done. Always been done like that; the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The hypocricy is in their outwards appearance; we do this to free the opressed people of Iraq. Well, that is ONE of their arguments, anyhow.
m anti-war but these nutty arguements that some put up to support their anti-war stance is just alot of non-sense.
I'm not even putting them up to oppose the war. Am just bringing up some points worth mentioning.
__________________
-
(http://images.ucomics.com/comics/bd/2003/bd030304.gif)
Bill DeOre from the NYTimes (http://www.uclick.com/client/nyt/bd/)
-
At what point does the needs and protection of the many outweigh the rights of the few. Or the one in this case.
If you can show that by putting the wood to this guy you can save the lives of tens or hundreds or thousands of people, what that be enough? In the Bible, God put off the destruction of a city because one good man lived there. Would it then be acceptable to us to destroy one bad man to save a city?
In my estimation, yes. But not just based upon those facts. This man has already given up the rights that would protect him through his actions. Can someone who actively tries to destroy a state now be protected by it? No. This is not the same as being magnominious in victory over a defeated foe. Or even treating prisoners a certain way (especially considering the fact that they have your own as prisoners).
He did not commit a crime against one person, or even many. He committed a crime against humanity as a whole. In my eyes, his actions have put himself outside the protection our Constitution provides not only our citizens, but foreign nationals as well.
When you put these two ideas together, I come up with this: There are people, who, because of the sheer heinousness of their crimes reduce their weight afforded their rights to less than that of the common good.
That being said, we should not be eager to get our pound of flesh from him. We need information. And we should use whatever technique that is most effective.
-
I would like to once again remind people of what a Prince(one of the ruling party) from Saudi Arabia tried to incorporate into a donation to NYC after the WTC attacks.
-
The irony is that this is an official US lie - not one fabricated by me. The current administration has tried to link Iraq to Al Qaeda on several different times and officials have used it to justify a war.
Wrong Santa
The US are using the fact that Saddam may get access to wmd and then because hes mean he may give them to terrorists who are even meaner.
The fact that hes mean isnt why the US is entertaining invading Iraq. Thats a pure BS Euro arguement.
To show how mean he is the US points to his record not just against his own people but folks in the region. But tjhis is not the arguement for invasion.
Tell me again how many Iraqis vs Saudis were in those four planes? The Saudi government indirectly supports terrorism by condoning and encouraging the formation of various religious groups, from which it is easy to recruit terrorists.
No one said Saddam sent the planes into the wtc. What the wtc showed is that there are some terrrorists who will go to any extreme to kill americans. The fear is that Suddam, who gives money to other terrorists organizations and pays families of suicide bombers may provide others with more then money. He has also used chemical agents againts Iran and his own people.
The US gave him VMDs in the 80's. He's had plenty of time to give them to terrorists. So far he knows that if he does it, Iraq will be a glowing glass parking lot. But if he thinks he's going to die anyhow, that the war is about to be lost. Well, am sure he has contigency plans.
Another BS euro arguement. First our government is not a homogenous continous entity. It changes with each administration. It is in fact a "new" government. But even so, we give lotsa military aid to our friends and potential allies. America corps and finicial institutions did buisness with Hitler before ww2. Should we have said" we cant fight Hitler we gave him technology". We gave weapons technology to most of europe and Isreal. The problem isnt just the Iraqis have weapons but the real threat that may use them.
Theres plenty of nations with bad weapons who dont like the US. We wont invade all of them. We wont invade every Nation who is ruled by a thug either.
Pre emptive strike approach is dangerous. I want to attack you? I say it is a pre-emptive attack. I do not believe the US is wise to go against the world community and attack without a UN resolution. But they will.
Why should other nations go through the UN when the US won't? And why should they listen to the US when they say tat they must? Military might and tnks matter little to leftist guerillas killing villagers.
You act as if the US cares whether the rest of the world consults the UN either. We dont intefere with Isreals flaunting of the UN or the Russians in their dealings with the Chechens and in many other instances. A portion of the US in the UN dont really care what the UN thinks. However, our country is willing to work with the UN but wont defer to the descision of the UN when we feel they are against our interests. Every other guy I talk to in the US will tell you "diddly the UN". Ofcourse theres the left over "internationale" liberals but no one takes them seriously.
The hypocricy isn't there in RealPolitik; i.e how things are really done. Always been done like that; the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The hypocricy is in their outwards appearance; we do this to free the opressed people of Iraq. Well, that is ONE of their arguments, anyhow.
But claiming the US position on Iraq is hypocritical is wrong and shows you dont really understand the US position.
Its not about oil, or Suddam being mean. Its about turning on the tv one Sunday morning and reading how 300,000 Americans have killed by a wmd. After the wtc attacks the US under Bush has decided that we arent willing to wait for that to happen. They looked at what they could do and there sits Iraq. Of all the bad guys in the world he is the most likely to be the guy. So they decide lets beat this guy down in front of all the other bad guys. They the will say to the rest of the thugs that if they support the folks that will do such things there will be nothing to stop us from coming after you. We wont wait until it happens but we are prepared to stop you before it starts.
Its similiar to the "threat of assured mutual destruction" that some credit with preventing a third world war. But the previous policy was containment.
Now if you dont agree Iraq is a threat to the US well a decent arguement can be made either way. But the tireed old the "US are hypocrits, the US deserves it because they were friends with Iraq at one point, or the US wants to steal Iraqs oil is just some much BS.
Thats why I suggested you do a search on the "Bush Doctrine" as it outlines the arguement better then I can here.
-
That's no terrorist- that's John Beluchi.
-
Batz wrote:
Wrong Santa
The US are using the fact that Saddam may get access to wmd and then because hes mean he may give them to terrorists who are even meaner.
Th US uses a LOT of arguments. The one I quoted is one of them. I can probably dig up a news article if you want to. It'd means searching etc and would be a bother, but if I need it to prove I am not a liar, I will. Think you'll find that in my preevious posts I put references when there's somethign that people will not take at face value. This argument however has been used extensively and is well known, which is why I dinnae bother.
The fact that hes mean isnt why the US is entertaining invading Iraq. Thats a pure BS Euro arguement.
If you won't put words in my mouth, I won't put words in yours. Never said what you infer. I said:
What I think they are trying to convey is the hypocricy of the US stance - Iraq supports terrorism and is an opressive regime, therefore it must go. Saudi Arabia and other nations also have opressive regimes, but they get support.
If you're referring to some to me unrelated Euro argument, I apologize for being a wee bit suspicious :). And I appreciate that you call the argument, rather than me, BS. People tend to attack the person not the argument on this board, heh.
To show how mean he is the US points to his record not just against his own people but folks in the region. But tjhis is not the arguement for invasion.
I think the US is doing what every prosecutor is - bringing up circumstancial evidence and special conditions/past history. in Swedish we say 'många bäckar små bildar snart en stor å' which roughly translated means that many a few streams connect and form up to a big river. The official US positions has always been that an invasion would be to rid the world of a Saddam WMD threat. But then there are lots of small streams to add to the case.
No one said Saddam sent the planes into the wtc. What the wtc showed is that there are some terrrorists who will go to any extreme to kill americans. The fear is that Suddam, who gives money to other terrorists organizations and pays families of suicide bombers may provide others with more then money. He has also used chemical agents againts Iran and his own people.
As I mentioned, he has had ample opportunity to do so. There is also the possibility that Saddam, being an intelligent man, has decided against using WMDs against the US, knowing that he'd have the full wrath of the American people and state if he did. He's studied history and knows that when faced against the anger and determination of the US, no enemy can survive.
Now, if he is losing the war and knows he'll die anyway, or be captured, he will have no reason to show restraint. So the very act of trying to protect yourselves may provoke exactly what you want to protect yourselves from. Then again, it has never been in the American national psyche to sit and wait - Americans believe in action. However while this is admirable, there are situations where waiting and uncertainty is better than taking action with a sure negative result. But that is hard to accept for someone powerful.
Another BS euro arguement. First our government is not a homogenous continous entity. It changes with each administration. It is in fact a "new" government. But even so, we give lotsa military aid to our friends and potential allies. America corps and finicial institutions did buisness with Hitler before ww2. Should we have said" we cant fight Hitler we gave him technology". We gave weapons technology to most of europe and Isreal. The problem isnt just the Iraqis have weapons but the real threat that may use them.
So you disagree with me when I say the US gave him bacteria and germs etc in the 80's? I posted in another thread four or five links showing this to be the case - can dig it up again. The US actions were driven by a fear of Iran, with its new 'government'. And the intervention was succesful, if costly.
Regardless of whether you switch administrations, the administrations represent the US. And they are chosen by YOU. So there's no getting away from the fact that US officials did this or that - even if you voted for the other guy. The American people are represented by their administrations and the actions of the administration, good or bad, reflect the American people through representative democracy.
Theres plenty of nations with bad weapons who dont like the US. We wont invade all of them. We wont invade every Nation who is ruled by a thug either.
I know. I am intelligent enough to understand how politics work. I'm a realist. I don't even expect the US to be consistent on their policies - no nation is. I am however a little annoyed by obvious hypocricy so I point it out - not to insult Americans, but just to show that it exists. Most intelligent people are capable of seeing it if they put emotions and patriotism on a lower priority than objective thinking.
You act as if the US cares whether the rest of the world consults the UN either. We dont intefere with Isreals flaunting of the UN or the Russians in their dealings with the Chechens and in many other instances. A portion of the US in the UN dont really care what the UN thinks. However, our country is willing to work with the UN but wont defer to the descision of the UN when we feel they are against our interests. Every other guy I talk to in the US will tell you "diddly the UN". Ofcourse theres the left over "internationale" liberals but no one takes them seriously.
Aye, I am very aware of US antipathy towards the UN. I feel it stems from the limiting choice of action that comes with it - military and economically you guys can roll over anything, anywhere, at any time. The UN is a conglomerate of antions and interests, some that goes against very important UN ones. OTOH, if we are to have a fair world where there isn't a big country bullying the rest we need a forum to resolve issues.
Even assuming the US goes it alone, it still has an important role to play. Americans see themselves as guardians of freedom (and has many reasons to do so) and are extremely influential. Let's take some issue that isn't directly related to US interests. Say the issues with the white farmers being killed or beaten in Africa (was it Congo?). The US can put so much leverage behind their words and force seriuous consequences for wrongful behaviour. You can do this even if you have no credibility because you consult with the UN but still do whatever the hell you want.
However, you wish to fight terrorism. Best thing to do; remove the fuel. If the US is seen as a bully that doesn't respect the laws it tries to enforce on others, there'll be lots of potential terrorists. If the US is seen as a conscient nations dedicated to the Rule of Law with the backing of other countries, less fuel. And the UN is that body. It is needed, unless the US wants to play police in every part of the world to a much larger degree than now.
But claiming the US position on Iraq is hypocritical is wrong and shows you dont really understand the US position.
The realopolitik position I can understand and relate to. Yet if they treat one nation in one way and very similar regimes in the complete opposite way due to national interest yet still claim to be consistent, I call it roadkill. It'd be much more honest to say 'he s opressive and against our national interests, while his neighbor might be a dictatorship, but coincides with our interests'.
Of course soccer moms and other idiots will be appaled and vote for the guy who says 'we need to free the Iraqi people from this opressive man, and our good friends the Saudis will help us'.
Its not about oil, or Suddam being mean.
Never claimed it was. See quote above. I think we're sort of mixing in several different topics and getting a bit confused. My comments where on the official statements that sometimes come out of Washington.
Its about turning on the tv one Sunday morning and reading how 300,000 Americans have killed by a wmd. After the wtc attacks the US under Bush has decided that we arent willing to wait for that to happen. They looked at what they could do and there sits Iraq. Of all the bad guys in the world he is the most likely to be the guy.
This is where I disagree. NK is a far more dangerous regime - cash strapped, technologically more advanced than many Arab nations, will have or already has nukes - and are willing to sell knowledge and hardware for money. Iraq hasn't threatened the US with a 'sea of fire' - the DPRK has. Saddam hasn't directly threatened the US in that manner. He used to be your ally, until he made the fatal miscalculation of thinking the US wouldn't mind him invading Kuwait. The man wants to be alive more than anything else and he is far from a maniac. Mentally he has issues like narcissism, paranoia and the like, but he's quite intelligent. And intelligent people know not to mess with the US. However, since he is paranoid, he will have contingency plans if the US goes after him personally. So you might turn on the TV and find 1 million Americans dead and the suicide letters of Iraqi terrorists saying 'in Saddam's name'.
-
Continued...
What I essentially am saying is that I think going after Saddam will not decrease the WMD threat to the US - quite the opposite. And it's toejame bad for the economy. It's bad for US relations in the Middle East. But you do what you feel you need to do. And obviously you may disagree with my analysis of the situation. I'll be corteous enough not to call your arguments roadkill and just agree to disagree. No need for these aggressive tones against an ally.
So they decide lets beat this guy down in front of all the other bad guys. They the will say to the rest of the thugs that if they support the folks that will do such things there will be nothing to stop us from coming after you. We wont wait until it happens but we are prepared to stop you before it starts.
And 60 nations start thinking 'WE'RE NEXT! toejamE toejamE toejamE, WE GOTTA HAVE SOMETHING TO DETER THE US! Let's see. We'll procure some WMDs and some Palestinian suicide bombers. Get the stuff to the US - just in case'.
Pre emptive strikes bring a lot of tension. An administration might think 'shite, I think my predecessors did something the US dinnae like. Or did they?' and fear will build. Fear is an extremely bad thing when it comes to sovereign nations. And there's pride - we shall not be the puppet of another nation.
Its similiar to the "threat of assured mutual destruction" that some credit with preventing a third world war. But the previous policy was containment.
Perhaps similar in the end result which is deterrence. As a methodology it is completely opposite however. MAD keeps fighting off limits as much as possible due to the horrible consequences, whereas pre-emptive strikes bring fights to prevent wars. But you may be right that the soul of PR-ES is simialr to MAD.
Now if you dont agree Iraq is a threat to the US well a decent arguement can be made either way. But the tireed old the "US are hypocrits, the US deserves it because they were friends with Iraq at one point, or the US wants to steal Iraqs oil is just some much BS.
I think Iraq does pose a threat to the US. Just not as large as Bush claims. They're doing what they've done the last 10 years - no more no less. I think there are more acute dangers, and I think going to war against Iraq might increase massively the hostility towards the US experienced by Arabs. And I think that it'll backfire and leave you guys in a worse position. But it is up to you to decide.
Thats why I suggested you do a search on the "Bush Doctrine" as it outlines the arguement better then I can here.
'Just in time, Bush's formal National Security Strategy released last week attempts to justify such "anticipatory" military attacks by the United States to "forestall or prevent hostile acts by our adversaries" even if "uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack."
The doctrine also says we will not tolerate any nation that seeks military parity with the United States. '
Stuff like that eh? Aye, read it, dinnae like it one bit.