Irritating Things From The 'War on Terror'

[evildave]

Yes, the terrorists angered me *a lot* three years ago. My exact quote when I saw the tower hit was "Lakes of glass.... Drown them [ the people responsible, maybe even the whole Middle East ] in lakes of molten glass!", which wasn't exactly a very peaceful recommendation.

I have in no way forgotten or forgiven them their crimes against humanity, nor the Ba'athists their own seperate crimes. Although this should go without saying, I have to say this because people will claim I'm 'pro-terrorist', 'pro-Saddam' and even 'Hate America' for disagreeing on how things should be done and what things should be done in the name of the 'War Against Terrorism' and in the name of the United States of America, Freedom, Democracy and Peace, and in what order it should be done.

We were supposed to be going to war to round up the terrorists and bring the terrorists (what terrorists weren't killed) to justice. We had virtually the whole world on our side. We had the opportunity to bring about sweeping change. We made a 'sweeping change', all right. Now we have virtually the whole world against us. How did we manage this? Mid-stream from our 'War on Terror', our efforts were deflected to the 'War on Iraq', instead.

From a focus on bringing the Al Qaeda and its leaders, including Usama Bin Laden to justice, and the Taliban leaders for sheltering them, we shifted that focus 90 degrees, out of the blue to bringing the Ba'athists and Saddam Hussein to 'justice' instead.

Iraq was one of the more irritating turns of events for me. It wasn't topped until the torture things came to light, and that was a lot more irritating, and in its own way unforgivable, because it was a betrayal of American values.

One has to ask one's self a few questions about this 'quest for justice'...

What is justice?
Wouldn't having trials and finding innocence and guilt, releasing or sentencing the accused as a result seem like justice? Instead, there is every indication our fearless administration planned to simply keep whatever bodies they rounded up imprisoned indefinitely without a trial, until the supreme court stepped in. Since then, secret military tribunals have begun (only because hearings were MANDATED by the Supreme Court). Many still seem to believe that 'presumed guilt' is the best and safest alternative to sticking to our American ideals.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/11/eveningnews/main525342.shtml
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0316-03.htm
(Not all stories from release are negative...)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/02/08/wguan08.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/02/08/ixportal.html
And the first to be freed as a result of the supreme court decision that trials HAD to be given. It will be interesting to hear from this man. He's an American, so he's probably certain to do the talk show circuit. I wonder if these 'travel arrangements' (a simple airplane flight from Cuba to Florida) will take until after the election?
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/09/tribunal_orders_that_guantanamo_detainee_be_freed/
WASHINGTON -- The US military admitted for the first time yesterday that one of the prisoners whom the Bush administration has held without charges for more than two years at Guantanamo Bay was never an Al Qaeda or Taliban fighter and should be immediately released from the interrogation camp in Cuba.
Before the Supreme Court order, however, the administration had contended that all the detainees were enemy combatants, and had resisted any official recourse for those who claimed to be innocent.

Apparently Saddam Hussein will be publicly tried before any Taliban or Al Qaeda member linked directly with the 9/11 attack. Even those who have been in custody much longer than Saddam Hussein. What does that say about our priorities for 'justice'?

Where are those Al Qaeda links with Iraq?
This was a major tenet in the faith of invasion. Even to this day, Bush/Cheney insist they were.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/18/cheney.iraq.al.qaeda/
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/17/Bush.alqaeda/index.html

Odd, the 9/11 report doesn't support this at all.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch10.htm

Clarke has written that on the evening of September 12, President Bush told him and some of his staff to explore possible Iraqi links to 9/11. "See if Sad-dam did this," Clarke recalls the President telling them. "See if he's linked in any way."60 While he believed the details of Clarke's account to be incorrect, President Bush acknowledged that he might well have spoken to Clarke at some point, asking him about Iraq.61

Responding to a presidential tasking, Clarke's office sent a memo to Rice on September 18, titled "Survey of Intelligence Information on Any Iraq Involvement in the September 11 Attacks." Rice's chief staffer on Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, concurred in its conclusion that only some anecdotal evidence linked Iraq to Al Qaeda. The memo found no "compelling case" that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks. It passed along a few foreign intelligence reports, including the Czech report alleging an April 2001 Prague meeting between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer (discussed in chapter 7) and a Polish report that personnel at the headquarters of Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad were told before September 11 to go on the streets to gauge crowd reaction to an unspecified event. Arguing that the case for links between Iraq and al Qaeda was weak, the memo pointed out that Bin Ladin resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein's regime. Finally, the memo said, there was no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Ladin on unconventional weapons.62

Where are the WMDs?
Iraq was supposed to be making 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'. They were making 'nukes'. They were making chemical weapons. They were making biological weapons. You'd think we'd have found these terrible things. They're still looking for them. I thought we had compelling and obvious evidence of the existence of these weapons. Wouldn't that mean we had a good idea where they were making them and stockpiling them? Time after time, they find one of their 'smoking guns', and time after time, it's turned out to be something else.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4654048/
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/Primetime/iraq_barrels030428.html
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/15/sprj.irq.no.labs/

Sure, there's a lot of Iraq to hide WMDs in. But so far (9/9/04) the only chemical weapon they found was a UXO leftover from a previous war (that turned out not to be chemical at all), some old mustard gas, and a small quantity of radioactive waste that was undisturbed in its UN sealed storage facility, that was transported to the US.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108390,00.html
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20040708_1410.html

Where's that 'People Shredder'?
Apparently, right next to the babies Iraq was accused of dumping out of incubators in Kuwait for the first Iraq war. Pure propaganda. You'd think that a gore-encrusted industrial plastic shredder would be sort of conspicuous in a torture chamber. I wonder what brand of 'fish food' the output was sold under?

The quote seems to come from a "Liberation Update" press release that the White House releases weekly, which always contains the same list of quotes. The three following press release links (dozens carry the same content) all quote the same 'anti-war' man: "Kennth Joseph"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030423-11.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031111-5.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/liberation.html

Apparently, not one frame of the video that "shocked" Kenneth Joseph into 'changing his mind' has ever been released. Odd.
http://www.counterpunch.org/lipton04122003.html

They claim you can't find his former 'anti-war' editorials because they're in 'Japanese'. You'd think that someone who speaks Japanese would have tracked those down for us poor ignorant Westerners and gotten a translation of them for us in all this time. The Japanese do have internet news posts, search engines, and all the same information technology that we do.
http://assyrianchristians.com/about_ken_joseph.htm

Japan Times even has an English front-end on their web site.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/

Let's see what a search for 'Kenneth Joseph' yields...

Search Results:

You searched for "Kenneth Joseph" (case insensitive)
Unfortunately, we found no matching articles.


Not a match on the site for the author's name? Odd, but not conclusive. You'd think the columnist's name would appear somewhere... but maybe his weren't the sorts of columns they bothered to translate... or even his name as a columnist for that matter. Literate, Japanese speaking westerners tend to be a relatively rare in Japan.

Here's the UK half of the 'People Shredder' story.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/analysis/story/0,3604,1155399,00.html
Clwyd insists that corroboration of the shredder story came when she was shown a dossier by a reporter from Fox TV. On June 18, Clwyd wrote a second article for the Times, citing a "record book" from Abu Ghraib, which described one of the methods of execution as "mincing". Can she say who compiled this book? "No, I can't." Where is it now? "I don't know." What was the name of the Fox reporter who showed it to her? "I have no idea." Did Clwyd read the entire thing? "No, it was in Arabic! I only saw it briefly." Curiously, there is no mention of the book or of "mincing" as a method of execution on the Fox News website, nor does its foreign editor recall it.

Where does the Focus on finding Bin Laden rest?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010916-2.html

Q Mr. President, do you believe Osama bin Laden's denial that he had anything to do with this?
THE PRESIDENT: No question he is the prime suspect. No question about that.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-3.html

Q Do you want bin Laden dead?
THE PRESIDENT: I want justice. There's an old poster out west, as I recall, that said, "Wanted: Dead or Alive."
Q Do you see this being long-term? You were saying it's long-term, do you see an end, at all?
THE PRESIDENT: I think that this is a long-term battle, war. There will be battles. But this is long-term. After all, our mission is not just Osama bin Laden, the al Qaeda organization. Our mission is to battle terrorism and to join with freedom loving people.
We are putting together a coalition that is a coalition dedicated to declaring to the world we will do what it takes to find the terrorists, to rout them out and to hold them accountable. And the United States is proud to lead the coalition.
Q Are you saying you want him dead or alive, sir? Can I interpret --
THE PRESIDENT: I just remember, all I'm doing is remembering when I was a kid I remember that they used to put out there in the old west, a wanted poster. It said: "Wanted, Dead or Alive." All I want and America wants him brought to justice. That's what we want.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.


http://www.naplesnews.com/npdn/perspective/article/0,2071,NPDN_14966_3166264,00.html

"We don't have any information about bin Laden," Pakistan Information Minister Shaikh Rashid Ahmed told reporters this week.

If so, it's not for lack of trying. Beginning last spring, an offensive by U.S. Marines and Afghan fighters squeezed remote mountain areas where intelligence reports pointed to conclaves of enemy fighters.

Simultaneously, top State Department officials — including Secretary of State Colin Powell and his No. 2, Richard Armitage — have personally visited the most senior Pakistani leaders, escalating the pressure on those officials who U.S. leaders believe can do much more to find America's most-wanted man. Last week, it was State's chief counterterror official, Cofer Black, who traveled to Islamabad with that urgent message.

With 70,000 soldiers deployed to the tribal border areas, Pakistan has managed in recent months to snag bin Laden's former bodyguard, as well as his ex-cook. Its biggest success was the arrest last month, in cities far from that region, of several mid-level al Qaeda operatives and the seizure of computers that significantly expanded knowledge of the inner workings of the amorphous terrorist network.

But so far, bin Laden remains elusive, and the $25 million U.S. bounty on his head is collecting nothing but interest.

Meanwhile, as they have since 9/11, rumors about bin Laden — that he is dead, about to be captured, already in custody, about to trigger a new attack — are swirling in the information void.

One of the most pervasive is the Internet-fueled speculation that the White House has bin Laden stashed away in custody somewhere, waiting to produce him at the time most advantageous for President Bush's re-election campaign.

Another is that bin Laden will resurface for Saturday's Sept. 11 anniversary, this time signaling via video- or audiotape to fellow conspirators that the time has come to launch new attacks to disrupt or influence America's presidential election in November.

On the campaign trail, Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have tried to inoculate themselves against criticism that bin Laden remains on the lam.

What About The Ba'athists?
But it was much more important to prosecute a war with Iraq, who by all accounts didn't have anything to do with those attacks, instead of track the very last cowering jerk responsible for the attrocities out of whatever hole he was hiding in and make an example of him.

So it seems that instead of prosecuting the war on terrorism, we've given the terrorists at large breathing room, and brought about chaos in a rich new territory for them to infiltrate, now that we've chased all the security people out of Iraq who knew how to track down troublemakers, because, well they were Ba'athist. 400,000 trained military, police, secret police, etc. all laid off at once for being 'tainted' in this way, and you wonder where the insurgents get their recruits? Never mind that in every other totalitarian regime, people who aren't in the 'official' party can't hold down government or management jobs. Here's a group of 400,000 people, 99.99% of whom were just regular troops, officers and job holders, who could have been on our side, that we essentially disenfranchised and condemned to exile or 'McJobs' or worse for the rest of their lives due to a purely politically motivated purge by U.S. forces. Their position will not improve *UNLESS* the Ba'athist regime is restored, so obviously these people have a much stronger motivation to be insurgents than if there had merely been a regime change. Instead of being given an opportunity to renounce their former affiliation, they were branded and fired or run out of the country. Not smart. A general amnesty (with specific exceptions) should have been offered from the very beginning.

Apparently, we're not even replacing them with people any better suited for a position of protection and responsibility.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1293581,00.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200408/s1186047.htm

And then (of course) Why Torture?
Apologia Pro Tormento: Analyzing the First 56 Pages of the Walker Working Group Report (aka the Torture Memo)
http://www.discourse.net/archives/2004/06/apologia_pro_tormento_analyzing_the_first_56_pages _of_the_walker_working_group_report_aka_the_tortur e_memo.html

Other places to find the torture memo
http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/torture/30603wgrpt.html
http://www.isthatlegal.org/mil_torture.pdf

Human Rights Watch comments on torture documents
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/06/07/usdom8778.htm

More Bush Documents on Interrogation
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62516-2004Jun22.html

Report from detainees released from Guantanamo bay - similar to Abu Ghraib.
http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/report.asp?ObjID=4bUT8M23lk&Content=424

Less Coercive Techniques Yield Better Intelligence
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/07/international/middleeast/07detain.html
In May, a number of physically and psychologically coercive practices used by interrogators to break down suspected Iraqi insurgents were prohibited, following reports of widespread abuse at Abu Ghraib. Among those techniques banned by American commanders were sleep deprivation, hooding, stripping and the use of dogs to frighten detainees.

[materia3]

There is a major WMD in Afghanistan ... a true bioweapon or bioterror weapon: its called the opium poppy. It is the perfect weapon against western civilization since its requires its victims to pay the narco-terrorists for the privilege of zombifying themselves.

I grant you that Iraq does not cultivate this weapon but why didn't our armies which invaded Afghanistan not take this out when they had the chance?

[evildave]

Probably because that would have disturbed the local economy and angered the various warlords we were busy propping up for their support, who got most of their money from having those cash crops raised, instead of food.

You know, a bit like going into Columbia and telling the drug lords that if they support our efforts to overthrow their local government (yet again), we'll won't interfere in their business.

[materia3]

Since when did an invasion force ever care about the local economy? This economy was and still is indeed based on narco-dollars but as we have since learned aLQueda gets a % of the 2.3 billion in Afghan heroin money. It doesn't take a mathematical genius to figure out that in all the money we are spending, there could easily have included a % of the $2 billion while we burned the poppy crops to the ground and made sure this alQueda income source was terminated. We gave $43 million to the Taliban not 8 months before 9-11 ///to shut down the poppy trade. We should have given it to the farmers and warlords.

addicts are supporting the local Afghan economy by continuing to allow ourselves, well some of us, to be addicted to heroin and we are supporting alQueda as well. Its the latter which is the main problem. More in Bush and Kerry and the Heroin Trade.

Bush's "wisdom" in allowing the opium trade to flourish has to be seriously questionned.

[Ladewig]

I agree that justice has not been served by the U.S.'s multi-billion dollar international operations. The only thing I would add is the illegal activites related to the secret prisoners held in Abu Ghraib and other prisons.

Contrary to Army Doctrine, and in violation of international law
Associated Press
September 3, 2004

WASHINGTON - The latest Army investigation into the Abu Ghraib scandal is raising new questions about whether the CIA, operating outside military rules, contributed to the breakdown of military discipline at the prison.

[snip]
The arrangements to hold "ghost detainees" were made between local CIA officers and military officials at the prison, the investigation found. Army investigators said they located information on eight "ghost detainees" held at Abu Ghraib, but said there may have been more.

In one case, military guards at the prison moved a group of detainees around the prison to hide them from a visiting Red Cross delegation, according to the report of U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, who conducted a separate investigation into the prison's military police unit. He described the actions as "deceptive, contrary to Army Doctrine, and in violation of international law."

[evildave]

Yeah, I sort of ran out of steam before exploring every little irk. ;) An important addition, none the less.

[corplinx]

There are three pivotal events that contribute to the modern international terrorist movement.

The first event was the rise of fundamnentalist islamic revival in the early 1900s. This brand of islam had explicit theocratic aims and sought to displace the cosmopolitan brand of islam that was in most mideast countries. This led to the founding of Al-Ikwan the muslim brotherhood.

The second event, well, lets just say "then came Israel". I don't think I need to expand here too much.

The third big pivotal thing was the cornholing of Lebanon. Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and other groups gained state sponsorship at this point. Tom Clancy wrote a really good summary of Lebanon in his non-fiction book shadow warriors.

Now, it took an expatriate Saudi intentional targetting America to draw america out of a frankly almost isolationist mentality regarding terrorism.

Does that annoy you? The terrorist world is larger than Osama. Its complex. It consists of old grudges and ruthless people. There are no easy answers. I get into discussions with friends (knowledgeable ones) about the impact of events in Lebanon over two decades ago and how to deal with the effects now.

I don't expect many people to "get it". Bush portays the war on terror in sound bites and easy to grasp short goals. This leads smarter dissidents like yourself to think that the war on terror is in itself shallow and mindless. However, the war on terror is actually so complex that it cannot be reasonably parsed into edible bits as is the style in american politics.

Do some reading Dave, maybe try shadow warriors like I mentioned. Its not specifically about the war on terror but it covers the evolution of US special forces which evolved at the same time as the modern terror movement. As such, many of its topics are tangential and you will see how we have already dealth with these threats in the past and lessons we've learned.

[evildave]

In general when things are claimed to be "too subtle" and "complicated", it's because they're utter B.S.

You know, I have read things. Maybe that's the problem. I've done a lot of reading. What I have read is not encouraging.

Another problem is, I have direct experience with people from other countries. I was deployed in Saudi Arabia in the 1980s to watch over the war between Iran/Iraq. I lived on Okinawa for a couple of years and met Koreans and Phillipinos in their own countries. It's why I can't see people in the Middle East, or Japan, or Europe, or other places as anything besides human beings exactly like me, with families and personal goals, and bills to pay and things to do. Just like families everywhere.

Yeah, so they have a different 'religion' from me. Everybody else does, too.

Yeah, so they dress different from me. Everybody else does, too.

Yeah, they do indeed think about many things differently from me as well. Everybody else does, too.

In common, most people everywhere just want to live out their lives in a predictable world where rational long-term plans can come to fruition, and children grow up to have a life a little easier than they had for themselves. This is pretty much universal.

So, when I see civilian casualies, it is highly disturbing to me. They aren't numbers. They are human beings who are being maimed and killed. Our men and women, their men, women and children. I don't see a difference between one human and another.

When I see that people are being tortured for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and that their human rights are being trampled by my own government, I can't help wonder when it will be our turn next, as citizens of this same government, for the same treatment. Especially when arrest and search warrants and even trials are made 'secret'. Very disturbing.

Sure the people who made these laws claim they would never be abused. They also claimed 'income tax' would never be applied to anyone who isn't rich, so congratulations, everybody must be rich, now.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by corplinx
There are three pivotal events that contribute to the modern international terrorist movement.

The first event was the rise of fundamnentalist islamic revival in the early 1900s. This brand of islam had explicit theocratic aims and sought to displace the cosmopolitan brand of islam that was in most mideast countries. This led to the founding of Al-Ikwan the muslim brotherhood.

The second event, well, lets just say "then came Israel". I don't think I need to expand here too much.

The third big pivotal thing was the cornholing of Lebanon. Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and other groups gained state sponsorship at this point. Tom Clancy wrote a really good summary of Lebanon in his non-fiction book shadow warriors.

Now, it took an expatriate Saudi intentional targetting America to draw america out of a frankly almost isolationist mentality regarding terrorism.

Does that annoy you? The terrorist world is larger than Osama. Its complex. It consists of old grudges and ruthless people. There are no easy answers. I get into discussions with friends (knowledgeable ones) about the impact of events in Lebanon over two decades ago and how to deal with the effects now.

I don't expect many people to "get it". Bush portays the war on terror in sound bites and easy to grasp short goals. This leads smarter dissidents like yourself to think that the war on terror is in itself shallow and mindless. However, the war on terror is actually so complex that it cannot be reasonably parsed into edible bits as is the style in american politics.

Do some reading Dave, maybe try shadow warriors like I mentioned. Its not specifically about the war on terror but it covers the evolution of US special forces which evolved at the same time as the modern terror movement. As such, many of its topics are tangential and you will see how we have already dealth with these threats in the past and lessons we've learned.


I do realize that there are a number of intertwined factors that make the situation difficult. I also realize that there are a number of things that the U.S. government is doing to prevent terrorism in the U.S. For instance, the FBI does a lot of undercover work to prevent powerful weapons from being sold inside the U.S.

Furthermore, I can understand why Cheney initially approved of unorthodox interrogation methods to be used in the field in Afghanistan. I cannot, however, understand how anyone involved in the Iraq conflict could imagine that anything useful could come out of the techniques used in the very prison that Saddam used in torturing people. Especially when some of the people in the prison turned out to not be related to any terrorist activities and were released.

The U.S. has done some things right. The U.S. has also made some very grave mistakes.

[materia3]

The U.S. has done some things right. The U.S. has also made some very grave mistakes.

Yes, like not cutting off their source of funding: Afghani heroin
which continues to be grown unabated, unchallenged and sold worldwide but mostly in Britiain while politicians, including
Kharzai himself yesterday, pay it lip service saying they are working on it. While they have been working on it hundreds of children and adults have died in Russia, car bombs in Iraq continue to kill our own children (=troops) .... all bought and paid for by drug money and Bush won't even bring the subject up.
Nor would Kerry. Are they that afraid of the mafia, the afghani farmers and their war lord protectors?

[evildave]

Unfortunately, 'cutting' that funding would certainly cause an insurrection every bit as nasty as in Iraq against their puppet leaders.

Lots of militiamen who are 'on our side' also get *their* funding from poppies.

Realistically, the 9/11 attacks were funded with credit cards, not drug money. The terrorists came to America, got day jobs, established lines of credit and bought their airplane lessons and airline tickets with credit. Once they were established here, they effectively cost Al Qaeda nothing at all. Yeah, so the interest rate is 19% after the first year's introductory rate runs out? Bill it to Allah.

[banquetbear]

...just wanted to add-brilliantly researched OP evildave :p

[evildave]

Thanks. The links just sort of accumulate. Once you know a quote or a piece of information exists, google turns the links back up readily enough.

[evildave]

Another annoying little thing about televison in general....
http://www.punchbaby.com/media/gitfakt/clips/TV/IraqNewsReport.wmv

Pesky subtitles....

[fishbob]

Irritating Things From The 'War on Terror'

Over the years the US Government has run other major "War On" campaigns. War on Poverty, War on Drugs. Both have cost huge amounts of money, and neither has worked. We still have lots of poor people, we still have lots of drug use. So now we have an expensive, and so far ineffective, War on Terror. Can you see where this one is going?

I am not claiming that there are armies of poor people or drug peddlers out there, but the term "War" implies 2 opposing sides in an armed conflict. When we declare "War", we automatically create an Other Side for anyone that is not with us. We can create an organized enemy where only disorganized problems previously existed.

I am not convinced that a well organized, international police action might have been more effective than a "War" in controlling terrorist activities. Bringing criminals to justice is even supported by Islamic Fundamentalist governments. A criminal investigation makes it difficult to justify harboring criminals, whereas a crusade makes it easy to justify fundamentalism.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by fishbob
I am not convinced that a well organized, international police action might have been more effective than a "War" in controlling terrorist activities.

But by saying "War", you get patriotic fervor and lots of support and parades and veterans giving speeches and all that jazz to cloud the issue and draw attention away from the fact that you don't really know what you're doing. Ditto with the War on Drugs--you don't want to encourage people to support the enemy by questioning Our Side? Do you?

Whereas, a "police action" sounds wimpy and boring, and raises the question "Are we really the cops?"

[fishbob]

IMO "War on Terror" assumes the public is stupid. Attempting to round up the criminals assumes the public wants results.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by fishbob
IMO "War on Terror" assumes the public is stupid. Attempting to round up the criminals assumes the public wants results.

I kind of think the public is stupid.

[fishbob]

Well, maybe we (you and me is the public after all) are stupid, but do we want to be treated as if we are stupid?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by fishbob
Well, maybe we (you and me is the public after all) are stupid, but do we want to be treated as if we are stupid?

Gimme bread and circuses, and I'll be quiet.

[Tex]

I agree with your sentiment, evildave.

My initial reaction was akin to the "lakes of glass" idea, and I've since backed down from that, but it would have at least been a more relevant response than invading Iraq. More of a "We will retaliate harshly for any terrorist acts" statement, as opposed to a "We will use terrorist acts as a pretext to invade and pillage the Middle East in an unrelated profit war" type statement.

[evildave]

Then (of course) these stories keep popping up.

US troops face new torture claims
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1304042,00.html

Bush team 'knew of abuse' at Guantánamo
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1303105,00.html

REALLY annoying.

[gnome]

Originally posted by fishbob
Irritating Things From The 'War on Terror'
I am not convinced that a well organized, international police action might have been more effective than a "War" in controlling terrorist activities. Bringing criminals to justice is even supported by Islamic Fundamentalist governments. A criminal investigation makes it difficult to justify harboring criminals, whereas a crusade makes it easy to justify fundamentalism.

GREAT comment! :bowl:

[Dorian Gray]

did you mean to say 'not unconvinced'? But yeah, great commment.

[evildave]

Yup. But look at all the civil liberties and freedoms the government can snatch away from its own gullible citizens:

In the name of W.O.D. they took away the right to be secure in your possessions. They went and took people's homes and cleaned them out without so much as a trial.

For the W.O.T. now the government can just slap a 'terrorist' label on you, and you don't get a trial before they take away your freedom, perhaps even your life.

And then the 'secret' searches the 'Patriot Act' made legal and proper, without so much as a Judge's signature.

The government couldn't all of THAT legally without some sort of 'war' to convince the moronic public that it's 'OK' to piss away all their freedoms and constitutional rights "for the war".

You couldn't call something a 'Patriot Act' without a war. It would have to be called something like the "Screw America Act", and would be a LOT less popular.

[merphie]

Originally posted by evildave
Yup. But look at all the civil liberties and freedoms the government can snatch away from its own gullible citizens:

In the name of W.O.D. they took away the right to be secure in your possessions. They went and took people's homes and cleaned them out without so much as a trial.

For the W.O.T. now the government can just slap a 'terrorist' label on you, and you don't get a trial before they take away your freedom, perhaps even your life.

And then the 'secret' searches the 'Patriot Act' made legal and proper, without so much as a Judge's signature.

The government couldn't all of THAT legally without some sort of 'war' to convince the moronic public that it's 'OK' to piss away all their freedoms and constitutional rights "for the war".

You couldn't call something a 'Patriot Act' without a war. It would have to be called something like the "Screw America Act", and would be a LOT less popular.

Even though you and never seem to again, Just for the record I have never said you were pro-terrorirst. I do believe you unjustly blame one person for the problems in the USA.

I don't believe you can use news stories for a source on anything. The media is biased. Futhermore, I find it funny how you will argue against the patriot act but you will argue for "Gun control". How selective of you. So it's ok for you to speak out, but not ok for me to keep my guns?

[evildave]

Originally posted by merphie


I don't believe you can use news stories for a source on anything. The media is biased. Futhermore, I find it funny how you will argue against the patriot act but you will argue for "Gun control". How selective of you. So it's ok for you to speak out, but not ok for me to keep my guns?

What shall we use if not news reports? Psychic powers? Precisely how is the whole MEDIA biased?

Where did I argue *for* gun control? Citation, please.

You certainly are leaping to some odd conclusions.

[merphie]

Originally posted by evildave
What shall we use if not news reports? Psychic powers? Precisely how is the whole MEDIA biased?

Where did I argue *for* gun control? Citation, please.

You certainly are leaping to some odd conclusions.

How are they bias? That's funny. Here is one way. Source (http://www.hillsdale.edu/newimprimis/default.htm) If you can't see how biased they are then you are blind.

You can use psychic powers if you wish. You could also request information from the government under the "Freedom of infomation Act".

I was sure I saw you somewhere arguing for gun control. I could be mistaken. Since they lost my account I can't go back that far in post.

If I had you pegged wrong, I appologize.

[evildave]

Originally posted by merphie
How are they bias? That's funny. Here is one way. Source (http://www.hillsdale.edu/newimprimis/default.htm) If you can't see how biased they are then you are blind.

You can use psychic powers if you wish. You could also request information from the government under the "Freedom of infomation Act".

I was sure I saw you somewhere arguing for gun control. I could be mistaken. Since they lost my account I can't go back that far in post.

If I had you pegged wrong, I appologize.

OK, you've shown one article by one man about how elements of the media are biased against guns. This topic is not about guns.

Here is a more interesting link to an article about GENERAL media bias: http://slate.msn.com/id/2078200/

For 'war bias' as a for instance, Ted Turner calls Rupert Murdoch a 'Warmonger'. http://pages.zdnet.com/trimb/id81.html

You should note that some of the more damning citations in the opening post are from the White House's own web site.

Naturally a 'Freedom of Information Act' citation on my part would take the better part of a year to complete, and if I posted the result, you would merely claim it was fabricated, and if I told you to submit your own 'Freedom of Information Act' request, then you would not bother because it would take YOU a year to get it completed, and you'd just claim "inaccessible evidence". No, for the time being, links from major and relatively respected news organizations will have to do. I am forced to rely on records already made public, usually by reporters who have filed a 'Freedom of Information Act' for me, or gotten someone on the inside to fax some papers out.

Believe me, there are plenty of anti-war hits on web sites and sources that I don't bother to cite because they have an obvious bias.

Here's a better organization to cite about what may be biased or not: http://www.fair.org/whats-fair.html

As for my 'argument for gun control', I usually use vehicle deaths as an example of a benchmark for something that should be 'banned' before guns are. I usually use the CDC's mortality data for this.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/

Unintentional
MV Traffic 42,443
Firearm 802
(The 'accidental' figures speak for themselves, and if you go for children 'accidentally' killed, it's less than 40 versus thousands.)

Intentional
Homicide Firearm 11,348

Suicide Firearm 16,869
(Suicide doesn't really count in my opinion; if you don't have a gun to shoot yourself, there's always rope to hang yourself.)

It also has a new category this year: 'Terrorism' (from the 2001 data). It compellingly shows that cars kill and injure WAY more people than terrorists do, which also shows where the relative threat of 'terrorists' stands compared to your daily routine.

2001, United States
Overall Motor Vehicle Deaths 43,987

2001, United States
Terrorism Deaths 2,926

2001, United States
Adverse effects - Drugs 277

So, as you can see, the 'War on Terror' and the 'War on Drugs' and even firearms are relatively small things (as measured in annual deaths caused by them), compared to what people driving vehicles unsafely do every day.

So, you'll find that I'm very anti-car, (in a tongue in cheek sort of way). Seriously anti-scary drivers, though.

[merphie]

Originally posted by evildave
OK, you've shown one article by one man about how elements of the media are biased against guns. This topic is not about guns.

You should note that some of the more damning citations in the opening post are from the White House's own web site.

Naturally a 'Freedom of Information Act' citation on my part would take the better part of a year to complete, and if I posted the result, you would merely claim it was fabricated, and if I told you to submit your own 'Freedom of Information Act' request, then you would not bother because it would take YOU a year to get it completed, and you'd just claim "inaccessible evidence". No, for the time being, links from major and relatively respected news organizations will have to do. I am forced to rely on records already made public, usually by reporters who have filed a 'Freedom of Information Act' for me, or gotten someone on the inside to fax some papers out.

Believe me, there are plenty of anti-war hits on web sites and sources that I don't bother to cite because they have an obvious bias.

Here's a better organization to cite about what may be biased or not: http://www.fair.org/whats-fair.html

Well, as I said. If i am wrong about you being Anti-Gun then I retract my statement. I think you and I disagreed on Bush/Kerry more than anything. Since they account got lost last week, I haven't been able to review my previous post. I am sorry for the assumption. I don't compare cars to guns anymore because people attack it too much. Now I just present the truth in statistics. No one has been able to prove me wrong. They attack other minor things.

I assume you are talking about the prison abuses. I found the links to the whitehouse interesting. However the one commision report on the detainee also said that the president ordered differently. The failure was pinned in mid management who didn't even tell the high level people what was going on.

Yes the article I cited was about guns. It still goes to show there is a bias opinion in the media. If they are bias on one topic then who is to say that they won't "forget" other details?

Lately if you read the news you get a negative opinion about Bush. They might as well be campaigning for Kerry. I have seen some examples of this in my Local News channel when they do a "Letters home" story. Letters from the troups seems to give a different opinion on Iraq. When searching in Google almost all the stories on good things in Iraq are from foreign media. CBS is obviously a mouth piece for the Kerry Campaign. To me CBS has not clout.

I can watch two different news channels here and get two different sides of a story. They cherry pick their facts.

Interesting, you know what I would do in the future. What else does that crystal ball tell you?

[evildave]

Oh, so you (and up to 284,000,000 others) should perform a parallel 'Freedom Of Information Act' lawsuit in parallel whenever a point of contention comes up?

No, I am too lazy, and you are probably too lazy as well, as are the grand majority of the other 284,000,000 others.

The 'crystal ball' is an observation of human nature, and if everyone depended solely on 'Freedom Of Information Act' lawsuits for their news about what our ever more secretive government is doing, we would have a court system with a 10,000 year backlog preventing any one of us from getting that information in a timely manner.

[merphie]

Originally posted by evildave
Oh, so you (and up to 284,000,000 others) should perform a parallel 'Freedom Of Information Act' lawsuit in parallel whenever a point of contention comes up?

No, I am too lazy, and you are probably too lazy as well, as are the grand majority of the other 284,000,000 others.

The 'crystal ball' is an observation of human nature, and if everyone depended solely on 'Freedom Of Information Act' lawsuits for their news about what our ever more secretive government is doing, we would have a court system with a 10,000 year backlog preventing any one of us from getting that information in a timely manner.

Of course I am not suggesting everyone should do it. But it would be nice from time to time to have someone do it just too check the accuracy of the news media. A check and balance, if you will.

If I depended on the Media for everything I would have a drastically different view of the world.

[evildave]

Originally posted by merphie
Of course I am not suggesting everyone should do it. But it would be nice from time to time to have someone do it just too check the accuracy of the news media. A check and balance, if you will.

If I depended on the Media for everything I would have a drastically different view of the world.

But what to check them against? I usually don't grab the first link I find. Nope. I compare it. Get corroborating data. Go find the source of the quote, if it's convenient.

You're talking to someone who actually does research his rantings a bit.

[merphie]

Originally posted by evildave
But what to check them against? I usually don't grab the first link I find. Nope. I compare it. Get corroborating data. Go find the source of the quote, if it's convenient.

You're talking to someone who actually does research his rantings a bit.

That's good to hear. I have my doubts. I think you should focus more on how our government works because it isn't all the president's fault. Congress has a heavy hand in it too. Which makes Kerry responsible.

[evildave]

The president has those 'executive orders', and can in fact launch an attack on a country without congressional approval.

He is the commander in chief of the military. What the military screws up lands on his desk. Especially when the administration went to all the trouble to GET congress to 'approve' his little war.

They all get voted out. The president, who ASKED for the war and LIED to get it through congress, gets the major share of the blame. Unless lying is "OK"?

Clinton lies about a B.J., and they want to impeach him. Dubya lies about Iraq in front of Congress, starts a whole WAR, kills over 1,000 of our troops and over ten thousand Iraqi civilians alone, and he's a "hero".

[merphie]

Originally posted by evildave
The president has those 'executive orders', and can in fact launch an attack on a country without congressional approval.

He is the commander in chief of the military. What the military screws up lands on his desk. Especially when the administration went to all the trouble to GET congress to 'approve' his little war.

They all get voted out. The president, who ASKED for the war and LIED to get it through congress, gets the major share of the blame. Unless lying is "OK"?

Clinton lies about a B.J., and they want to impeach him. Dubya lies about Iraq in front of Congress, starts a whole WAR, kills over 1,000 of our troops and over ten thousand Iraqi civilians alone, and he's a "hero".

Strawman. He didn't use an executive order. So there is no argument. Your investigative report you posted on another thread on the prison abuse said that higher command was not made aware of the problems.

Bush didn't lie about anything. The president had the wrong information from the CIA. Not his fault.

All you have is wild accusations and opinions. There's not one shred of fact in any of your post. Well, ok you were right about Clinton and the BJ. Information YOU posted states the opposite of your ranting.

Again, you are allowing your baseless hatred of one man get in the way of reasoning.

[fishbob]

Bush didn't lie about anything. The president had the wrong information from the CIA. Not his fault.

Not his fault my left buttock.

Intelligence info was filtered through a 'special intel' office set up by the Bush administration to cherry pick data that would help scare the US into approving the Bush invasion of Iraq.

The president, and his close advisors, selected questionable information and ignored the analysis of that information.

[merphie]

Originally posted by fishbob
Not his fault my left buttock.

Intelligence info was filtered through a 'special intel' office set up by the Bush administration to cherry pick data that would help scare the US into approving the Bush invasion of Iraq.

The president, and his close advisors, selected questionable information and ignored the analysis of that information.

Was it? Can you back up your claim?

[fishbob]

Was it?
Been discussed here. Several times.

Bush didn't lie about anything???? Can you back up your claim? What a doofus comment that is.

We are sitting thousands of miles apart, discussing a complex and intensely media spun subject. I can only point at Net articles, I can't show anybody any real evidence. But I can call BS when I see it.

[merphie]

Originally posted by fishbob
Been discussed here. Several times.

Bush didn't lie about anything???? Can you back up your claim? What a doofus comment that is.

We are sitting thousands of miles apart, discussing a complex and intensely media spun subject. I can only point at Net articles, I can't show anybody any real evidence. But I can call BS when I see it.

That's just it. Everyone is claiming they know one side or the other. Frankly it depends on which news agency you watch.

The other idea is I constantly hear the same thing over and over even when they are debunked. If someone is clinging to some idea then they must have proof of it. As skeptics, surely no one is holding to some idea that is not supported by any measureable facts.

You are moving the goal post. I never said Bush didn't lie about anything. Did Kerry ever tell a lie?

You suggest that Bush set up some special committee because he wanted to go to war with Iraq. I say there is no evidence of it. What stories are you using as your basis? Where do you get your information? Is it just opinion to fuel your hatred of one man?

[evildave]

As a fun exercise, find a balanced/unbiased source that shows that the president truly was misinformed. All I hear from you is "No he's not!" and "Uh-uh!", and not one effort to do the research to prove he was "misinformed" by bad CIA intel. Doing internet searches and sifting through the results, and doing additional searches to find the root source is a useful skill that more people should exercise.

And yes, we're certain to make fun of a 'Rush Limbaugh' sort of links, so it's not as simple as it seems up front.

For instance, it's a fairly trivial matter to get the CIA's version of events, such as this one:

Google search:
site:www.cia.gov Iraq Bush War

Iraq's WMD Programs: Culling Hard Facts from Soft Myths
http://www.cia.gov/nic/articles_iraq_wmd.htm
Strategic Choices, Intelligence Challenges
http://www.cia.gov/nic/speeches_choices_challenges.htm
A very useful link to your own points, if you would bother to read them.

Possibilities of War
("Changing Nature of Warfare" A Conference in Support of Global Trends 2020)
http://www.cia.gov/nic/PDF_GIF_2020_Support/2004_05_25_papers/possibilities.doc
It is difficult to imagine a strategic setback in Iraq that could match the intensity or duration of the Vietnam War's aftermath. Yet, in scarcely a decade, the U.S. position in Asia had nearly completely recovered. The last two decades have been something of a golden age for American power in Asia-Pacific region. It is difficult to imagine the U.S. retaining its influence or recovering its prestige so quickly in the Middle East should we suffer a similar strategic fate in Iraq.

Of course, the best misdirection comes from sources like the 'People Shredder' story, where the president doesn't say it. It's just 'quoted' repeatedly on the white house web site as if it's true. Very deniable. It's interesting that the guy in the story who 'formerly wrote anti-war columns' for the Japan Times and claims they're 'In Japanese' on his own web site doesn't show up in searches of the Japan Times, which is an English Language paper, BTW. And the UK source of the same story who claims the evidence was 'in Arabic', so she couldn't read it for herself. Stunning. Plausibly deniable, too. "The Administration never said that!" is technically true. They just sort of put it out on the web site and let the media sources who don't critically evaluate anything run with it. This is an example of something I actually went through and thoroughly researched. I went to the Japan Times site. I tracked down who said it. It turns out to be utter B.S. but it makes for good propaganda.

[merphie]

Originally posted by evildave
As a fun exercise, find a balanced/unbiased source that shows that the president truly was misinformed. All I hear from you is "No he's not!" and "Uh-uh!", and not one effort to do the research to prove he was "misinformed" by bad CIA intel. Doing internet searches and sifting through the results, and doing additional searches to find the root source is a useful skill that more people should exercise.

And yes, we're certain to make fun of a 'Rush Limbaugh' sort of links, so it's not as simple as it seems up front.

For instance, it's a fairly trivial matter to get the CIA's version of events, such as this one:

Google search:
site:www.cia.gov Iraq Bush War

Iraq's WMD Programs: Culling Hard Facts from Soft Myths
http://www.cia.gov/nic/articles_iraq_wmd.htm
Strategic Choices, Intelligence Challenges
http://www.cia.gov/nic/speeches_choices_challenges.htm
A very useful link to your own points, if you would bother to read them.

Possibilities of War
("Changing Nature of Warfare" A Conference in Support of Global Trends 2020)
http://www.cia.gov/nic/PDF_GIF_2020_Support/2004_05_25_papers/possibilities.doc


Of course, the best misdirection comes from sources like the 'People Shredder' story, where the president doesn't say it. It's just 'quoted' repeatedly on the white house web site as if it's true. Very deniable. It's interesting that the guy in the story who 'formerly wrote anti-war columns' for the Japan Times and claims they're 'In Japanese' on his own web site doesn't show up in searches of the Japan Times, which is an English Language paper, BTW. And the UK source of the same story who claims the evidence was 'in Arabic', so she couldn't read it for herself. Stunning. Plausibly deniable, too. "The Administration never said that!" is technically true. They just sort of put it out on the web site and let the media sources who don't critically evaluate anything run with it. This is an example of something I actually went through and thoroughly researched. I went to the Japan Times site. I tracked down who said it. It turns out to be utter B.S. but it makes for good propaganda.

You make the same argument no matter what proof is provided. I find it pointless to waste my time doing research when you will simply ignore it anyway. When someone questions my opinion I do research on it. I just don't always post all sources.

Most of my points I have gotten from documentation that YOU provided. Places where you read the first paragraph and got enough to support your own pet theory. When you read the rest of the article you find that it doesn't really support your position. As in the Inteligence report stating the problems in Iraq will get worse. It clearly says the analysis is based on prewar information. What can it possibly tell us? It supports your opinion and so you ignore the reality.

It is pointless to debate with you on this subject because you hate Bush and you're determined to show that it's justified.

[fishbob]

09-17-2004 05:49 AM
Bush didn't lie about anything.

09-17-2004 09:24 AM
I never said Bush didn't lie about anything.

What a maroon.

clock readings are Alaska standard time

[evildave]

Originally posted by merphie
You make the same argument no matter what proof is provided. I find it pointless to waste my time doing research when you will simply ignore it anyway. When someone questions my opinion I do research on it. I just don't always post all sources.

Most of my points I have gotten from documentation that YOU provided. Places where you read the first paragraph and got enough to support your own pet theory. When you read the rest of the article you find that it doesn't really support your position. As in the Inteligence report stating the problems in Iraq will get worse. It clearly says the analysis is based on prewar information. What can it possibly tell us? It supports your opinion and so you ignore the reality.

It is pointless to debate with you on this subject because you hate Bush and you're determined to show that it's justified.

Who's the one making claims about 'what I would do' now? Especially given something convenient like a web link to click on.

If you simply copy the web pages from that web address bar at the top of your browser, and paste it into your post (it takes less than one second), you will have shown where you picked up your sources, and I do follow links. Point, click, ctrl-C, (alt-Tab or ctrl-Tab according to where the link was), point, click, ctrl-V. Try it.


My, there's that word, 'hate' again. Are you familiar with what 'ad hominem' means, and that you're committing that fallacy in your arguments repeatedly here, and in other topics?

'You only disagree with me because you hate Bush!'

Not a stunning argument, not an effective argument, and repeated blindly. How can you 'argue' with someone's mantra? "You hate Bush!" "You hate Bush!" "You hate Bush!"

How about arguing the topic at hand? Civility, evidence, research and a little intellectual honesty go a long way.

[merphie]

Originally posted by evildave
Who's the one making claims about 'what I would do' now? Especially given something convenient like a web link to click on.

My, there's that word, 'hate' again. Are you familiar with what 'ad hominem' means, and that you're committing that fallacy in your arguments repeatedly here, and in other topics?

'You only disagree with me because you hate Bush!'

Not a stunning argument, not an effective argument, and repeated blindly. How can you 'argue' with someone's mantra? "You hate Bush!" "You hate Bush!" "You hate Bush!"

How about arguing the topic at hand? Civility, evidence, research and a little intellectual honesty go a long way.

I do a lot of reading and don't always copy and paste my links. Sometimes in debate I have to go find the articles again. What is the probelm?

I am familar with Ad Hominem, but It doesn't apply because the statement is true. You have repeated the same argument time and time again even when your statement was proven to be false with your very own evidence.

It may not be the best of arguments but it is fact. How can you 'argue' with someone's idealism when they refuse any contrary evidence?

I have debated the topci at hand and it is pointless because you refuse any evidence that doesn't support your theory. I might as well debate the pope on the existence of Jesus.

[evildave]

Of course it's 'pointless', since you keep repeating unsupported claims in the same manner and get shot down in the same manner. If you're not going to come up with a new point to make, I see no reason to shoot it down in any different way.

I'm sure the fact that someone who's German and had a nazi parent or grandparent would also be technically "true", and would bear repeating in every post addressed to them? Hmmm?

[merphie]

Originally posted by evildave
Of course it's 'pointless', since you keep repeating unsupported claims in the same manner and get shot down in the same manner. If you're not going to come up with a new point to make, I see no reason to shoot it down in any different way.

I'm sure the fact that someone who's German and had a nazi parent or grandparent would also be technically "true", and would bear repeating in every post addressed to them? Hmmm?

The point is that you have made the same three points that have no merit. You claim that Bush is responsible for the prison scandel, Bush is responsible for going to war on lies, and a bunch of other claims that you blame on the president.

This has been going on in several threads. Most of those claims have been show false by your own sources. You blame everything on Bush because you hate him and want Kerry in office instead. Or I guess you want to take the chance on Kerry.

I have shown in your own sources where your claims were false. You ignore them and later say that I made the unsupported claim. This is not a debate. This is turned into nothing but name calling and Ad Hominem.

[epepke]

Originally posted by evildave
Yes, the terrorists angered me *a lot* three years ago. My exact quote when I saw the tower hit was "Lakes of glass.... Drown them [ the people responsible, maybe even the whole Middle East ] in lakes of molten glass!", which wasn't exactly a very peaceful recommendation.

Interesting.

My reaction was not at all like that. I was horrified and saddened, but not angry. When I heard via my then-girlfriend that Zell Miller wanted to carpet-bomb, I thought it barbaric. What I wanted to do was gather some IT volunteers to go to New York. I was only partially successful, two of us showed up (I got the other guy a place to crash with a childhood friend) but he was called back early. Another childhood friend saw people leaping from the Twin Towers.

I thought (in retrospect naively) that this could be handled as a criminal matter, as was the first TT bombing. I remembered how the OK city bombing was first assumed to be the work of Muslim terrorists. I remember discussing this with a friend who had taken me to an Afghan restaurant.

While I was there, practically everywhere there were posters saying "Our grief is not a call for war." This at a time when attacking Afghanistan wasn't yet really even in the offing. It comforted me to see this attitude. It wasn't until I left NYC that I started to realize the level of anger, ironically but not surprisingly by people who had been less affected.

I have been puzzled by the virulence since then, the relefxive accusations of racism, etc.

Perhaps what you wrote provides a clue. Perhaps it's a form of self-exorcism, a kind of projection to shout down what one dislikes in oneself.

[evildave]

Originally posted by merphie
The point is that you have made the same three points that have no merit. You claim that Bush is responsible for the prison scandel, Bush is responsible for going to war on lies, and a bunch of other claims that you blame on the president.

This has been going on in several threads. Most of those claims have been show false by your own sources. You blame everything on Bush because you hate him and want Kerry in office instead. Or I guess you want to take the chance on Kerry.

I have shown in your own sources where your claims were false. You ignore them and later say that I made the unsupported claim. This is not a debate. This is turned into nothing but name calling and Ad Hominem.

As far as I've been able to tell, you just say "No it doesn't" and let it stand at that.

Of course, you'll only say what you do because you love Dubya so much. Cute little dimples and all. ;)

[merphie]

Originally posted by evildave
As far as I've been able to tell, you just say "No it doesn't" and let it stand at that.

Of course, you'll only say what you do because you love Dubya so much. Cute little dimples and all. ;)

As far as I have seen you read the first paragraph and say "Yes it does" I didn't have to list sources because I used the ones you posted.

Then you have the speculation of Halliburton deals and such when I have found nothing of the such in the articles I have read.

Love? Yeah that's it. I've said many times I don't like Kerry or Bush, but I dislike Kerry more.

If it was love, it could never be. You know Bush doesn't support gay marriage, so our love could never be realized. :( Do you think he would change his mind if I profess my undying devotion? You could be the best man!

[evildave]

9-11 Commision Cost: $15,000,000.00
http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/faq.htm#q5

Starr Investigation Cost: $52,000,000.00
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/ai00283r.pdf

----------------------

Originally posted by epepke
Interesting.

My reaction was not at all like that. I was horrified and saddened, but not angry. When I heard via my then-girlfriend that Zell Miller wanted to carpet-bomb, I thought it barbaric. What I wanted to do was gather some IT volunteers to go to New York. I was only partially successful, two of us showed up (I got the other guy a place to crash with a childhood friend) but he was called back early. Another childhood friend saw people leaping from the Twin Towers.

I thought (in retrospect naively) that this could be handled as a criminal matter, as was the first TT bombing. I remembered how the OK city bombing was first assumed to be the work of Muslim terrorists. I remember discussing this with a friend who had taken me to an Afghan restaurant.

While I was there, practically everywhere there were posters saying "Our grief is not a call for war." This at a time when attacking Afghanistan wasn't yet really even in the offing. It comforted me to see this attitude. It wasn't until I left NYC that I started to realize the level of anger, ironically but not surprisingly by people who had been less affected.

I have been puzzled by the virulence since then, the relefxive accusations of racism, etc.

Perhaps what you wrote provides a clue. Perhaps it's a form of self-exorcism, a kind of projection to shout down what one dislikes in oneself.

Let's just say hearing one's self call for total genocide can cool you off quickly if you're the least bit introspective.

Something like a different perspective comes out.

[evildave]

Originally posted by merphie
As far as I have seen you read the first paragraph and say "Yes it does" I didn't have to list sources because I used the ones you posted.

Then you have the speculation of Halliburton deals and such when I have found nothing of the such in the articles I have read.

Love? Yeah that's it. I've said many times I don't like Kerry or Bush, but I dislike Kerry more.

If it was love, it could never be. You know Bush doesn't support gay marriage, so our love could never be realized. :( Do you think he would change his mind if I profess my undying devotion? You could be the best man!

So you profess that the truth is you "dislike Kerry more". I merely mistrust Bush more. He has established the track record. He (and his minions) got the ball rolling on Iraq. That's plenty of reason to mistrust Dubya. The torture. The shady Halliburton dealings. All icing, really. He's a smug little liar who will stare at you with those chipmonk eyes and commit people to death.

I don't think you could pry Dubya away from his cutie wife. Not without chocolates, anyway.

----


Enough derailment. This is a thread about "Irritating Things from the 'War on Terror'", not about who will win November's popularity contest. That's for the election sub-forum.

Another irritating point: Postponing decisions on a matter critical to the survival of our nation until "After the Election", because it would be just too 'unpopular' to recall deploy extra troops or whatever. If any of this is happening, or operations are being delayed, it's tantamount to treason to put petty political considerations like re-election ahead of operational ones.

[merphie]

Originally posted by evildave
So you profess that the truth is you "dislike Kerry more". I merely mistrust Bush more. He has established the track record. He (and his minions) got the ball rolling on Iraq. That's plenty of reason to mistrust Dubya. The torture. The shady Halliburton dealings. All icing, really. He's a smug little liar who will stare at you with those chipmonk eyes and commit people to death.

Sure I dislike Lurch. Just like you dislike Bush. The problem is your facts are not completely true. Lurch voted for the war too. He got it started just as much as Bush.

Again, your claims of torture is unwarranted. The Halliburton deal was note shady.

Lurch can't make up his mind and just says the opposite of Bush.

I don't think you could pry Dubya away from his cutie wife. Not without chocolates, anyway.

That's just Ad Hominem.

Enough derailment. This is a thread about "Irritating Things from the 'War on Terror'", not about who will win November's popularity contest. That's for the election sub-forum.

Another irritating point: Postponing decisions on a matter critical to the survival of our nation until "After the Election", because it would be just too 'unpopular' to recall deploy extra troops or whatever. If any of this is happening, or operations are being delayed, it's tantamount to treason to put petty political considerations like re-election ahead of operational ones.

Ok, back to the topic. Bush is trying to get changes through congress to make needed changes.

[Dorian Gray]

I have debated the topci at hand and it is pointless because you refuse any evidence that doesn't support your theory. I might as well debate the pope on the existence of Jesus. He refuses any evidence that doesn't support YOUR theory.

Lurch voted for the war too. He got it started just as much as Bush. No, Kerry voted to AUTHORIZE the president to take military action IF IT BECAME NECESSARY. He, and most of the world, didn't feel it was necessary - but Bush did.

Ok, back to the topic. Bush is trying to get changes through congress to make needed changes. Bush has been president for nearly four years with his own party in control of every branch of government. 1) Why would he need to TRY to get changes through? Are his policies so horrendous that his own people won't pass them?
2) Why is he campaigning on promises about what he WILL do or what is GOING to happen? What, he couldn't have done any of this in the FIRST four years?

[evildave]

Sure I dislike Lurch. Just like you dislike Bush. The problem is your facts are not completely true. Lurch voted for the war too. He got it started just as much as Bush.

Again, your claims of torture is unwarranted. The Halliburton deal was note shady.

Lurch can't make up his mind and just says the opposite of Bush.

Once again, your answer is "no it's not" and "no it's not", and provide no support for your assertions.

Try demonstrating what a good job Halliburton is doing, and why my claims that torture has occurred are 'unwarranted'. Torture did occur. The administration put people into that situation. Case closed.

Rose colored glasses, all the way.


merphie: Love? Yeah that's it. I've said many times I don't like Kerry or Bush, but I dislike Kerry more.

If it was love, it could never be. You know Bush doesn't support gay marriage, so our love could never be realized. Do you think he would change his mind if I profess my undying devotion? You could be the best man!

evildave: I don't think you could pry Dubya away from his cutie wife. Not without chocolates, anyway.

merphie: That's just Ad Hominem.

How so?

[merphie]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
He refuses any evidence that doesn't support YOUR theory.

No, Kerry voted to AUTHORIZE the president to take military action IF IT BECAME NECESSARY. He, and most of the world, didn't feel it was necessary - but Bush did.

Bush has been president for nearly four years with his own party in control of every branch of government. 1) Why would he need to TRY to get changes through? Are his policies so horrendous that his own people won't pass them?
2) Why is he campaigning on promises about what he WILL do or what is GOING to happen? What, he couldn't have done any of this in the FIRST four years?

I have not refused any evidence that doesn't support my claim. Most of the world didn't? That's a big claim.

So Kerry handed Bush a blank check and bears no responsibility.

[merphie]

double Post

[Chaos]

Originally posted by merphie
I have not refused any evidence that doesn't support my claim. Most of the world didn't? That's a big claim.
*snip*

If you take a look at the will of the people, not the governments, you´ll see that, except in the US and maybe Kuwait and Israel, the majority of the people (I´m talking about 70-90 percent in most cases) were against the war in Iraq because the Bush administration had NOT shown it to be necessary.

[merphie]

Originally posted by evildave
Once again, your answer is "no it's not" and "no it's not", and provide no support for your assertions.

Same as you.

Try demonstrating what a good job Halliburton is doing, and why my claims that torture has occurred are 'unwarranted'. Torture did occur. The administration put people into that situation. Case closed.

So we are moving the goal post? Now it's about how good a job they are doing? I didn't say the claims of torture has occured were wrong. I said that the fault doesn't fall on Bush.

Rose colored glasses, all the way.

Better than blinders. That last quote I must have read out of context. I thought you were talking about something else.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Chaos
If you take a look at the will of the people, not the governments, you´ll see that, except in the US and maybe Kuwait and Israel, the majority of the people (I´m talking about 70-90 percent in most cases) were against the war in Iraq because the Bush administration had NOT shown it to be necessary.

They were justified when making their case to the UN. Now that new information has surfaced that has changed.

[evildave]

The UN never thought the present war was justifiable.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=421&sID=7
10 March, 2003 (A week before the war)
Q: Mr. Secretary-General, you said that an attack on Iraq without a second Council resolution would not be legitimate. Would you consider it as a breach of the UN Charter?

SG: I think that under today's world order, the Charter is very clear on circumstances under which force can be used. I think the discussion going on in the Council is to ensure that the Security Council, which is master of its own deliberations, is able to pronounce itself on what happens. If the US and others were to go outside the Council and take military action it would not be in conformity with the Charter.

Now he says it ouright: It was illegal.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661976.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3664234.stm

Dubya's response
http://news.inq7.net/world/index.php?index=1&story_id=11719
But the president pointedly noted the unanimous passage in November 2002 of UN Security Council resolution 1441, which warned Saddam he faced "serious consequences" if he were found to be seeking weapons of mass destruction.

Resolution 1441 (http://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/1409173.html)

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.


The way I read that, it would be "serious consequences", as yet to be determined by the UN from various previous 'warnings'. Not to be decided unilaterally by the US when the president gets a chubby for dropping bombs and launching missiles. No "serious consequences" were decided, only recalled/reminded.

In other words, the US violated the charter. Only a fool (or the administration) would think otherwise.

Then the US went in and now at least 12,778 civilians are dead because of our actions, and Military casualties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_in_the_U.S.-led_invasion_and_occupation_of_Iraq#Iraqi_military _casualties) go from 4,895 to 124,000, because the DOD refuses to provide official assessments for a body count. If you think the lower counts of military dead are more accurate, then our forces have definitely killed more civilians than military. I'll go with Tommy Franks' estimate of 30,000 military, even though he says "We don't do body counts." Just to give them the benefit of the doubt, hoping we really didn't slaughter more civilians than military.

[materia3]

Originally posted by Chaos
If you take a look at the will of the people, not the governments, you´ll see that, except in the US and maybe Kuwait and Israel, the majority of the people (I´m talking about 70-90 percent in most cases) were against the war in Iraq because the Bush administration had NOT shown it to be necessary.

Iran and the people of Kurdistan enjoyed it also, probably a lot more than any average American or Israeli on the street.

[evildave]

Come to think of it, a lot of other people must 'hate' Bush, too. The Red Cross, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch all have negative stories about American Conduct in our latest series of wars.

I don't know, but when such organizations take time to 'hate' you, or at least deplore your actions, the odds favor that you're doing wrong.

The International Red Cross

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/0/C82A7582AE20DCD1C1256D34004AEA41/$File/George+Aldrich_3_final.pdf?OpenElement
The Taliban, al Qaeda, and the Determination of Illegal Combatants
I find it quite difficult to understand the reasons for President
Bush’s decision that all Taliban soldiers lack entitlement to
POW status. The White House Press Secretary gave the fol-lowing,
cryptic explanation of that decision:
“Under Article 4 of the Geneva Convention, however, Taliban
detainees are not entitled to POW status. To qualify as POWs
under Article 4, al Qaeda and Taliban detainees would have
to have satisfied four conditions: they would have to be part
of a military hierarchy; they would have to have worn uni-forms
or other distinctive signs visible at a distance; they
would have to have carried arms openly; and they would
have to have conducted their military operations in accord-ance
with the laws and customs of war. The Taliban have
not effectively distinguished themselves from the civilian
population of Afghanistan. Moreover, they have not con-ducted
their operations in accordance with the laws and
customs of war. Instead, they have knowingly adopted and
provided support to the unlawful terrorist objectives of the al
Qaeda.�6
Without a doubt the most difficult element to defend of the
decisions made by President Bush in February with respect
to the status of prisoners taken in Afghanistan is the blanket,
all-encompassing nature of the decision to deny POW sta-tus
to the Taliban prisoners. By one, sweeping determina-tion,
President Bush determined that not a single Taliban
soldier, presumably not even the army commander, could
qualify for POW status under the Geneva Convention.
While decisions by armed forces in the past doubtless
included some decisions about army units or other groups
as a whole, one cannot help but question the all-encom-passing
nature of this one. Can it possibly exclude any
doubt? Moreover, can it legitimately preclude any contest
by an individual prisoner?


http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList124/42BCD4D3BEB459ABC1256E51003EAF49
"War" doesn't justify Guantanamo

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/detention_testimonies_040713?OpenDocument&style=Custo_Final.3&View=defaultBody3
Prisoner Interviews


Amnesty International[/b[

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engmde140172004
[b]Iraq: Torture not isolated -- independent investigations vital
"The latest evidence of torture and ill-treatment emerging from Abu Ghraib prison will exacerbate an already fragile situation. The prison was notorious under Saddam Hussein -- it should not be allowed to become so again. Iraq has lived under the shadow of torture for far too long. The Coalition leadership must send a clear signal that torture will not be tolerated under any circumstances and that the Iraqi people can now live free of such brutal and degrading practices," Amnesty International said.

"There must be a fully independent, impartial and public investigation into all allegations of torture. Nothing less will suffice. If Iraq is to have a sustainable and peaceful future, human rights must be a central component of the way forward. The message must be sent loud and clear that those who abuse human rights will be held accountable.

http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGMDE140472004
Iraq: Urgent inquiry needed into civilian killings by US troops
"There are worrying reports about the mounting casualties amongst civilians who find themselves caught in the battle between American troops and insurgents," said Abdel Salam Sidahmed, Director of the Middle East and North Africa Program in Amnesty International. "It is time to ask questions about whether these casualties could have been avoided, and whether needless deaths could be prevented in the future."

Human Rights Watch
A lovely detailed summary on the torture scandal. It seems HRW agrees with me. They must REALLY 'hate' Bush.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/usa0604/

[merphie]

Originally posted by evildave
The UN never thought the present war was justifiable.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=421&sID=7
10 March, 2003 (A week before the war)

Now he says it ouright: It was illegal.


Of course he says it's illegal. Just in time for November.

They also said

War must always be a last resort - arrived at only if and when every reasonable avenue of achieving Iraq's disarmament by peaceful means has been exhausted. The United Nations - founded to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war - has a duty to search till the very end for the peaceful resolution of conflicts.

I think that 10 years of sanctions was a last resort.

Dubya's response

The way I read that, it would be "serious consequences", as yet to be determined by the UN from various previous 'warnings'. Not to be decided unilaterally by the US when the president gets a chubby for dropping bombs and launching missiles. No "serious consequences" were decided, only recalled/reminded.

In other words, the US violated the charter. Only a fool (or the administration) would think otherwise.

So what is serious consequences? More sanctions? More idle threats? There was no clear definition of what "serious Consequences" was. However I think the resolution passed by congress and approved by Lurch cleary shows the intent.

“...the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself"

Then the US went in and now at least 12,778 civilians are dead because of our actions, and Military casualties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_in_the_U.S.-led_invasion_and_occupation_of_Iraq#Iraqi_military _casualties) go from 4,895 to 124,000, because the DOD refuses to provide official assessments for a body count. If you think the lower counts of military dead are more accurate, then our forces have definitely killed more civilians than military. I'll go with Tommy Franks' estimate of 30,000 military, even though he says "We don't do body counts." Just to give them the benefit of the doubt, hoping we really didn't slaughter more civilians than military.

Give me one war were civilians were not killed. It is a tragic but it is an unavoidable consequence of war. How many of those civilians were actually combatants? They are conducting a guerilla war and the civilians may not be obvious.

What about the years of military sanctions? How many did that shove in the grave? What about Saddam? How many people did he bury? Lets clear this matter up.

"Any doubts on this score were cleared up by James Rubin, Kerry’s chief national security adviser and State Department press spokesman during the Clinton administration. For years, Rubin defended economic sanctions that have been blamed for the deaths of half a million Iraqi children, and justified repeated air strikes on the devastated county. Last Saturday, he told the Washington Post that had Kerry been president, “in all probability� he would have ordered an invasion of Iraq by now."
Source (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/aug2004/kerr-a12.shtml)


What is this? Could this be a flip-flop by Lurch? What is also suprising is that the constitution is very clear that only congress can declare war. With the resolution that they passed, Lurch and every other senator who voted for it gave the president the authority to do what ever he wanted. That was clear. No, what ifs. That is fact. If they were concerned what he might do with such authority they should have never given it.

Don't kid yourself. Lurch has completely flip flopped on this and now complains on how the war is being done. He sayd he would actually send more troups in. You should keep up with your party's propaganda.

[merphie]

Originally posted by evildave
Come to think of it, a lot of other people must 'hate' Bush, too. The Red Cross, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch all have negative stories about American Conduct in our latest series of wars.

I don't know, but when such organizations take time to 'hate' you, or at least deplore your actions, the odds favor that you're doing wrong.

The International Red Cross

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/0/C82A7582AE20DCD1C1256D34004AEA41/$File/George+Aldrich_3_final.pdf?OpenElement
The Taliban, al Qaeda, and the Determination of Illegal Combatants

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList124/42BCD4D3BEB459ABC1256E51003EAF49
"War" doesn't justify Guantanamo

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/detention_testimonies_040713?OpenDocument&style=Custo_Final.3&View=defaultBody3
Prisoner Interviews

Amnesty International[/b[

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engmde140172004
[b]Iraq: Torture not isolated -- independent investigations vital

http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGMDE140472004
Iraq: Urgent inquiry needed into civilian killings by US troops

Human Rights Watch
A lovely detailed summary on the torture scandal. It seems HRW agrees with me. They must REALLY 'hate' Bush.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/usa0604/

What is your point?

Even Bush said that the people didn't qualify but they should be treated as if they were. Where do you see hate? It looked like "concerned". YOUR hatred has clouded the issue. Bush did not condone the torture and even condemned it. Furthermore, the people who did these crimes are being delt with.

I don't think their actions were needed in most of the cases, but I won't discount interrogation. That is an absolute need.

[fishbob]

Give me one war were civilians were not killed. It is a tragic but it is an unavoidable consequence of war. How many of those civilians were actually combatants? They are conducting a guerilla war and the civilians may not be obvious. So, it is OK to kill civilians because there is a possibility that they might secretly not be civilians. BS.

BS. BS. BS.

Read what you wrote. Think about what the world would be like if what you are proposing were adopted by civilized nations.

[merphie]

Originally posted by fishbob
So, it is OK to kill civilians because there is a possibility that they might secretly not be civilians. BS.

BS. BS. BS.

Read what you wrote. Think about what the world would be like if what you are proposing were adopted by civilized nations.

No you read what I wrote.

Give me one war were civilians were not killed. It is a tragic but it is an unavoidable consequence of war. How many of those civilians were actually combatants? They are conducting a guerilla war and the civilians may not be obvious.

Where did I say it was ok?

[fishbob]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
09-17-2004 05:49 AM
Bush didn't lie about anything.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
09-17-2004 09:24 AM
I never said Bush didn't lie about anything.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Give me one war were civilians were not killed. It is a tragic but it is an unavoidable consequence of war. Right there, above the little gray line. You are OK with the war, war gets civilians killed. Therefore, one can conclude from your statements that you don't mind civilian casualties. And hey, maybe some of the dead ones were bad people, so that must be even better.

Although your previous statements make my brain hurt. Mabye I should not try to conclude anything about your position.

[Tesserat]

Originally posted by merphie

If I depended on the Media for everything I would have a drastically different view of the world.

Where do you find your information? How do you keep up with current affairs?

[merphie]

Originally posted by fishbob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
09-17-2004 05:49 AM
Bush didn't lie about anything.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
09-17-2004 09:24 AM
I never said Bush didn't lie about anything.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Right there, above the little gray line. You are OK with the war, war gets civilians killed. Therefore, one can conclude from your statements that you don't mind civilian casualties. And hey, maybe some of the dead ones were bad people, so that must be even better.

Although your previous statements make my brain hurt. Mabye I should not try to conclude anything about your position.

I will overlook the fact that all of the comments are out of context. You assume all you want to. This is nothing more than a personal attack.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Tesserat
Where do you find your information? How do you keep up with current affairs?

I generally watch the local news, read CNN.COM, Read MSNBC.COM, and I have a subscription to Newsweek, Scientific American, Discovery, and Skeptical Inquirer. I also watch the History Channel and the Discovery channels. Sometimes I research things online to get more depth.

To explain more of my comment ealier: There was almost all negative stories on when I watched the local news this morning. Almost all of the positive stories were related to sports. There was one story talking about the destruction the hurricane caused recently (Negative) and then a short spot telling that Oklahoma is sending supplies and volunteers to help (positive).

Watching the news alone, I would get a very negative impression of events around me.

[evildave]

The press LOVES Targetting civilians and civilian installations in Iraq:
http://www.fair.org/activism/iraqi-tv.html

Bush Team Knew of Abuse
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1303106,00.html
Evidence of prisoner abuse and possible war crimes at Guantánamo Bay reached the highest levels of the Bush administration as early as autumn 2002, but Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, chose to do nothing about it, according to a new investigation published exclusively in the Guardian today.
Ms Rice saw the document by autumn of the same year, and called a high-level meeting at which she asked Mr Rumsfeld, to deal with the problem.

But after he vowed to act, "the Pentagon went into a full-court stall", a former White House official is quoted as saying. "Why didn't Condi do more? She made the same mistake I made. She got the secretary of defence to say he's going to take care of it."

The investigation further suggests that CIA and FBI staff had already witnessed incidents at Guantánamo just as extreme as those that would subsequently be alleged by freed inmates.

A senior intelligence official told Hersh: "I was told [by FBI agents] that the military guards were slapping prisoners, stripping them, pouring cold water over them and making them stand until they got hypothermia."

Prison scandal is outsourcing gone wrong
http://www.registerguard.com/news/2004/09/19/b1.ed.col.iraqcontracts.0919.html
Moreover, while two U.S. Army reports issued last month explored the question of military command responsibility, no one has demanded accountability from the corporate chain of command that played an incontrovertible part in the abuses at Abu Ghraib. Members of the 372nd Military Police Company are facing prosecution for dereliction of duty and the mistreatment of prisoners, but none of the contractors implicated in similar offenses have yet faced that sort of scrutiny.

Sixteen of the 44 incidents of abuse the Army's latest reports say happened at Abu Ghraib involved private contractors outside the domain of both the U.S. military and the U.S. government. Army investigators have reported that six employees of private contractors were involved in incidents of abuse, but potentially more may have been involved in other crimes in Iraq and elsewhere.

A fun one
http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/nav_includes/story.cfm?storyID=94530
In an angry rebuttal, Erwa said the U.S. Congress of believing "it is the only conscience of the world, and indeed that they have the divine right to decide on the destinies of peoples."

But, he added, millions of people see "the shortcomings and the faults" of the United States including the killings of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq and the infliction of "torture on prisoners and innocent people in prisons in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo."

[merphie]

Originally posted by evildave
The press LOVES Targetting civilians and civilian installations in Iraq:
http://www.fair.org/activism/iraqi-tv.html


Nothing new here. Your one sided opinion. It also says they can be attacked if they have military value. The US military has been doing this for a while. Including where they bombed the Serbia TV station during the glory Clinton Years.


Bush Team Knew of Abuse
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1303106,00.html

I couldn't access this link, but I found the store somewhere else. Your posted out of context sentences that support your view.

In a statement, the Pentagon said Hersh's investigation "apparently contains many of the numerous unsubstantiated allegations and inaccuracies which he has made in the past based upon unnamed sources ... Thus far ... investigations have determined that no responsible official of the Department of Defence approved any programme that could conceivably have authorised or condoned the abuses seen at Abu Ghraib. If any of Mr Hersh's anonymous sources wish to come forward and offer evidence to the contrary, the department welcomes them to do so."

Prison scandal is outsourcing gone wrong
http://www.registerguard.com/news/2004/09/19/b1.ed.col.iraqcontracts.0919.html

Couldn't access this one either. What is your point?

A fun one
http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/nav_includes/story.cfm?storyID=94530

This link actually worked. You quoted completely out of context. This story has to do with the security council trying to figure out what needs to be done about the killings in the Sudan. The quote was from a Sudan representative because he didn't like the resolution.

A resolution passed by 11 members of the security council. He only targeted the USA in his comments.

[evildave]

All the links work when I click on them. Perhaps they're blocked on your end?

[evildave]

Republicans Criticize Bush 'Mistakes' on Iraq
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6273279
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Leading members of President Bush's Republican Party on Sunday criticized mistakes and "incompetence" in his Iraq policy and called for an urgent ground offensive to retake insurgent sanctuaries.

In appearances on news talk shows, Republican senators also urged Bush to be more open with the American public after the disclosure of a classified CIA report that gave a gloomy outlook for Iraq and raised the possibility of civil war.

"The fact is, we're in deep trouble in Iraq ... and I think we're going to have to look at some recalibration of policy," Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

It ain't just "the left" who are criticizing.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by evildave
Republicans Criticize Bush 'Mistakes' on Iraq
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6273279


It ain't just "the left" who are criticizing.

Do you support these criticisms?

[merphie]

Originally posted by evildave
All the links work when I click on them. Perhaps they're blocked on your end?

I don't think so. I've looked at stories in the past. Maybe it's something with Cox? It's not my computer.

[evildave]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Do you support these criticisms?

Sure, why not?

Once you start a war, you FINISH IT. You don't take a break for re-election and campaigning, and leave it simmering on the back-burner consuming lives to keep it out of sight of the voters.

When the Bush administration started the war, they accepted responsibility for the war, or at least SHOULD HAVE. They can't claim the "good things" without taking responsibility for the "bad things". You don't get to brush aside the little things like casualties (on both sides), disasters like the 'insurgency' (or to but a less delicate name on it, FLOOD OF TERRORISTS) it spawned. When your own side tortures people and violates human rights, you don't get a free pass for that, either.

Except from the sort of people who'd give him positive marks for stomping puppy heads. "Hey, look at the way the brains popped on that one! Good job Mr. President!"

[evildave]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak20.html
Quick exit from Iraq is likely
Inside the Bush administration policymaking apparatus, there is strong feeling that U.S. troops must leave Iraq next year. This determination is not predicated on success in implanting Iraqi democracy and internal stability. Rather, the officials are saying: Ready or not, here we go.

This prospective policy is based on Iraq's national elections in late January, but not predicated on ending the insurgency or reaching a national political settlement. Getting out of Iraq would end the neoconservative dream of building democracy in the Arab world. The United States would be content having saved the world from Saddam Hussein's quest for weapons of mass destruction.

Oh, look! Dubya might just pull out of Iraq, too.
"Hey, we bombed your cities, slaughtered your people and opened the flood gates for terrorism into your nation, and gutted your military and police forces, and left just about everything broken. Good bye! Don't worry, we'll come back and bomb you some more if we don't like the way things are going!"

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by evildave
Sure, why not?

Once you start a war, you FINISH IT. You don't take a break for re-election and campaigning, and leave it simmering on the back-burner consuming lives to keep it out of sight of the voters.


Hey, you and I agree on something.

Which candidate do you think is more likely to do that? I also wonder at Bush's commitment to Iraq, but would Kerry do better?

[merphie]

Originally posted by evildave
http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak20.html
Quick exit from Iraq is likely


Oh, look! Dubya might just pull out of Iraq, too.
"Hey, we bombed your cities, slaughtered your people and opened the flood gates for terrorism into your nation, and gutted your military and police forces, and left just about everything broken. Good bye! Don't worry, we'll come back and bomb you some more if we don't like the way things are going!"

Look! Evildave is taking someone's opinion as fact again! I have a distinct feeling of De ja' vue!

[evildave]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Hey, you and I agree on something.

Which candidate do you think is more likely to do that? I also wonder at Bush's commitment to Iraq, but would Kerry do better?

It's hard to say. I think both are looking for a quick way out.

As I may have said before, Dubya might deserve a second term to be held responsible for his actions. After all, the right-wingers will just blame Kerry for all hell breaking loose if/after he gets elected.

[merphie]

Originally posted by evildave
It's hard to say. I think both are looking for a quick way out.

As I may have said before, Dubya might deserve a second term to be held responsible for his actions. After all, the right-wingers will just blame Kerry for all hell breaking loose if/after he gets elected.

I can't believe my eyes!

:jaw:

[evildave]

What, you don't think the politicians would blame opponents for their own failures? I suppose such a thing might be unprecedented in history.

[merphie]

Originally posted by evildave
What, you don't think the politicians would blame opponents for their own failures? I suppose such a thing might be unprecedented in history.

I was surprise to hear such words from you! Who are you and what did you do with Dave?

I just think you should apply this idea to other people than Bush.

[dsm]

Originally posted by evildave

One has to ask one's self a few questions about this 'quest for justice'...


Do you have anything on the people WITHIN the US who have been detained under the Patriot Act as possible terrorists??

I attended a meeting where an attorney (or maybe she was a law professor) talked about the many people she's been called upon to help because they were locked up without access to lawyers (or even their families) for an indefinite period of time to await assessment under the Patriot Act. I believe that these were all men with green cards and/or visas who just happened to be from some MIddle Eastern nation.

I've been trying to find more information on this, but the links I find pertain to detentions at Gitmo. I'm more interested in the people who were detained within the US. Do you have links?

:confused:

[evildave]

Google provides these fairly easily.

Google: aliens detained US
http://immigration.about.com/od/deportationinthenews/i/DetaineeIssue.htm
http://www.migrationint.com.au/news/azerbaijan/jul_1995-06mn.asp
http://216.26.163.62/2004/ss_terror_08_02.html

Apparently, detaining aliens indefinitely is nothing new at all. It predates the 'War on Terror' by about five years. Opinions about the practice go back before the 'War on Terror' as well.

A google search adding 'indefinite'...
Google: aliens detained in US indefinite
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0426-04.htm
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/01/1088488091787.html?oneclick=true
http://www.christiansciencemonitor.com/2004/0629/p01s04-usju.htm
http://www.immigrationlinks.com/news/news1429.htm

It's all in how you phrase the search. Since you're looking for 'aliens', alien and 'detention' and 'US' are the key words. 'Indefinite' simply narrowed it down to more relevant stories.

[merphie]

At least the terrorist are not getting in to the country. It seems to me that AKA Cat Stevens was a big threat to the US.

[dsm]

Originally posted by merphie
At least the terrorist are not getting in to the country. It seems to me that AKA Cat Stevens was a big threat to the US.

Sarcasm? :confused:

[dsm]

Originally posted by merphie
At least the terrorist are not getting in to the country. It seems to me that AKA Cat Stevens was a big threat to the US.

Also, what proof do you have that the terrorists are not getting into the country? As evildave points out, the detention policy has been in place since well before 9/11 -- yet 9/11 happened...

[evildave]

Helpful links?

[dsm]

Originally posted by evildave
Helpful links?

Me? I was going by your first link in your previous message. The policy of detaining people for possible deportation has been around for a long time, but it didn't prevent 9/11.

[merphie]

Originally posted by dsm
Also, what proof do you have that the terrorists are not getting into the country? As evildave points out, the detention policy has been in place since well before 9/11 -- yet 9/11 happened...

I don't claim any evidence. I was being sarcastic. I would assume Evildave's statement was true. They had several of the 9/11 hijackers on a watch list and they didn't stop them.

I've complained that Airport security is a joke many times.


I guess only the celebrity terrorist get recognition.

[evildave]

Well, it's free advertising for Cat Stevens. Now people will look into 'Cat Stevens' and probably buy a significant number of 'Easy Listening' CDs. And if he really does 'fund terror' (which seems a bit absurd), well he'll have more money to do it with.

One of the interesting problems with these 'Watch Lists' is the government won't tell anyone who's on 'em. So it's always a surprise when someone discovers they've 'illegally' boarded a plane. No chance to find it out and go to the government to see WHY they've stuck you on a special 'list', and sort it out reasonably. Nope. Gotta discover it by having a bunch of big guys with guns 'take you down' and handcuff you in public, and then interrogate you for hours as to why you had the gall to show your face at an international airport.

[merphie]

Originally posted by evildave
Well, it's free advertising for Cat Stevens. Now people will look into 'Cat Stevens' and probably buy a significant number of 'Easy Listening' CDs. And if he really does 'fund terror' (which seems a bit absurd), well he'll have more money to do it with.

One of the interesting problems with these 'Watch Lists' is the government won't tell anyone who's on 'em. So it's always a surprise when someone discovers they've 'illegally' boarded a plane. No chance to find it out and go to the government to see WHY they've stuck you on a special 'list', and sort it out reasonably. Nope. Gotta discover it by having a bunch of big guys with guns 'take you down' and handcuff you in public, and then interrogate you for hours as to why you had the gall to show your face at an international airport.

He's probably on the list because of that school or church he started in Britain.

[evildave]

Well, Sen. Kennedy was on the list, too. Stopped five times.

Makes you wonder. Tuttle, Tuttle, Tuttle, Buttle, Tuttle....

[dsm]

Originally posted by evildave

One of the interesting problems with these 'Watch Lists' is the government won't tell anyone who's on 'em. So it's always a surprise when someone discovers they've 'illegally' boarded a plane. No chance to find it out and go to the government to see WHY they've stuck you on a special 'list', and sort it out reasonably. Nope. Gotta discover it by having a bunch of big guys with guns 'take you down' and handcuff you in public, and then interrogate you for hours as to why you had the gall to show your face at an international airport.

IF it were possible to talk to the government about who was on their "watch" lists, then could potential terrorists use that to get off the watch lists? In other words, are watch lists a good idea for keeping alert to potential terrorists?

[merphie]

Originally posted by evildave
Well, Sen. Kennedy was on the list, too. Stopped five times.

Makes you wonder. Tuttle, Tuttle, Tuttle, Buttle, Tuttle....

I think it's funny. I would have put him on the list too!.

[evildave]

Originally posted by dsm
IF it were possible to talk to the government about who was on their "watch" lists, then could potential terrorists use that to get off the watch lists? In other words, are watch lists a good idea for keeping alert to potential terrorists?

Hard to say.

Here's a fascinating story....
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/10821313p-11739302c.html
Bitter fight over air security
U.S. won't even admit there's a directive requiring ID to board planes.

The problem here is "secret laws". If there's no way for you to know what's 'illegal', how could you possibly know a behavior would be breaking the law?

Sure, maybe 'watch lists' will catch terrorists. MAYBE they'll be used to harrass political opponents or critics, or limit their access to travel with little 'clerical accidents'.

A lot has been made of the loss of faith in the foundations and institutions of our society created by terrorist attacks. Yet those same people don't seem to realize that having "secret laws" and "classified guidelines" created with no possibility of public oversight erodes at our very faith in the institution of government its self.

It's possible that having the police go house to house - everyone's house, every week from now on to do a complete and thorough search would also discover terrorists. Of course maybe they should do that 'randomly' because they'd need a lot of cops. Then the way the 'randomness' is done needs to remain a 'secret', and that breeds additional mistrust, as 'random' might not really be so 'random'.

If you are a terrorist, or even more typical criminals, you already know there's a damned good chance you're in a 'watch list', and that the police will be looking for you at airports. That's why they shave and use stolen or forged papers. The only people this is LIKELY to trip up and inconvenience are honest people who aren't a 'terrorist', except in the fevered imagination of a computer that bumps up a score because some overzealous cleric finds an old newspaper story or off color comment made by you. For every *real* terrorist this finds, a million normal people will be barred from flying or harrassed at air terminals, while the real terrorists take a bus or rent a car, or take a launch off a private yacht and show up on a quiet beach, or take a walk across the border with a big group of 'wet backs', and repeat the exercise as many times as they get caught.

[dsm]

How about this scenario (not that I'm suggesting it) for something that might spring out of the "War on Terror":

Facial recognition software is improving dramatically due to the search for terrorists. In the (not so distant) future, airports (and other terminals) might be covered with (unobtrusive) cameras that take everyone's picture. Computers would then (hopefully) quickly analyze the photos to see if anyone on the "watch" list is in the area. The police would then be alerted to move in.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Obviously, assuming the facial recognition software develops to near infallibility, the ability of terrorists to move around would be greatly restricted. However, this would also lead to a database being created somewhere that (inadvertently?) documents the movements of EVERYONE! By simply changing the "watch" list, the computers could sift through all previous photographs to get a sense of the movement of an individual. Initially, it might be within the purview of the intelligence or homeland security czars to do this on the grounds of national security, but who knows where it might go...

What do others think of the future of such things?