It's a little graphic. I'm guessing the folks they plan to drag behind cars and blowtorch just aren't understanding enough of the nuanced Middle East culture.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0524072torture1.html
Replies
233Beach Lover
In world war 2 both the Germans and the Japanese civilian population was considered part of the enemies war machine. The Bombing of Germany is legendary. The enemy did the same. In the fights since, only Korea and Desert Storm were conventional. Non of the other armies could stand up to ours.....so they don't. They fight the way they can. In the mind of an Iraqi, I doubt they see any difference in suicide bombing and dropping a bomb which levels a neighborhood and kills scores of civilians to get one bad guy!
SoWal Expert
I think they view the civilian population as part of the enemy - don't they usually suicide bomb an area based on its affiliation? Like Shias bomb ****te marketplaces etc.
SoWal Expert
The asterisks aren't mine! They're a default - I'll try an apostrophe next time!
FunnChef - AlisonCooks.com
The asterisks aren't mine! They're a default - I'll try an apostrophe next time!:lol: 😀
SoWal Insider
So nothing of response to anything I said? First off, I'll sum up our two posts.Ronnie didn't put the hammer down in Lebanon because the locals had nothing to do with the bombing. Pretty wise, don't you think 6thGen, not to turn a country inside out and kill innocents for the actions of others. Sound familiar? 100,000 dead Iraqis, their leader lynched, 3000+ dead U.S. troops for what reason? Bin Laden was where? Hello? Iraq is in chaos because we pulled the OK Corral move. Sheriff GW and the miltary- industrial posse.
6thGen - "I believe that some things are always wrong."
Chickpea - "You are poorly educated and I'm fortunate that I don't know anyone like you."
First, I'd put my resume, from preschool to postgraduate education and my career since, up against anyone's. But that's not the point. I recognize that an education is not an end in itself, rather a means to an end.
Real quick, on this quote, "nothing good, progressive or positive has ever been accomplished with the harshness and simplistic black and white views you have of world politics, foreign affairs and lack of compassion you so proudly flout." You want to ask Reagan about that?
I've stated my position and I'll turn it over to you. When is targeting innocent civilians fair game? What nuance allows for converting others to their religion by the sword? I'm anxiously awaiting your travels and education to give me insight into that. I seriously want to hear this nuance. I'm open minded and all ears.
Edited
Skunky
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?:breakcomp:
Beach Fanatic
Originally Posted by 6thGen 
I've stated my position and I'll turn it over to you. When is targeting innocent civilians fair game? What nuance allows for converting others to their religion by the sword? I'm anxiously awaiting your travels and education to give me insight into that. I seriously want to hear this nuance. I'm open minded and all ears.
Sigh..... I am going to put this is simply as I can. I have actually NEVER stated that targeting innocent civilians is fair game - what I HAVE said however is that one needs to try and understand why one would ever resort to such violence, to try dig up the root cause of this hatred, before hoping to change a behavior. Now one can simplistically look at a suicide bomber's tactics and call it cowardly (and it is) and hateful (and it is) OR one can attempt to try lessen the anger and hatred felt towards the enemy, whoever that might be.
I am, as politely as I can, going to refrain from trying to educate you on the politics of the middle east (there is plenty of available literature that will do it far better than I can) or in the benefits and exposure one gets in travel and IMMERSION in other cultures and religions (and apologies in advance if I offend you but I continue to remain utterly unconvinced by your claims of travel because like I have said one rarely meets people with views as starkly primitive as yours) - I may be wrong, but I seriously doubt it). I am exhausted by your threads and frankly appalled (but then again, not really!) at how you and so many others will forever justify this particular war even if the initial reasons for doing so are a constantly moving target and being re-defined weekly (how convenient that must be!).
But although you claim you are all ears, allow me to be skeptical. I have actually now read a lot of your posts and have some understanding as to how you view the world (and I assume you have reached similar conclusions about me and I am not being facetious here), and IMO there is little interest and no willingness, as far as I can tell in trying to engage the complex topics. It is seemingly easier for you to pull a blanket over it, plug your ears and yell as loudly as you can that you don't want to hear it and you are so much stronger anyways!!
As to the initial topic of this thread, I personally am as disgusted by the US's actions as I am by the guerillas fighting the war - the tragedy on all sides is painful and the losses tragic and we will be feeling the repurcussions of this unnecessary war for generations.
6th gen and I do mean this respectfully: let's please try avoid/refrain from now on from addressing each other's points - we talk past each other and are just so very far apart in our reasoning and ways of thinking. The analogy to me is like a blind date or meeting at a party - it would take us a total of a couple of minutes before we realized that we had very little in common and would both be looking for excuses to get the hell of out of each other's company. Time is now just too precious. I would rather continue reading the opinions on these threads and not taking the bait (although I know it is unintentional on your part).
Thanks - over and out from me!
I've stated my position and I'll turn it over to you. When is targeting innocent civilians fair game? What nuance allows for converting others to their religion by the sword? I'm anxiously awaiting your travels and education to give me insight into that. I seriously want to hear this nuance. I'm open minded and all ears.
Sigh..... I am going to put this is simply as I can. I have actually NEVER stated that targeting innocent civilians is fair game - what I HAVE said however is that one needs to try and understand why one would ever resort to such violence, to try dig up the root cause of this hatred, before hoping to change a behavior. Now one can simplistically look at a suicide bomber's tactics and call it cowardly (and it is) and hateful (and it is) OR one can attempt to try lessen the anger and hatred felt towards the enemy, whoever that might be.
I am, as politely as I can, going to refrain from trying to educate you on the politics of the middle east (there is plenty of available literature that will do it far better than I can) or in the benefits and exposure one gets in travel and IMMERSION in other cultures and religions (and apologies in advance if I offend you but I continue to remain utterly unconvinced by your claims of travel because like I have said one rarely meets people with views as starkly primitive as yours) - I may be wrong, but I seriously doubt it). I am exhausted by your threads and frankly appalled (but then again, not really!) at how you and so many others will forever justify this particular war even if the initial reasons for doing so are a constantly moving target and being re-defined weekly (how convenient that must be!).
But although you claim you are all ears, allow me to be skeptical. I have actually now read a lot of your posts and have some understanding as to how you view the world (and I assume you have reached similar conclusions about me and I am not being facetious here), and IMO there is little interest and no willingness, as far as I can tell in trying to engage the complex topics. It is seemingly easier for you to pull a blanket over it, plug your ears and yell as loudly as you can that you don't want to hear it and you are so much stronger anyways!!
As to the initial topic of this thread, I personally am as disgusted by the US's actions as I am by the guerillas fighting the war - the tragedy on all sides is painful and the losses tragic and we will be feeling the repurcussions of this unnecessary war for generations.
6th gen and I do mean this respectfully: let's please try avoid/refrain from now on from addressing each other's points - we talk past each other and are just so very far apart in our reasoning and ways of thinking. The analogy to me is like a blind date or meeting at a party - it would take us a total of a couple of minutes before we realized that we had very little in common and would both be looking for excuses to get the hell of out of each other's company. Time is now just too precious. I would rather continue reading the opinions on these threads and not taking the bait (although I know it is unintentional on your part).
Thanks - over and out from me!
Meow
Okay...please be kind to little ol' me, but I have a question. Let's say we (USA) take all our troops home from the Middle East...will the homicidal bombing stop? Or, will the civil war just continue and we can watch from the comfort of our homes? Oh, take Israel and Palestine out of that equation...if that is possible.
Beach Fanatic
I think the answer to that question is that no one really knows for sure. However, I do believe our people are now much more venerable to attack because they are out in the streets/villages/cities more than before. And they are easy targets because, unlike the enemy, they wear uniforms identifying them as US military.
.
How much worse could it get for our people. Not much, I think.
Why not move them out to Kuwait and see what happens? We could always go back in if we were threatened in any way.
The real problem here is that the civilian leadership in the Pentagon has never had a plan and now they are trying to lay the whole strategy at Gen. P's feet. He is, after all a military person who carries out the orders of his commanders in Washington.
Our president has done a huge disservice to our military men and women and to our entire country. The Congress hasn't done any better. I fear our Democracy is truly at a tipping point.
This war was sold to the American citizenry under false pretenses--we invaded a country who had done nothing to us; without a plan; without an understanding of the political situation there; and in the meantime, the people who perpertrated the attacks on 911 and the leader of the that terror goes on with his devious planning.
It is insanity.
.
How much worse could it get for our people. Not much, I think.
Why not move them out to Kuwait and see what happens? We could always go back in if we were threatened in any way.
The real problem here is that the civilian leadership in the Pentagon has never had a plan and now they are trying to lay the whole strategy at Gen. P's feet. He is, after all a military person who carries out the orders of his commanders in Washington.
Our president has done a huge disservice to our military men and women and to our entire country. The Congress hasn't done any better. I fear our Democracy is truly at a tipping point.
This war was sold to the American citizenry under false pretenses--we invaded a country who had done nothing to us; without a plan; without an understanding of the political situation there; and in the meantime, the people who perpertrated the attacks on 911 and the leader of the that terror goes on with his devious planning.
It is insanity.
Beach Fanatic
Miss Kitty, today's edition of the NY Times has several letters to the editor answering your question.....
Meow
Miss Kitty, today's edition of the NY Times has several letters to the editor answering your question.....
Thanks...you are a goodwitch.
Beach Fanatic
Dying for an Iraq That Isn't
___
By Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, May 30, 2007; Page A13
Of all the absurdities attending our unending war in Iraq, the greatest is this: We are fighting to defend that which is not there.
We are fighting for a national government that is not national but sectarian, and has shown no capacity to govern. We are training Iraq's security forces to combat sectarian violence though those forces are thoroughly sectarian and have themselves engaged in large-scale sectarian violence. We are fighting for a nonsectarian, pluralistic Iraq, though whatever nonsectarian and pluralistic institutions existed before our invasion have long since been blasted out of existence. In the December 2005 parliamentary elections, the one nonsectarian party, which ran both Shiite and Sunni candidates, won just 8 percent of the vote.
Every day, George W. Bush asks young Americans to die in defense of an Iraq that has ceased to exist (if it ever did) in the hearts and minds of Iraqis. What Iraqis believe in are sectarian or tribal Iraqs -- a Shiite Iraq, a Sunni Iraq, an autonomous Kurdish Iraqi state, an Iraq where Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani or Moqtada al-Sadr or some other chieftain holds sway.
These are the Iraqs for which Iraqis are willing to kill and die.
Whatever their merits and their shortcomings, they are at least rooted in reality. These Iraqs have adherents and territory. The Iraq for which Bush compels Americans to fight has neither.
One of the mysteries of the current discussion of how best to get out of Iraq is that so many otherwise clear-eyed critics of administration policy say we should withdraw our combat troops but leave units behind to train Iraqi forces. As rational policy, it's vastly preferable to leaving combat forces there as well, but it leaves unanswered the question of which Iraqi forces, exactly, we should train. Those of the current Shiite-dominated Nouri al-Maliki government, which has employed Shiite forces to terrorize Sunni areas? What exactly would we train these forces to do? Be more tolerant of the Sunnis? Would that we could, and would that we could train Sunnis to be more tolerant of the Shiites, but these are matters not subject to training.
When Gen. David Petraeus testifies to Congress in September, he should be asked how many nonsectarian units the Iraqis are fielding, in actions that effectively build a nonsectarian Iraq. If the answer is zero, Congress could declare that it is U.S. policy to bolster Shiite Islam -- or, alternatively, Sunni Islam -- with the force of our arms. Or maybe, just maybe, it could begin mandating the withdrawal of American forces.
It cannot, alas, compel the Bush administration to engage in the wide-ranging diplomacy that could result in a formal partition of Iraq that might be less bloody than the de facto partition currently underway. The president argues that the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq is all that prevents an all-out civil war there. Unless you believe, however, that the U.S. occupation can magically quell or outlast Iraq's sectarian rifts, then an internationally and domestically negotiated partition should be the most urgent task of U.S. statecraft.
Many of my antiwar friends were furious at Democratic congressional leaders last week for their failure to attach withdrawal deadlines to or cut funding from our occupation of Iraq -- a failure chiefly attributable to the simple fact that the votes weren't there for either option. What they should recall, however, is that the much more heavily Democratic Congress that hastened the end of the Vietnam War during Richard Nixon's presidency did so by passing a series of incremental measures, each of which constrained Nixon's warmaking powers a bit more than the last. In succession, Congress banned the use of funds for military actions in Laos and Thailand, then (after Nixon ordered the invasion of Cambodia) banned the use of ground forces in Cambodia. Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, one of the Democrats' foremost doves, three times introduced an amendment that would have ended U.S. involvement in Vietnam within nine months of enactment, but it never passed.
It took the Democrats, and their dovish Republican allies, four full years to pass a cutoff of funds for U.S. ground forces in Vietnam, by which point Nixon had already pulled all ground forces out (though the legislation kept him from putting those forces back in, which was not a mere academic possibility). That hardly means that Mansfield betrayed the cause of peace, any more than Nancy Pelosi's failure to shut down the war last week means that she sold out to the Bush administration. Mansfield put one antiwar bill after another to a vote, winning more and more support each time around, leaving Nixon with fewer and fewer options. Pelosi is steering the same course, for a war even more reckless and absurd than Vietnam.
meyersonh@washpost.com
Print This Article
E-Mail This Article
RSS Feed
More on washingtonpost
___
By Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, May 30, 2007; Page A13
Of all the absurdities attending our unending war in Iraq, the greatest is this: We are fighting to defend that which is not there.
We are fighting for a national government that is not national but sectarian, and has shown no capacity to govern. We are training Iraq's security forces to combat sectarian violence though those forces are thoroughly sectarian and have themselves engaged in large-scale sectarian violence. We are fighting for a nonsectarian, pluralistic Iraq, though whatever nonsectarian and pluralistic institutions existed before our invasion have long since been blasted out of existence. In the December 2005 parliamentary elections, the one nonsectarian party, which ran both Shiite and Sunni candidates, won just 8 percent of the vote.
Every day, George W. Bush asks young Americans to die in defense of an Iraq that has ceased to exist (if it ever did) in the hearts and minds of Iraqis. What Iraqis believe in are sectarian or tribal Iraqs -- a Shiite Iraq, a Sunni Iraq, an autonomous Kurdish Iraqi state, an Iraq where Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani or Moqtada al-Sadr or some other chieftain holds sway.
These are the Iraqs for which Iraqis are willing to kill and die.
Whatever their merits and their shortcomings, they are at least rooted in reality. These Iraqs have adherents and territory. The Iraq for which Bush compels Americans to fight has neither.
One of the mysteries of the current discussion of how best to get out of Iraq is that so many otherwise clear-eyed critics of administration policy say we should withdraw our combat troops but leave units behind to train Iraqi forces. As rational policy, it's vastly preferable to leaving combat forces there as well, but it leaves unanswered the question of which Iraqi forces, exactly, we should train. Those of the current Shiite-dominated Nouri al-Maliki government, which has employed Shiite forces to terrorize Sunni areas? What exactly would we train these forces to do? Be more tolerant of the Sunnis? Would that we could, and would that we could train Sunnis to be more tolerant of the Shiites, but these are matters not subject to training.
When Gen. David Petraeus testifies to Congress in September, he should be asked how many nonsectarian units the Iraqis are fielding, in actions that effectively build a nonsectarian Iraq. If the answer is zero, Congress could declare that it is U.S. policy to bolster Shiite Islam -- or, alternatively, Sunni Islam -- with the force of our arms. Or maybe, just maybe, it could begin mandating the withdrawal of American forces.
It cannot, alas, compel the Bush administration to engage in the wide-ranging diplomacy that could result in a formal partition of Iraq that might be less bloody than the de facto partition currently underway. The president argues that the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq is all that prevents an all-out civil war there. Unless you believe, however, that the U.S. occupation can magically quell or outlast Iraq's sectarian rifts, then an internationally and domestically negotiated partition should be the most urgent task of U.S. statecraft.
Many of my antiwar friends were furious at Democratic congressional leaders last week for their failure to attach withdrawal deadlines to or cut funding from our occupation of Iraq -- a failure chiefly attributable to the simple fact that the votes weren't there for either option. What they should recall, however, is that the much more heavily Democratic Congress that hastened the end of the Vietnam War during Richard Nixon's presidency did so by passing a series of incremental measures, each of which constrained Nixon's warmaking powers a bit more than the last. In succession, Congress banned the use of funds for military actions in Laos and Thailand, then (after Nixon ordered the invasion of Cambodia) banned the use of ground forces in Cambodia. Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, one of the Democrats' foremost doves, three times introduced an amendment that would have ended U.S. involvement in Vietnam within nine months of enactment, but it never passed.
It took the Democrats, and their dovish Republican allies, four full years to pass a cutoff of funds for U.S. ground forces in Vietnam, by which point Nixon had already pulled all ground forces out (though the legislation kept him from putting those forces back in, which was not a mere academic possibility). That hardly means that Mansfield betrayed the cause of peace, any more than Nancy Pelosi's failure to shut down the war last week means that she sold out to the Bush administration. Mansfield put one antiwar bill after another to a vote, winning more and more support each time around, leaving Nixon with fewer and fewer options. Pelosi is steering the same course, for a war even more reckless and absurd than Vietnam.
meyersonh@washpost.com
Print This Article
E-Mail This Article
RSS Feed
More on washingtonpost
Beach Fanatic
I believe in evil, and I believe in absolutes. I believe that targeting innocents and civilians is always wrong. I believe that referring to other ethnicities and ?dogs? and ?pigs? is always wrong, no matter if it is in Tehran or Selma. I believe that certain things are so absolutely wrong, vile, and repugnant, that the answer is not understanding, the answer is swift and severe punishment.
This is the inherent problem with your so-called absolutes, they are shockingly flexible and full of holes.
You believe in evil, but evil only rests the actions and words of others. You believe that targeting civilians is always wrong but you wiggle your way out of agreeing that bombing Hiroshima was wrong. Referring to other ethnicities as ?dogs? or ?pigs? is always wrong yet you refer to the ?savages? in the middle east. You believe in swift and severe punishment for ?evil doers?, yet continue to display no understanding of how dangerous this philosophy is when backed up by such loose definitions of ?evil?; your so-called absolutes can just as easily be used to justify violence against us.
You are good at expressing ideology, very bad at expressing reason.
I suspect the only Absolute that you truly pay homage too is the one that comes in a bottle.
SoWal Expert
30-gAy, you rock!
SoWal Insider
This is the inherent problem with your so-called absolutes, they are shockingly flexible and full of holes.
I suspect the only Absolute that you truly pay homage too is the one that comes in a bottle.
:floor: :rofl: Think a troll could lift that bottle? :funn:
Classic, the best.:clap: I just wet my pants.:lolabove:
Edited
FunnChef - AlisonCooks.com
all I have to say is 30gAy..........................you do rock!!!:clap: :bow:
this thread had become quite boring.:yawn: :sleeping:
Chickpea...don't worry with trying to justify yourself...no need, those of us that know you realize that you have a good grasp of international affairs. And I, for one, value your thoughts and opinions!
this thread had become quite boring.:yawn: :sleeping:
Chickpea...don't worry with trying to justify yourself...no need, those of us that know you realize that you have a good grasp of international affairs. And I, for one, value your thoughts and opinions!
Beach FanaticAuthor
I?m really busy right now, and will respond to you, chickpea, etc. shortly, but first, now that I?ve kindly answered your question with a wrong guess, please tell me what you think a neo-con is. I?m sure jdarg will agree since he suggested I answer you first. 30Gay, what is a neo-con? I?ve listed your reference below.
Also, do you still believe that I?m a paid Republican plant sent to infiltrate the sowal.com message board? I went back and found where you said that, in case you forgot, and I just want to know if you still believe that I?m actually a paid Republican plant sent to sway the opinions of voters in an area that saved this nation from a President Gore after most news outlets had already called Florida for Gore? Not that many here don?t show the self-importance and self-absorbance that thinks that idea has merit, but do you, 30Gay, and does your tin-foil hat wearing ringleader, Mango, still believe what you posted below?
30Gay
Mango
Don?t think I?m changing the subject, just getting back to the one before you left. I?ll address each of your points shortly because I know you and Mango are quite the intellectuals and I look forward to what you will add to the conversation. So to sum up, 30Gay, what is a neo-con? 30Gay and Mango, do you believe I?m a paid GOP plant sent to infiltrate sowal.com?
I do hope he proves himself to be a home grown misguided neo-con nut job
Also, do you still believe that I?m a paid Republican plant sent to infiltrate the sowal.com message board? I went back and found where you said that, in case you forgot, and I just want to know if you still believe that I?m actually a paid Republican plant sent to sway the opinions of voters in an area that saved this nation from a President Gore after most news outlets had already called Florida for Gore? Not that many here don?t show the self-importance and self-absorbance that thinks that idea has merit, but do you, 30Gay, and does your tin-foil hat wearing ringleader, Mango, still believe what you posted below?
30Gay
OMG! Well maybe we should give 6thGen the benefit of the doubt and give him the chance to answer a question only someone actually in Sowal would know.
6thGen- Describe what the owner of Red Bar looks like.
Tick, tock, tick, tock
I get the distinct feeling that someone at the Republican National Headquarters is desperately typing in "Red Bar Owner Description" on the google search bar.....................
Well I can?t honestly say I?m totally pleased, but folks ?It looks like our good friend 6thGen is a hoax.
A paid gun (troll).
I?m crediting Mango with the take down on this one, with Rancid and myself as tag team members.
Y'all have a great weekend. I know I will as I will be laughing my a-dollarsign-dollarsign off over this all weekend.
Mango, Rancid, - high fives all around.
Mango
Still haven't answered the question 6th Troll?
Yes, it's very scary to think someone actually might be paying you to be an a$$hole.
and I'd bet money you post on any blog or message board that is near a miliatry base or that you deem left.
Don?t think I?m changing the subject, just getting back to the one before you left. I?ll address each of your points shortly because I know you and Mango are quite the intellectuals and I look forward to what you will add to the conversation. So to sum up, 30Gay, what is a neo-con? 30Gay and Mango, do you believe I?m a paid GOP plant sent to infiltrate sowal.com?
Beach Fanatic
I believe in evil, and I believe in absolutes. I believe that certain things are so absolutely wrong, vile, and repugnant, that the answer is not understanding, the answer is swift and severe punishment .
This is probably the most succinct you have been in laying out the flawed thinking that got us into this mess.
The world is black and white, good versus evil. Don?t think, don?t understand, just strike out aggressively.
Self evidently, a little cultural understanding would have helped Bush et al. to comprehend the Shia ?Sunni division in Iraq and the potential outcome of his ?swift and severe? (is this also known as shock and awe?) actions.
Meow
Mr. 6th Gen...please stay real busy with whatever it is you do when you are not on this message board. It is my opinion that you need to relax.
Checking your forum account
Please wait while we verify your forum account.