# Suicide bombers. Split from Obama/armed forces thread



## Twin Fist (Apr 13, 2008)

Andrew Green said:


> I imagine that would give them a very different perspective on the US occupation of Iraq.



And the fact that the French, German and Russian governments had ILLEGAL business deals with Saddam I am SURE had nothing to do with their stance on occupying Iraq......Sorry Andrew, I am not trying to be snarky, and what you said has a LOT of merit.

But those cities that had to be rebuilt? I am pretty sure they didnt have to do that while learning to speak German.........Thats a WIN. Thats just my opinion of course, your milage may vary.

BUT

The threat from radical Islam is REAL, no matter which countries refuse to admit it or deal with it.
That is a fact.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Apr 13, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> But those cities that had to be rebuilt? I am pretty sure they didnt have to do that while learning to speak German.........Thats a WIN. Thats just my opinion of course, your milage may vary.


 
I would be more inclined to call it "survival" than "victory" but again, that's semantics.



> BUT
> 
> The threat from radical Islam is REAL, no matter which countries refuse to admit it or deal with it.
> That is a fact.


 

Yup.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 13, 2008)

TF, why do you always make things personal between you and other posters, as if you think that because we disagree with you we are attacking you personally? I believe yes this war is about oil, money greed and ego, do I need to justify that* belief* to you when you are down right rude about posts? You talk as if I put words in your mouth yet you do that exact same thing to me. I have never said your perspective is worth less than mine or that I don't think you get it. You however called my post 'crap'. You perhaps can understand why I am reluctant to enter into discourse with someone who descends to that level. 
Please don't give me that disingenuous guff about apologies for appearing rude etc, you post exactly how you want to, saying exactly what you want to say regardless of how people may view it. Every post you have made has the same hectoring, pseudo hale fellow, well met, brow beating tone to them, which I'm sure is consoling when one wants to read back what one has written and feel a sense of amour-propre.

I'm interested to know though why think you were being accused of stealing oil? I recall the words I use were that the war was about oil, greed and ego, I do not however recall saying who's oil, greeed or ego, how amusing that you assume it was you being referred to! My dear, how very defensive you are!


----------



## Andrew Green (Apr 13, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> The threat from radical Islam is REAL, no matter which countries refuse to admit it or deal with it.
> That is a fact.



What happens if we flip it around, do you think that countries in the Middle East feel there is a real threat from American Imperialism?  

They do, which lead to the attacks, which leads to Americans feeling threatened, which leads to bombing and overthrowing government, which leads to the Middle East feeling much more threatened by American imperialism, which leads to more attacks and so on...

There may be a threat from radical Islam, but it does go the other way too, whether either or both threats are real or perceived has a lot to do with what side of the line you are standing on.

But in my view, I don't want there way of life imposed on me by force.  They probably don't want mine imposed on them by force either.  But now we have to sides using force to try and prevent the other side from imposing its way of life by force.  I can't see how anyone is going to "win"

And as far as radical Islam goes, I think the more threatened Islam becomes, the more people will turn to the more radical views of it.  The same thing seems to be happening in the States with Christianity, certain branches science and atheism finding a voice seems to have brought out more fundamentalist views, with things like "Creationist museums" sprouting up.

The US where the good guys as long as they where chasing down Bin Laden and terrorist groups.  Once it became about Oil and Islam the worlds opinion changed.  The more it becomes about Islam, the more Muslims are going to feel threatened and tempted to join that cause to protect there beliefs, as I imagine Christians would if it was Christianity that was in that situation.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 13, 2008)

Andrew Green said:


> What happens if we flip it around, do you think that countries in the Middle East feel there is a real threat from American Imperialism?
> 
> They do, which lead to the attacks, which leads to Americans feeling threatened, which leads to bombing and overthrowing government, which leads to the Middle East feeling much more threatened by American imperialism, which leads to more attacks and so on...
> 
> ...


Yeah, because we have taken over so many countries and have colonies worldwide...
The imperialism shtick is awfully tired. Christianity is threatened in many more real ways than Islam. Those who openly practice Christian faith in many countries, mostly Islamic, by the way, but, also communist China, are actively persecuted. Not, threatened by belief in modern life...
Your anti-Christian beliefs aside, no one can rationally draw parallels between modern Islam and modern Christianity.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 13, 2008)

I worry about radical anything, though my own life has been more impacted by radical Christians than radical Muslims. Course, both want me dead and think I've no right to be. Islam is as fractured as Christianity is. Neither are "unified" and both have subsections that kill outsiders and insiders who differ with them equally.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 13, 2008)

Another point on "The Good Guys".  That's our opinion.  Osama's opinion is quite different. He sees himself as the good guy and us as "Evil".  It's all a matter of perspective.  Course, I tend to agree that we are more likely the "good guys" than they are, but visit an AQ friendly site and you'll find a much different view.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 13, 2008)

tez,
I am not taking anything personal, and not trying to make anything personal. You presented an opinion, with nothing to back it up, I asked if you could tell me why you felt that way because i literally cant see how ANYONE would think that if they had looked at the facts. (And by the way, you still havnt offered any back up for that, which is ok, I guess....)

Nothin else to it. If that qualifies as being "downright rude" than i cant help you.........

You DID state what you thought i believed, which you were wrong about, so i corrected you. If that qualifies as downright rude, again, I cant help you. Nothing personal either way. But now you are calling me disingenuous, which i assure you I am not. 

I am going WAY out of my way to be nice, yet You say i come across as rude? well, thats interesting. To my eyes, you are comming across pretty crabby yourself. However, I am still being polite to you because I dont assume that is your intention. I am just chalking that up to the fact that written words are often bad at conveying emotions.

I am however, getting bored with this.

Have a good day Tez

Seriously, have a good day.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 13, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I worry about radical anything, though my own life has been more impacted by radical Christians than radical Muslims. Course, both want me dead and think I've no right to be. Islam is as fractured as Christianity is. Neither are "unified" and both have subsections that kill outsiders and insiders who differ with them equally.


Really, and when was the last Christian suicide attack?


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 13, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I worry about radical anything, though my own life has been more impacted by radical Christians than radical Muslims. Course, both want me dead and think I've no right to be. Islam is as fractured as Christianity is. Neither are "unified" and both have subsections that kill outsiders and insiders who differ with them equally.


 

Absolutely spot on.
I don't see Andrew's post as being anti-Christian, I see it as being able to see the bigger picture, to see how others may see our actions. Always a good thing.
Interestingly Christians were allowed to practice their faith openly in Saddams Iraq, yet Muslims of other sects were persecuted as they still are in many Muslim countries.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 13, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I worry about radical anything, ............. both have subsections that kill outsiders and insiders who differ with them equally.



Bob,
While I agree with you that I worry about radical ANYTHING, the dammage currently being done is in no way equal.

last time I checked, no radical christians have flown a plane into downtown mecca. Hell, we havnt even had a clinic bombing in YEARS.

Last time i checked, even radical christians were not seeking out muslims to kill

last time i checked, radical christians were not burning down mosques. It simply hasnt happened. Even the crusades were a response to MUSLIM aggression. 


crap, I am doing it again.

Can we please get back on topic, while this is interesting, it could be discussed on another thread.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 13, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Really, and when was the last Christian suicide attack?


 
What on earth do you think the Catholics and Protestants are doing to each other in Northern Ireland? Very fond of blowing each other up those two sections of the Christian community are. Don't think for one minute they've stopped the sectarian violence either just because 'peace' has been declared.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 13, 2008)

Andrew Green said:


> The same thing seems to be happening in the States with Christianity, certain branches science and atheism finding a voice seems to have brought out more fundamentalist views, with things like "Creationist museums" sprouting up.



Andrew,
Lets see, if i understand you, islam feels threatened, so they blow things up. Christians feel threatened, so they build a museum

yeah, those responses are equal............

sorry, thats snarky, i admit, but it illustrates the point pretty well.

Moral relativism doesnt work when the two opposing sides are not equal. And in this case, they are not.Radical Islam is an EVIL force. They convert BY FORCE 

Christianity stopped doing that about 500 years ago.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 13, 2008)

Oh yes and then there was the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans. The Russian Orthodox Christians persecuting the Muslims in Chechyna. Or doesn't anywhere outside America actually count?


----------



## Big Don (Apr 13, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> What on earth do you think the Catholics and Protestants are doing to each other in Northern Ireland? Very fond of blowing each other up those two sections of the Christian community are. Don't think for one minute they've stopped the sectarian violence either just because 'peace' has been declared.


Show me where. Here is a link: Google search for "suicide" "bombing" "Ireland"
Gee, I see a whole lot of news stories about Muslim suicide bombings, but NONE about Christians...
Here is another: Google search for "suicide" "bombing" "Christian"
Golly, I see all kinds of people equating Islamic fanatics and Christians, but, the cold hard facts are Christians don't explode in malls, night clubs, etc...


----------



## Big Don (Apr 13, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Andrew,
> Lets see, if i understand you, islam feels threatened, so they blow things up. Christians feel threatened, so they build a museum
> 
> yeah, those responses are equal............


 But, but, it's intolerant... [/liberal wussy] 





> sorry, thats snarky, i admit, but it illustrates the point pretty well.
> 
> Moral relativism doesnt work when the two opposing sides are not equal. And in this case, they are not.Radical Islam is an EVIL force. They convert BY FORCE


 Worship or die is not intolerance?





> Christianity stopped doing that about 500 years ago.


Oh, come on, Twin Fist, just because Christians aren't converting by the sword and explosive laden vest today doesn't mean they aren't big 'ol meanies...


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 13, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Andrew,
> Lets see, if i understand you, islam feels threatened, so they blow things up. Christians feel threatened, so they build a museum
> 
> yeah, those responses are equal............
> ...


 
No they do it by blackmail now. 

http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/apr/28varsha.htm


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 13, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Show me where. Here is a link: Google search for "suicide" "bombing" "Ireland"
> Gee, I see a whole lot of news stories about Muslim suicide bombings, but NONE about Christians...
> Here is another: Google search for "suicide" "bombing" "Christian"
> Golly, I see all kinds of people equating Islamic fanatics and Christians, but, the cold hard facts are Christians don't explode in malls, night clubs, etc...


 
Actually a few IRA bombers have blown themselves up. Amused the hell out of us at the time, I remember.

An exploding Christian, google Loula Abboud, a 19 year old Christian blew herself up in 1985 in southern Lebanon.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 13, 2008)

Future martyrs for Jesus? Potential suicide bombers?

http://journal.davidbyrne.com/2006/08/american_madras.html


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 13, 2008)

op-ed pieces are not all that convincing.

and ONE incident in 1985? 23 YEARS ago? not convincing

could we get back on track now?


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 13, 2008)

I concur about getting on track.  

As I said in a post a few ago, I am aware that your goodself and *Don* share a right-wing vision that I consider to be missing some of the salient elements of what actually causes global politics to pan out the way that they do.  Altho' not a military man, I am an educated one and I recognise a position it is futile to assail when there is no chance of success.  

So I don't try to change your minds anymore.  The rest of us here would appreciate the same courtesy.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 13, 2008)

&#8220;Why Are There No Christian Suicide Bombers?&#8221;
http://oldfordroad.wordpress.com/2007/03/25/why-are-there-no-christian-suicide-bombers/

"The Hard Truth About Suicide Bombers"
http://www.alternet.org/audits/35815/

2 differing bits.

I'll suggest this tangent be split off into it's own thread.


----------



## Andrew Green (Apr 13, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Yeah, because we have taken over so many countries and have colonies worldwide...
> The imperialism shtick is awfully tired. Christianity is threatened in many more real ways than Islam. Those who openly practice Christian faith in many countries, mostly Islamic, by the way, but, also communist China, are actively persecuted. Not, threatened by belief in modern life...
> Your anti-Christian beliefs aside, no one can rationally draw parallels between modern Islam and modern Christianity.



Thank you for once again, completely missing my point and proceeding to try and paint it as anti-christian. 

My point was simple, perception is very different from different sides of the issue.  It was not at all anti-christian, or anti-anything.  It was simply that some Americans like to see things from only one view, and refuse to look at how they might be seen from other perspectives.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 13, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> op-ed pieces are not all that convincing.
> 
> and ONE incident in 1985? 23 YEARS ago? not convincing
> 
> could we get back on track now?


 
Oh dear, I've no idea what an op-ed is, is it something really awful? Like holding your knife at the dinner table like a pencil (so non U)? That sort of awful or the sort of awful where someone says there has never been a single case of a Christian suicide bomber and I prove there has?  
In Lebanon there have been several incidents of Christian suicide bombers even ones quite recently but I thought you'd like a few details of one certified genuine Christian suicide bomber.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 13, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> I aint trying to change anyone's mind. But if i see something that i KNOW to be false,i will speak up.
> 
> If I see something I disagree with, but dont think i can prove,i may or may not.
> 
> And my mind isnt closed, if someone posts some FACTS that prove me wrong, i'll admit it. Even a good reasoned argument.


 

Ah but what are facts as such. You direct me to a google site to look up suicide bombers in Northern Ireland as presumably they have the _facts_. Now I served in the Province and all I have is my experiences and the knowledge I gained there which I use in my job to this day but I can't direct you to a site that says these are the facts in my head can I, that this is what I saw with my eyes, this is what I heard with my ears?  So the long and short of it is that you will believe no one unless you can see something from Wikipedia or Google.
What facts are you looking for? people here are expressing opinions, those opinions can't be wrong as they are just that, opinions. You can disagree with those opinions but it doesn't make you right...doesn't make you wrong either. What we do here is debate, discuss and we do it amicably without sniping and without dismissing the other point of view as false because we believe we have the facts and they don't.
It's easy, have a go.


----------



## Andrew Green (Apr 13, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Really, and when was the last Christian suicide attack?




Saying Islam = suicide attacks is a rather weak argument, and it really can only be made if you narrow your historical scope to the past 20 years or so, which is a very short time in world and religious history.

Suicide attacks are a tactic of asymmetrical warfare, and have been for a long time, and have not been isolated to Muslims.  Which most often gets used against occupying forces (Iraq, Palestine believing Israel is their land, etc.) or when your side is losing the battle and there are no other options (Japanese Kamikaze pilots) 

It just happens that at this current stage in world power the largest asymmetrical wars being fought happen to involve Muslims on the side with a smaller army.  This has also been the case for some time now, with Israel having a strong army funded by western powers in relation to Palestine, where there has been a conflict going on for a long time.

Now it may be the case that there is something in Islam that lends itself to suicide attacks, but if there is then it is definitely not the only factor involved.  It's also important to remember that religious texts can be interpreted differently, and religions do evolve to meet the needs of the followers.  If the situation was reversed, perhaps interpretations of Christianity would pop up that encourage suicide attacks, Martyrdom is certainly not without basis in Christian history.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 13, 2008)

You keep capitalizing palestine as if there were ever a nation of that name.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 14, 2008)

Big Don said:


> You keep capitalizing palestine as if there were ever a nation of that name.


 

Correct English would dictate that when using a proper noun one uses a capital letter. This applies whether the place exists or not. This isn't the thread to discuss English usage. If there's a political point you wish to make however.......


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 14, 2008)

I got his point just fine.

There are no such people as "palestinians" they are in fact Jordanian. And Jordan doesnt want them back

They are not victims of Isreali aggression, they are the aggressors

There is a very easy test to see who the bad guys are. Pretend that each side in a conflict dropped thier weapons. Make an educated guess about the response of their enemy.

If Israel dropped thier weapons, the muslims would destroy them. If the muslims dropped their weapons, the Israels would stop. We all know that.

Same thing in Iraq.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 14, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> I got his point just fine.
> 
> There are no such people as "palestinians" they are in fact Jordanian. And Jordan doesnt want them back
> 
> ...


 

 How I envy you your clear thinking and political nous.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 14, 2008)

With the Billions and Billions of dollars poured into Gaza and the West Bank, that area should be much more prosperous than it is. It is NOT the fault of Americans, or Israelis that the people in control there have without exception been crooked, but, without exception, those are the two groups blamed.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 14, 2008)

Big Don said:


> With the Billions and Billions of dollars poured into Gaza and the West Bank, that area should be much more prosperous than it is. It is NOT the fault of Americans, or Israelis that the people in control there have without exception been crooked, but, without exception, those are the two groups blamed.


 

Who actually blamed them here?


----------



## Big Don (Apr 14, 2008)

Saudi Cleric Muhammad Al-Munajid Warns: Freedom of Speech Might Lead to Freedom of Belief
Here are the money quotes from his speech:
 Some of these heretics say: "Islam is not the private property of anyone." So what do they want? They say: "No sect has a monopoly on Islam." So what do they want? They say: "We want to issue rulings." Someone who is ignorant, who does not know any Arabic, or who has no knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence wants to issue rulings?! They say: "We reinterpret the texts." There is a very dangerous conspiracy against the religion of Islam in newspapers and in what these people say. A journalist, or one of those lowlifes, wants to... These people are a mixture of Western, local, and imported ideologies, but they want to express their views with regard to religious rulings. This is the prerogative of religious scholars, not of ignorant people, the prerogative of knowledgeable people, not of fools or heretics.

[...]

The problem is that they want to open a debate on whether Islam is true or not, and on whether Judaism and Christianity are false or not. In other words, they want to open up everything for debate. Now they want to open up all issues for debate. That's it. It begins with freedom of thought, it continues with freedom of speech, and it ends up with freedom of belief. So where's the conspiracy? They say: Let's have freedom of thought in Islam. Well, what do they want? They say: I think, therefore I want to express my thoughts. I want to express myself, I want to talk and say, for example, that there are loopholes in Islam, or that Christianity is the truth. Then they will talk about freedom of belief, and say that anyone is entitled to believe in whatever he wants... If you want to become an apostate &#8211; go ahead. Fancy Buddhism? Leave Islam, and join Buddhism. No problem. That's what freedom of belief is all about. They want freedom of everything. What they want is very dangerous.

[...]

Freedom of thought, within some constraints, is blessed. Islam calls for thinking, for interpretation, and for the use of the mind. But as for freedom of heresy, which allows anyone to criticize whatever he wants in Islam, saying, for example, that he does not like the punishment for apostasy, that he doesn't like the punishment for drinking alcohol, or that he does not like the punishment of stoning adulterers &#8211; this is barbarism. They ask: Why should a thief have his hand chopped off? Some of them say that this is "too much." Two-three much on you and your rotten mind. If you abolish this punishment, you will see the rise in thefts. On the other hand, people feel their property is secure because of this punishment.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 14, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Who actually blamed them here?


No one but, your so called palestinians.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 14, 2008)

Which post on this thread blamed America and Israel for the Palestinian problem?


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 14, 2008)

Big Don said:


> No one but, your so called palestinians.


 
Now you are really making me laugh! My Palestinians? brilliant! 
I have dual nationality like a lot of Jews, I have my Israeli passport tucked away safely. 
I merely pointed out the correct usuage of English says that a proper noun starts with a capital letter. the word "Palestine" is a proper noun same as Xanadu, Utopia, Lilliput etc. Besides before Independance the land was called Palestine as it was in the time of Jesus so to say it never existed is a bit naive.
The situation there is an extremely complicated one as most people realise however blaming Muslims per se is mistaken, blame certain political and terror groups, blame politicians but blaming all Muslims is foolish. The Muslims are as a diverse a group as the Christians, with as many diferent beliefs and opinions. Some Muslims are persecuted by others for their beliefs, many wish only peace with Israel and suffer for that.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 14, 2008)

*"Crusades were the result of Muslim agression"*

"The Crusades originally had the goal of recapturing Jerusalem and the Holy Land from Muslim rule and were originally launched in response to a call from the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire for help against the expansion of the Muslim Seljuk Turks into Anatolia." 

Of course, all of the children put to the sword and the women raped then put to the sword, showcased Christian virtue quite well.

*"There was no nation called Palestine"*

"As a geographical, apolitical term, in its broadest application, it can be used to refer to ancient Palehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinestine, an area that includes contemporary Israel, the Israeli-occupied territories, part of Jordan, and some of both Lebanon and Syria.[1][2] In classical or contemporary terms, it can also be used to refer to the area once known as British Mandate Palestine, and today known as Israel, the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem"

Of course, one can also make the argument that "Israel" as a nation ceased to exist about 2,000 years ago, until it was artificially recreated in 1948. So taking a block of land and calling it a 'nation' and giving it an ancient name does have past precident.


Someone, I think it was TF, comments on Christian suicide bombers with the last notable one being something like 25 years ago as if that as ancient history.  It's not. It shows that such things do happen, and fairly recently in global history. There are however differences in culture and faith that make it less likely that a Christian will SB than a Muslim. One of those is that in most Christian faiths, suicide is seen as a sin, where as the view is somewhat different in Islam. Another point to consider is that Christianity mainly found in more modern nations, with Islam dominant in lesser developed countries at the moment. What that means, is more poor people desparate for change.  It's not rich kids blowing themselves up here.  Yet another point to consider: Many of these bombers are not willing participants. Many are forced into this with threats towards family and loved ones the incentive. Of course, some are completely willing.

As an aside, painting the Israelli state as "friendly" is an inaccurate picture. It was proven in places such as Jenin and others that women and children are acceptable targets. Google "israel atrocity" and read through countless stories. While the nation is under constant threat, it also is often just as guilty as it's enemies in disregarding human life.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 14, 2008)

Good post Bob, the Middle East situation is a maze of complications that only humans can cause, befuddling the cleverest minds. If it were simple it would have been sorted out a long time ago. The problem was caused many years in the past though the people at the time probably thought they were doing things for the best, they couldn't see into the future. Worldwide events caused other problems, it's an almighty mess which isn't going to be sorted anytime soon.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 14, 2008)

Bob,
This may be one of those cases where you post things just to see if anyone will refute them, If so, i'll take the bait.

"The *Battle of Jenin* (Arabic: &#1605;&#1580;&#1586;&#1585;&#1577; &#1580;&#1606;&#1610;&#1606;&#8206;, Hebrew: &#1492;&#1511;&#1512;&#1489; &#1489;&#1490;'&#1504;&#1497;&#1503;&#8206; lit. _Battle of Jenin_) took place between the 3rd and 11th of April 2002 in Jenin's Palestinian refugee camp as part of Operation Defensive Shield during the Second Intifada. Following numerous suicide bombing attacks by Palestinian militants on Israeli civilians, culminating with a suicide bombing at Park Hotel in Netanya during a Passover holiday meal (March 27, 2002), in which 30 Israelis were killed and 140 were injured;[2] Israel had deployed the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) to conduct what it considered a large-scale counter-terrorist offensive, called "Operation Defensive Shield".[3]
 As part of the operation, Israel targeted Jenin's refugee camp, after it determined that the city had "served as a launch site for numerous terrorist attacks against both Israeli civilians and Israeli towns and villages in the area",[4] including the dispatch of 28 suicide bombers since the start of the Second Intifada.[5]
 The Israeli force consisted of infantry and armored vehicles, supported by attack helicopters. Towards the end of operations armored bulldozers were used heavily[6][7][8] which caused extensive damage and contributed to the destruction of around 10% of the camp area.[6][9][10]
Palestinian sources have described the events as "the Jenin massacre," and international media and human-rights organizations initially expressed concerns that a massacre had taken place. Subsequent investigations found no evidence to substantiate these charges. The Palestinian death toll was estimated at 52, while 23 Israeli soldiers were killed."



uh huh. That doesnt make Israel look very bad at all. But yeah, Israel does go too far sometimes I admit, but will you admit that if the bad guys (see palestinians) would cut the crap, the Israelis would leave them the hell alone?


Bob,
I didnt claim that the crusaders acting like kittens. No one would claim that. I claimed that the crusades were a reaction to muslim aqggression. You proved my point. Thanks.

Also, your contention "  It's not rich kids blowing themselves up here." is false. Mohammad Atta was the son of a surgeon, college educated. Well to do. Most of the other 19 terrorists in the 9-11 plot were from upper middle class families. All had stayed in the west, in the lap of luxury so to speak and still drove planes into buildings.

While there is no "all" Christians just dont do these things. There is a fundamental difference in the religions. Christianity is about peace, Christ told his followers to preach to the unbeliever. 

Islam is about war. The Koran teaches to "find the infidel and kill him, or force him to submit to Allah (convert).

There can be no moral relativism between christianity and islam


I am only speaking to the religions themselves, the actions of the followers are another subject.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 14, 2008)

The idea of dying for your cause is not a new one, many cultures and religions have traditions of knowingly killing yourself to take out as many of the enemy as possible. Although not as certain to cause your own death as a suicide bomb we have the Kamikazi pilots of Japan who although their mission was to actually return to base after a mission were obviously known to suicide if it gave better results.
In European armies we have the Forlorn Hope, this tradition was carried on in the Second World War in Russia against the Germans with the Shraft Battalions. They may have been forced however so may many of the Muslim suicide bombers. 

Interestingly in Jerusalem both the Jews and the Muslims (they fought on the same side during the Crusades) were content with Muslim rule so why did the Christian Crusaders feel the need to intervene? What business was it of the Europeans?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 14, 2008)

"What business was it of the Europeans?"

Because the Muslims, who believe in a different "invisible man in the sky" were living where the Christians "invisible man in the sky's son" was supposedly from and where he supposedly died. Mind you, this was not the same "invisible man" that the Jews were waiting for.  It's a sake of people comparing imaginary friends, and since their imaginary friends have more sence than they do, they decide to kill each other, all in the name of their own individual imaginary friends.  Mind you, these imaginary friends, should that actualy exist, most likely think that everyone involved are a right bunch of nutters.

In any event, my imaginary friend can kick all their asses, cuz she's got 4 arms and all of them are swinging steel. :rofl:


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 14, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> The threat from radical Islam is REAL, no matter which countries refuse to admit it or deal with it.
> That is a fact.


 
Just curious to know, what would you suggest is the answer to this problem?


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Apr 14, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> "What business was it of the Europeans?"
> 
> Because the Muslims, who believe in a different "invisible man in the sky" were living where the Christians "invisible man in the sky's son" was supposedly from and where he supposedly died. Mind you, this was not the same "invisible man" that the Jews were waiting for. It's a sake of people comparing imaginary friends, and since their imaginary friends have more sence than they do, they decide to kill each other, all in the name of their own individual imaginary friends. Mind you, these imaginary friends, should that actualy exist, most likely think that everyone involved are a right bunch of nutters.
> 
> In any event, my imaginary friend can kick all their asses, cuz she's got 4 arms and all of them are swinging steel. :rofl:


 
First thing that made me smile all day.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 14, 2008)

Flying Crane said:


> Just curious to know, what would you suggest is the answer to this problem?


 
Probably something along the lines of "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius"*. 

*_"Kill them all, let god sort them out"_-sort of....



> Arnaud himself was appointed as military leader of the crusaders during the first stages of the war in 1209. This was a perfectly normal occurrence at this time, but Arnaud's love of terror and killing was perhaps above average, even for a senior churchman. It was he who was responsible for the mass burning alive of "many heretics and many fair women" at Casseneuil", for the massacre at Béziers, where some 20,000 men, women and children were killed in an "exercise of Christian charity", and for the immortal words *"Kill them all. God will know his own".* He was also responsible for the siege of Carcassonne, and for the seizure of Raymond-Roger Trencavel, Viscount of Carcassonne, Béziers, Albi and the Razès during a truce - leading to the fall of Carcassonne. He arrived at Minerve just in time to engineer the deaths of 140 people whose lives would otherwise have been spared.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 14, 2008)

Flying Crane,
It is a complex issue, no doubt, and I am not sure what the "perfect solution" is, or if such a thing even exists.

On one hand, I know that there are some people with whom you cannot reason,  you cannot negotiate, all you can do is kill them or let them kill you. The radical elements in Islam are like this. They think they are on a mission from God, You cant scare them, you cant negotiate, you can only kill them. Or die.

On the other hand, I am hesitant to endorse such harsh measures. Plus, you really cant toss out the "baby with the bath water" when you are talking about human populations.

Interestingly, reports coming from Iraq now show that the people are getting more and more secular, and less radical everyday. So what we are doing now? it IS working. In fact, if the Iranians would stop sending their fanatics to Iraq, Iraq would be a pretty danged nice place to call home these days.

Elder,
Dont assume, you are not very good at it. And it comes across as snarky.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 14, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Flying Crane,
> It is a complex issue, no doubt, and I am not sure what the "perfect solution" is, or if such a thing even exists.
> 
> On one hand, I know that there are some people with whom you cannot reason, you cannot negotiate, all you can do is kill them or let them kill you. The radical elements in Islam are like this. They think they are on a mission from God, You cant scare them, you cant negotiate, you can only kill them. Or die.


 
well, there are certainly those who seem to fit this description.  The question is, how did they reach this point?  What lead them to such extreme feelings, particularly when it comes to the hatred of the US?  

I think the answer is much more complex than simply that Islam tells them so.  

As has been pointed out, there are many different factions in Islam, and only a small number are dangerous radicals.  Once upon a time, the US gave Osama Bin Laden backing, against the Soviets.  Then, when he was no longer convenient for us, we cut him off.  Now, with the Soviets out of Afghanistan, he has focused his anger towards us for cutting him loose.

Once upon a time, the US sold military equipment to Sadam Hussein, in the war against Iran, and we supported his regime.  I've seen photos of a younger Donald Rumsfeld shaking Sadam's hand in Baghdad, after passing along some military equipment to him in the 1980s.  As long as we could keep him on a short leash, we were willing to let him do as he pleased.  But then he broke the leash and we couldn't control him anymore.  He was no longer OUR tyrant, and he became our enemy.  But in many ways, we set him up and supported him.

The point I'm trying to make is that often, we create our own problems, and our own enemies.  The Middle East has a long and messy and bloody history.  Europe and the US have been involved in that history, and our own actions and motives have been far from pure along the way.

Are there those in Radical Islam who perhaps manufacture extra reason to hate the US?  Probably.  And of course there are those who happily pour gas on the fire and look to keep it burning.  But we are also far from innocent in the situation.  We have poured plenty of gas of our own on the fire.  There is plenty of innocence, and guilt, to go around, on all sides.  It makes for a messy picture, and we cannot simply point and say "they are the bad guys, we are the good guys".  It just isn't as clear as that.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 14, 2008)

The concept of the lesser of two evils evades, again.
Why did the US COVERTLY support the Mujahadeen in Afganistan in the 1980's? Because the congress, etc wouldn't allow OVERT support, nor was a rock pile like Afganistan worth really putting MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) to the test.
At the time we gave some MINOR support to Saddam, Khomeni and his fun filled friends were chanting "Death to America" in the streets of Tehran, and had only recently released the hostages they had held in our embassy, despite all of Carter's diplomacy.

Yes, we actually can simply say "Those who willfully target civilians and non-combatants are BAD GUYS" Since every member of the US military is taught The Law of Land Warfare, which includes little gems like NOT targetting civilians and non-combatants, etc we can honestly claim to be "Good Guys".


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 14, 2008)

Big Don said:


> The concept of the lesser of two evils evades, again.
> Why did the US COVERTLY support the Mujahadeen in Afganistan in the 1980's? Because the congress, etc wouldn't allow OVERT support, nor was a rock pile like Afganistan worth really putting MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) to the test.
> At the time we gave some MINOR support to Saddam, Khomeni and his fun filled friends were chanting "Death to America" in the streets of Tehran, and had only recently released the hostages they had held in our embassy, despite all of Carter's diplomacy.
> 
> Yes, we actually can simply say "Those who willfully target civilians and non-combatants are BAD GUYS" Since every member of the US military is taught The Law of Land Warfare, which includes little gems like NOT targetting civilians and non-combatants, etc we can honestly claim to be "Good Guys".


 

I'd put the same question to you, that I asked Twin Fist.  What would you suggest as the solution to the problem?


----------



## Big Don (Apr 14, 2008)

Flying Crane said:


> I'd put the same question to you, that I asked Twin Fist.  What would you suggest as the solution to the problem?


Take the gloves off. A vastly disproportional response to acts of terrorism.  Make the penalty for terrorism so freaking horrific no one would dare it.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 14, 2008)

Flying Crane,
While what you say is true, I mean, we DID help Bin Laden fight the Soviets, and we DID help Saddam when he was at war with the Iranians, we cannot be blamed for their later actions.

Bin Laden isnt mad at the US because we cut him off. he HAD money, he didnt need ours. Most reports say that he started hating the US in 90 when he offered to fight the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and the Saudi royals told him to pack sand and called the US for help. he is more mad at the Saudi royals than at us.

Likewise, Saddam was pissed at us not for helping him, but  because we stood up to him when he decided he might like an ocean front palace in Kuwait for the off season. Wether we helped him before that or not, he would still have invaded, and we would still have stopped him.

And, there are bad guys in the world. They strap retarded women with vests of plastique, and  remote detonate them.They do this with kids too. And dogs.  They flew  planes into buildings. They blew up the marine barracks in 1984.They slaughtered Israeli athletes in  Munich 

 The hate comes from the imams. They know their only power comes from  the people having nothing else in thier life BUT islam. The imams depend of the sheep being miserable and angry. 

The imams hate us because our lifestyle places less importance on faith, yet we all live like kings. Thats a threat to thier power. The good life? without Allah?

 So what happens? the arabic people see us, see that we are NOT devoted to allah, yet we live great lives, so the imams tell their sheep that we are evil. That we are keeping them down. That we should die. And that by killing us, they will gain the favor of the prophet. For alot of them, the Koran is the only book they ever read. And it doesnt help that the koran is perhaps the most violent book ever written. It tells that that infidels are not  even human, much less equal to themselves. It tells them that it is ok to lie to us, because we are infidels, deserving only of death.

So we cant trust them, we cant reason with them, we cant negotiate with them. All we can do, with the RADICALS is die, or kill them. This isnt our fault. We would happily  leave them alone if they  would stop trying to kill us all........ 

i agree with you that the US, with the best of intentions, does often create problems for itself, but i disagree that these two examples are good ones.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Apr 14, 2008)

_The point I'm trying to make is that often, we create our own problems, and our own enemies_

I hear this often, or at least this line of reasoning, and regardless  of any other parts of this discussion, this one aspect in particular has always bothered me.

Broken down simply, it's the idea of justification for committing certain acts.  In very few normal social situations do we allow for this excuse to be used.  Even in the world of martial arts, which is itself the study of committing violent acts against another person, we talk about both the legal and the moral compass of committing certain acts against others.

Are people angry as us for our foreign policy?  Sure.  Both our allies and our enemies often are, and vice versa. But the response is usually diploamtic, almost never militaristic.

I guess in my ethical economy, whether you commit murder because you "hate our freedom" or you commit murder because you "are pissed because we gave guns to your enemies"... it's still murder; the rest is just excuse making


----------



## elder999 (Apr 14, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Elder,
> Dont assume, you are not very good at it. And it comes across as snarky.


 

Actually, there are manuals based on my assumptions. People at the highest level of government have  relied upon * my* assumptions. By all accounts-except yours-I'm very good at assuming. 

No matter, I'm the prince of "snarky" and proud of it.:ultracool

...I mean, I live on "Snark St."


----------



## Big Don (Apr 14, 2008)

elder999 said:


> No matter, I'm the king of "snarky" and proud of it.:ultracool


That kind of distinction is ONLY good if it comes with a crown.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 14, 2008)

Big Don said:


> That kind of distinction is ONLY good if it comes with a crown.


 
No crown, but it comes with some _really cool buttons._ :lol:


----------



## elder999 (Apr 14, 2008)

Not to worry, Don., TwinFist. I take these topics very seriously......
......it's your opinions on them that I don't take seriously_-seriously!_ :lol:

I mean...honestly, TF-*snarky* is exactly what I was going for, there-how could you think anything else?....thank you.....:lol:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 14, 2008)

Ya'll watch the mud slinging....I ain't paid the water bill for the server yet.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 14, 2008)

slacker



Bob Hubbard said:


> Ya'll watch the mud slinging....I ain't paid the water bill for the server yet.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 14, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> slacker


Naw.
Hacker.


----------



## Andrew Green (Apr 14, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Yes, we actually can simply say "Those who willfully target civilians and non-combatants are BAD GUYS" Since every member of the US military is taught The Law of Land Warfare, which includes little gems like NOT targetting civilians and non-combatants, etc we can honestly claim to be "Good Guys".




You do realise that this idea of not targeting civilians is fairly new, and that both sides did a fair bit of it in WW1 and WW2, the last major wars between leading nations.  Korea and Vietnam certainly had civilian targets hit, and the Iraqi civilian casualty count do to bombing, intentional or not is very high.  

War is ugly, and when your side is losing, or in danger of losing it tends to take more and more desperate measures.  The last time western powers fought a war they where in danger of losing, WW2, they most certainely did target civilians.  The doctrine was that it would demoralize the civilian population and reduce support for the war politically, putting financial and political pressure on the country. 

The War against Japan was largely effected by the US dropping Atomic bombs on targets that where not just military targets, but ones with large civilian populations as well to hit the country psychologically as well.

 So, are you sure you want to make the claim that "Those who willfully target civilians and non-combatants are BAD GUYS"?  Because that covers pretty much every country, and we didn't even cover the genocide of the Native Americans, just modern warfare...

Or is it just, those that "still do it"?  In which case I would remind you about harping on about Democrats endorsing slavery a couple hundreds of years ago and claiming it to be relevant to todays issues.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 14, 2008)

What's really unfair is the time difference that means when I'm up and posting you lot are in bed and when I get up in the morning I find hundreds of posts added! then I have to go to work for 12 hours so no hope of adding more ( sighs of relief form TF and Big Don there rofl).
Bob, the Crusaders aong with talk of gods and religion always bring me back to Monty Python, they've ruined most subjects really lol!


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 15, 2008)

.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 15, 2008)

Andrew,
One thing you need to remember. before say, 1980 or so, there was no such things as "precision munitions"  Now, we can target very specific locations, and hit them. And we do. We can avoid civilian deaths, and we do.

These guys pack a truck with explosives and drive it into a market and detonate. THATS targeting civilians. 

They are BAD GUYS. 

Stuff like this is why some people find it is easy to accuse people of  not being proud americans. As soon as someone mentions bad behavior from bad guys, someone like you has to pop up and start talking about all the bad things america has done, as if that matters to the discussion at hand.

it doesnt.

We are talking about NOW, indians, WW2, whatever else doesnt have anything to do with NOW. Right NOW we dont target civilians because it is wrong. Right NOW the bag guys DO target civilians, cuz they cant handle a stand up fight. Why cant you just admit that without trying to obscure the issue by dragging up all this past bad behavior?

Dont get me wrong, you are not saying anything that is false, I know that, but it is meaningless NOW because we are not doing that stuff NOW. And we havnt for a long time.

do you see the difference?


----------



## Andrew Green (Apr 15, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Andrew,
> One thing you need to remember. before say, 1980 or so, there was no such things as "precision munitions"  Now, we can target very specific locations, and hit them. And we do. We can avoid civilian deaths, and we do.



Well, there are still a large number of civilian casualties, but we can ignore that as you kinda made my point.

YOU have precision munitions, THEY do not.  You use the tactics you have available to you, however the insurgents do not have those same tactics available to them.  They cannot land cruise missiles on US mainland military targets, they can't even fire missiles into US bases in their territory.  

You have million dollar guidance & delivery systems, they are lucky to get a old truck.  Expecting them to adhere to the same tactics the US military does is just not going to happen.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 15, 2008)

What were the civilian casulties from those precise munitions again?


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 15, 2008)

Andrew,
they dont HAVE to suit up in plastic explosive and go into a market where there are no soldiers, just civilians.

They choose to.

i understand attacks on military personel. And there is a big difference between killing civilians by accident, and killing civilians intentionally

the islamics do it intentionally.

thats BAD
that makes them BAD GUYS

Yeah Bob, it is too many. but that happens because the BAD GUYS hide among the civilians. So when those civilians are killed?  thats the bad guys fault too.


----------



## Andrew Green (Apr 15, 2008)

And I will say again, deliberatly targeting civilians to effect morale of the civilian population, the military and to pressure the politicians is a tactic that the US has used in recent memory.  Does that mean the US is the "bad guys" as well?

War sucks all around, when a country is a warzone then the civilians end up getting killed too, this is something the US has never experienced, it has never been occupied by a foriegn military.  It has however targeted civilians.

So I really don't think you can claim this glorious "we are good they are bad" line that you are trying to.  From their perspective a foriegn military is occupying their country, they are going to do everything they possibly can to remove the occupying force.  They can't fight a "clean" fight, The US probably spends more on weapons in a week then they have to spend in a year.  They are severly outnumbered, and severly out gunned.  That means fighting a "fair" fight is out of the question, and things are going to get dirty.

I'm not saying they are right, but try to see things from their perspective, this is not a clear case of "good vs evil", both sides are doing some nasty things and neither side can claim to be "good" IMO.

From their perspective they are fighting for their freedom, and their independence.  Their right to exist as a self-determined people.  A vastly more powerful military force is trying to take that away, using tactics and weapons that they lack the ability to respond in kind with.  Which means the only thing they can do is fight dirty.  Something a martial arts forum, where many styles advocate dirty fighting against a larger, stronger opponent, whould be able to relate to.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 15, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Take the gloves off. A vastly disproportional response to acts of terrorism. Make the penalty for terrorism so freaking horrific no one would dare it.


 
Care to elaborate with a hypothetical example?


----------



## Big Don (Apr 15, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> What's really unfair is the time difference that means when I'm up and posting you lot are in bed and when I get up in the morning I find hundreds of posts added! then I have to go to work for 12 hours so no hope of adding more ( sighs of relief form TF and Big Don there rofl).
> Bob, the Crusaders aong with talk of gods and religion always bring me back to Monty Python, they've ruined most subjects really lol!


You should just adjust your life to PDT.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 15, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Flying Crane,
> While what you say is true, I mean, we DID help Bin Laden fight the Soviets, and we DID help Saddam when he was at war with the Iranians, we cannot be blamed for their later actions.
> 
> Bin Laden isnt mad at the US because we cut him off. he HAD money, he didnt need ours. Most reports say that he started hating the US in 90 when he offered to fight the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and the Saudi royals told him to pack sand and called the US for help. he is more mad at the Saudi royals than at us.
> ...


 
I see we simply have a very different worldly viewpoint.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 15, 2008)

FearlessFreep said:


> I guess in my ethical economy, whether you commit murder because you "hate our freedom" or you commit murder because you "are pissed because we gave guns to your enemies"... it's still murder; the rest is just excuse making


 
well, "they hate our freedom" is just a silly line used by the Bush regime.

However, giving guns to one's enemies would obviously be viewed as unlawfully aiding our enemies to commit murder, and thereby an accomplice to murder.

There's a bigger picture here.  It's not just individual, or even groups of acts of violence.  It's generations of ugly history and violence and messy politics.  Why does the US believe it can step into the middle of this, throw our weight around, and remain unscathed?


----------



## Big Don (Apr 15, 2008)

Flying Crane said:


> well, "they hate our freedom" is just a silly line used by the Bush regime.


Oh, but, it is NOT:
_Following are excerpts from an interview with *Saudi cleric Muhammad Al-Munajid*, which aired on Al-Majd TV on March 30, 2008._
*Muhammad Al-Munajid*: Some of these heretics say: "Islam is not the private property of anyone." So what do they want? They say: "No sect has a monopoly on Islam." So what do they want? They say: "We want to issue rulings." Someone who is ignorant, who does not know any Arabic, or who has no knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence wants to issue rulings?! They say: "We reinterpret the texts." There is a very dangerous conspiracy against the religion of Islam in newspapers and in what these people say. A journalist, or one of those lowlifes, wants to... These people are a mixture of Western, local, and imported ideologies, but they want to express their views with regard to religious rulings. This is the prerogative of religious scholars, not of ignorant people, the prerogative of knowledgeable people, not of fools or heretics.
[...]
The problem is that they want to open a debate on whether Islam is true or not, and on whether Judaism and Christianity are false or not. In other words, they want to open up everything for debate. Now they want to open up all issues for debate. That's it. It begins with freedom of thought, it continues with freedom of speech, and it ends up with freedom of belief. So where's the conspiracy? They say: Let's have freedom of thought in Islam. Well, what do they want? They say: I think, therefore I want to express my thoughts. I want to express myself, I want to talk and say, for example, that there are loopholes in Islam, or that Christianity is the truth. Then they will talk about freedom of belief, and say that anyone is entitled to believe in whatever he wants... If you want to become an apostate  go ahead. Fancy Buddhism? Leave Islam, and join Buddhism. No problem. That's what freedom of belief is all about. They want freedom of everything. What they want is very dangerous.



You can choose not to believe wether or not any/most/or few Muslims believe the same way this particular imam does, but, his statement (quoted and linked above) puts lie to your's.


----------



## Andrew Green (Apr 15, 2008)

Big Don said:


> You can choose not to believe wether or not any/most/or few Muslims believe the same way this particular imam does, but, his statement (quoted and linked above) puts lie to your's.



Some Christians are pretty similar, including this US politician:

[yt]qW6sRUuVVSY[/yt]

 "What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous . . . it's dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!"

Referring to people not believing in God. 

It's just political rhetoric though, on both sides.  Believing that it was the cause of hostilities is simply ignoring way too many other issues.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 15, 2008)

Andrew,
AGAIN, we are talking about NOW, and no, America does not do that NOW. Could you please focus or do you just feel compelled to bring up all the past acts that you feel make us bad guys too?

 If so i would ask you  WHY you feel compelled to  bring up american  bad acts that are NO LONGER BEING DONE. Like I said before, this tendency to smear America is why some people listen to people like yourself, and label them "America haters"

I know this is a shock to you since you seem to revel in bringing up American bad acts from the past, but yes, we are the good guys. Whenever anyone else's *** in in the fryer, they call US for help, and we go help. 

And I DONT CARE what their perspective is, they mutilate women's genitals, they stone women for being raped. They cut off people's heads on VIDEO FOR CRAPS SAKE. And compared to them you dont think the US is the good guy??????

 No we have not always been perfect, but we at least TRY. Can you say the same about the other guys? well, YOU might, but not many many would.

" From their perspective a foriegn military is occupying their country, they are going to do everything they possibly can to remove the occupying force. "

WRONG. Most of the insurgants these days are from IRAN. Got that? these are not Iraqi's trying to repel "invaders" So you are flat out WRONG about that.

"From their perspective they are fighting for their freedom, and their independence.  Their right to exist as a self-determined people."

Wrong again Andrew, there is no freedom or self determination, they are trying to create a caliphate. A theocracy. No free elections, no democracy. You are wrong about that too.


Andrew, i know you are a smart guy, and you are very polite, but you insist on smearing America, i feel un-fairly. And you are actually just wrong about some stuff.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 15, 2008)

Flying Crane,
We may well have a different world view.

One piece of advice for you though, using the word "regime". I wouldnt advise doing that. The reason is, usually the people who do that are the far left loonies. Your opinions may get discounted if you use that sort of language.  I wouldnt want to see that happen. Even if I dont agree with you, your opinions are thought provoking and interesting.

Just advice, ignore if you like.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 15, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Flying Crane,
> We may well have a different world view.
> 
> One piece of advice for you though, using the word "regime". I wouldnt advise doing that. The reason is, usually the people who do that are the far left loonies. Your opinions may get discounted if you use that sort of language. I wouldnt want to see that happen. Even if I dont agree with you, your opinions are thought provoking and interesting.
> ...


 


			
				The Excellent Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Online English Language Technical Manual (that's engineer talk for [i said:
			
		

> dictionary[/i], dontcha know?) ]
> 
> Main Entry: re·gime
> 
> ...


 
_*snark, snark, snark!*_


----------



## elder999 (Apr 15, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> If so i would ask you WHY you feel compelled to bring up american bad acts that are NO LONGER BEING DONE. Like I said before, this tendency to smear America is why some people listen to people like yourself, and label them "America haters"
> .


 

How is it any different than bringing up the pro-slavery, racist past of the Democratic party? Or is it the same?


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 15, 2008)

*sigh*
some people's kids.................:duh:


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 15, 2008)

elder999 said:


> How is it any different than bringing up the pro-slavery, racist past of the Democratic party? Or is it the same?



I would say it is about the same. it's differnet in that it isnt "America" it is just a political party, but thats not much different.Thats why i dont do that.


----------



## Andrew Green (Apr 15, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Andrew,
> AGAIN, we are talking about NOW, and no, America does not do that NOW. Could you please focus or do you just feel compelled to bring up all the past acts that you feel make us bad guys too?
> 
> If so i would ask you  WHY you feel compelled to  bring up american  bad acts that are NO LONGER BEING DONE. Like I said before, this tendency to smear America is why some people listen to people like yourself, and label them "America haters"



No, you are missing a key piece of what I am saying.  Circumstances have a lot to do with how people act.  The US has never been in the same situation that Iraq is in, the closest it has been was WW2, when there was a threat of the fighting coming to US soil.  At that time the US did bomb civilians.  (As did many other countries)  I am not trying to "blame America", but as I am debating Americans who are trying to hold the high ground, America's history seems the most relevant.

It is very easy to say "we don't do that now" when the situation is entirely different, you have the most powerful military on the planet and are fighting a 3rd world country with a very limited and organized military.  Who are as much resistance fighters as they are a organized military.



> I know this is a shock to you since you seem to revel in bringing up American bad acts from the past, but yes, we are the good guys. Whenever anyone else's *** in in the fryer, they call US for help, and we go help.



"Good guys" is a matter of perspective.  I suspect if you where to survey people from a range of nations you would get a mixed response on that.  Not everyone thinks you are the good guys.  Some nations do, some nations don't, some nations are split.



> And I DONT CARE what their perspective is, they mutilate women's genitals, they stone women for being raped. They cut off people's heads on VIDEO FOR CRAPS SAKE. And compared to them you dont think the US is the good guy??????



What you don't seem to want to accept is that I am trying to say "look at it from all perspectives, not just the US one."

Yes, there is some morally bad things that go on there, however morality is not a cut and dry issue.  There are also things in the US legal system that are objectionable IMO, and in the Canadian one.  But is it anyone elses place to step in and force us to follow their moral code?  I don't think it is.

Most of the things that they do where done in our own past, we grew out of them on our own.  I imagine we will grow out of more things as well over time.  Trying to change their moral code by military force won't work, and it wouldn't have worked on us either.




> No we have not always been perfect, but we at least TRY. Can you say the same about the other guys? well, YOU might, but not many many would.



Yes, they are living as they believe their God has told them too.  As their culture and society grows it will evolve and change, same as ours did.



> " From their perspective a foriegn military is occupying their country, they are going to do everything they possibly can to remove the occupying force. "
> 
> WRONG. Most of the insurgants these days are from IRAN. Got that? these are not Iraqi's trying to repel "invaders" So you are flat out WRONG about that.



I wonder, has the US said or done anything recently that would leave Iran feeling threatened?

Not to mention lack of proof, some might be from Iran, but not all, not at this point anyways.  Not to mention that they are much more a like then we are to them, and that brings people together.  If a foreign power was occupying the US, and the US was battered and in ruins, I suspect Canadians would start helping the US fight back.



> "From their perspective they are fighting for their freedom, and their independence.  Their right to exist as a self-determined people."
> 
> Wrong again Andrew, there is no freedom or self determination, they are trying to create a caliphate. A theocracy. No free elections, no democracy. You are wrong about that too.



"Freedom" is a matter of perspective, why do you assume that our form of democracy forced on them would be a improvement?  It's certainely not a perfect system, and shouldn't they be free to choose the system they want?

btw - Iraq was one of the most secular countries in the region under Sudam, it was not a theocracy.



> Andrew, i know you are a smart guy, and you are very polite, but you insist on smearing America, i feel un-fairly. And you are actually just wrong about some stuff.



If you believe that pointing out similarities between where the middle east is now, and how the the US was in fairly recent history is smearing the US, then there is really not much I can do to change that.

But if the US (and Canada) cannot be "perfect" despite the fact that we are very well isolated from any potential threats, and we have not had our warfare occur within our countries in a very long time, how can you expect a region that does not have that luxury, and has seen conflict in pretty much every generation for a very long time to not have some pretty major problems?

But bombing them isn't the solution, if anything it will make things worse.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 15, 2008)

I find any nation that condones torture, secret trials, secret police, spying on its own people, unlawful and open ended detainments, and continuous violation of international law and treaty to be reprehensible. Now, who fits that description?

Going back to suicide bombers and their reason for going kaboom....ok, "they hate us".  That's obvious. But, who is they? The guys at the top of those groups, and alot of the middlemen, and alot of the guys going kaboom.  But, "they" is not all Muslims, all Iraqis, all Iranians, etc.  It's a small portion of their population. The average person there, is most likely just like the average person here...could care less, they have more immediate needs to deal with.  Identifying the "who" is important.

Identifying the "why" is also important.  Looking at a timeline of "we hate america" protests world wide, and then looking to see what the US was doing at those times might shed some real light on things, rather than all the poitical BS that's floating around. 

The -main- reason I've seen tends to be American support and muscle (economic and military) in regards to Israel, and intererence in domestic affairs of foriegn nations. Nothing to do with decadent strip clubs, excessive eating or rap music here.

So, if it's our involvement that's the problem, maybe the fix is rather simple.
Reject Hamilton, return to Jefferson.
Stop being the worlds policeman. Pull our military back, stop sending aid out, stop trying to help, and take care of our own here. Let Israel go it alone, or lean on others more than ol' Unkle Sam.  Course, this also means, stop buying OPEC oil, and develop our own sources here and alternates as well. Make the US self-sufficient.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 15, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Flying Crane,
> We may well have a different world view.
> 
> One piece of advice for you though, using the word "regime". I wouldnt advise doing that. The reason is, usually the people who do that are the far left loonies. Your opinions may get discounted if you use that sort of language. I wouldnt want to see that happen. Even if I dont agree with you, your opinions are thought provoking and interesting.
> ...


 
In my opinion, "regime" and the negative connotations that go with that term are the most accurate way to describe the Bush regime - I mean "administration".  So I will continue to use the term.

Once upon a time, I considered myself a Republican.  I wasn't especially fond of Bill Clinton.  I even voted for W in the first election.  I have been horrified ever since, at the way he and his thugs have run this country.  I am now an Independent.  While I don't see the Dems as being world saviors, they are a far better, more humane, and viable choice at this stage of the game than the Republicans.  

The point is, my political leanings have been hugely affected by the actions of the current regime.

Really, I'm pretty middle-of-the-road, but if my use of that term makes you want to tag me as a "far left loonie", so be it.  I'd take that label over "Republican" or "Conservative" any day, considering what those two terms have come to mean under the Neo-Con regime.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 15, 2008)

Flying Crane,
If thats the way you feel about it, thats cool. It was just some free advice, and worth no more than you paid for it. I disagree, to some extent. But thats ok.

Bob,
you said:
"I find any nation that condones torture, secret trials, secret police, spying on its own people, unlawful and open ended detainments, and continuous violation of international law and treaty to be reprehensible. Now, who fits that description?"

sounds like the Soviets to me.

Dont get me wrong, i know exactly what you are trying to imply, but i dont agree that all those fit todays America. For example, I dont consider loud music, hot or cold, prolonged standing or water boarding torture. Electric shocks, pulling off fingernails, pulling teeth, THATS torture.

America has no secret police.

as for spying on it's own people, well, I know how you feel about that. We have already discussed it.

detaining people is only unlawfull if the law forbids it. That isnt happening. 

And I dont much care about so called "international law" since those other countries routinely break it as well, IE France and germany's secret ILLEGAL business deals with Saddam....and I damned sure dont care what the UN thinks.

'It's a small portion of their population. The average person there, is most likely just like the average person here...could care less, they have more immediate needs to deal with. Identifying the "who" is important."

Absolutely true. The DO-ERS are a small numbers, survey's show that as much as 30% of muslims support those guys tho.

"Stop being the worlds policeman. Pull our military back, stop sending aid out, stop trying to help, and take care of our own here. Let Israel go it alone, or lean on others more than ol' Unkle Sam. Course, this also means, stop buying OPEC oil, and develop our own sources here and alternates as well. Make the US self-sufficient."

Absolutely agree


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 15, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> For example, I dont consider loud music, hot or cold, prolonged standing or *water boarding* torture. Electric shocks, pulling off fingernails, pulling teeth, THATS torture.


 

Just so you know, the United States does hold Water Boarding as torture.  There were Japanese military personnel who were put on trial and executed for using water boarding on POWs during WWII.

Even John McCain has stated that water boarding is torture.  I saw his interview where he said it.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 15, 2008)

John McCain CAN think that. Untill he becomes President and changes the law, it doesnt matter. Plus, the way he was water boarded isnt the same thing as we are doing now.

Water boarding as we do it produces only the FEAR of drowning, there is no    water entering the lungs, therefore no "lasting harm or injury" therefore not legally torture.

For that matter, we water board our military officers as part of their training to resist the technique. If it was that bad, we wouldnt do that.

I find it distasteful, but VERY effective. KSM gave up the goods in less than 3 minutes of this technique.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 15, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Water boarding as we do it produces only the FEAR of drowning, there is no    water entering the lungs, therefore no "lasting harm or injury" therefore not legally torture.



By this definition, electroshock wouldn't be torture.



Twin Fist said:


> I find it distasteful, but VERY effective. KSM gave up the goods in less than 3 minutes of this technique.



*snort* Yeah, that's the problem.  KSM proves that torture is only effective at producing confessions true or false, not the truth.  KSM "confessed" to *everything *under the sun, none of which was true, and sent our agents on a wild, expensive goose chase of mammoth proportions that wasted our resources and directed attention away from the real threats.  KSM is the perfect example of the argument that torture does not produce useful intelligence.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 15, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> And I dont much care about so called "international law" since those other countries routinely break it as well, IE France and germany's secret ILLEGAL business deals with Saddam....and I damned sure dont care what the UN thinks.


 
As when I talk to some British soldier friends of mine, I'm a little shocked when I find I agree with you on some rather right-of-Ghenghis-Khan points but the above is not one of those occaisions.

There is a well known phrase about 'glass houses' and 'mineral missile engagements' that applies here.

If you could find me any significant arms-dealing country in the world, not excepting America from this, that did *not* indulge in illegal trade with Iraq I'd be very interested in seeing proof of it.

We (Britain) did, no doubt about it - just like we sold kit to the Argentinians that we later blew up and/or sunk (some of it, it seems, whilst the war was in action).

I know that you've been a soldier, good sir and I find it difficult to cogniscence that you would believe such a thing as the 'innocence of nations' when it comes to the arms trade (particularly in the aftermath of the Cold War with such mountains of ordinance to shift).


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 15, 2008)

Empty Hands, 
You are 100% wrong. Former CIA director James Woolsey says so.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjNkYmU2NWVlOWE4MTU5MjhiOGNmMWUwMjdjZjU2ZjA=

KSM didnt resist, one CIA veteran said in the August 13 issue of _The New Yorker_. He sang right away. He cracked real quick. Another CIA official told ABC News: KSM lasted the longest under water-boarding, about a minute and a half, but once he broke, it never had to be used again.

KSMs revelations helped authorities identify and incarcerate at least six major terrorists:











 Ohio-based trucker Iyman Faris pleaded guilty May 1, 2003 to providing material support to terrorists. He secured 2,000 sleeping bags for al-Qaeda and delivered cash, cell phones, and airline tickets to its men. He also conspired to derail a train near Washington, D.C. and use acetylene torches to sever the Brooklyn Bridges cables, plunging it into the East River. 










 Jemaah Islamiya (JI) agent Rusman Gun Gun Gunawan was convicted of transferring money to bomb Jakartas Marriott Hotel, killing 12 and injuring 150.










 Hambali, Gunawans brother and ringleader of JIs October 2002 Bali nightclub blasts, killed 202 and wounded 209.










 Suspected al-Qaeda agent Majid Khan, officials say, provided money to JI terrorists and plotted to assassinate Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf, detonate U.S. gas stations, and poison American water reservoirs.








Jose Padilla, who trained with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, was convicted last August of providing material support to terrorists and conspiring to kidnap, maim, and murder people overseas. Padilla, suspected of but not charged with planning a radioactive dirty bomb attack, reportedly learned to incinerate residential high-rises by igniting apartments filled with natural gas.










 Malaysian Yazid Sufaat, an American-educated biochemist and JI member, reportedly provided hijackers Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi housing in Kuala Lumpur during a January 2000 9-11 planning summit. He also is suspected of employing 20th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui. Page 151 of _The 9-11 Commission Report _states: Sufaat would spend several months attempting to cultivate anthrax for al Qaeda in a laboratory he helped set up near the Kandahar airport.

Imagine how many innocent people these six Islamo-fascists (and perhaps others) would have murdered, had interrogators left KSM unwaterboarded and his secrets unuttered.

The most important source of intelligence we had after 9/11 came from the interrogation of high-value detainees, Robert Grenier, former chief of the CIAs Counterterrorism Center, told _The New Yorker_s Jane Mayer. He called KSM the most valuable of the high-value detainees, because he had operational knowledge.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/intelligence/
DIRECTOR McCONNELL: Lets take it from the beginning. Has waterboarding ever been used by a professional organization whose mission is to extract information? The answer is yes. You might ask what are the circumstances? Three times. Situations where theres been interrogation over a period of time. It was unsuccessful. Water boarding was used and then information started to flow.
  Just to put it in context, probably upwards of a quarter to a third of all the information generated in this period of time came from these three individuals. Its saved lives. 
  I would be willing to say its saved lives for some of the people who know, of people who are known to people in this room. So youve got to ask yourself the question, is it worth it?


care to reevaluate your statement?


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 15, 2008)

Twin Fist (or is it Big Don) have you ever used torture, seen it being used or been the victim of it? 
There is interrogation and there is torture. The latter rarely gives you the information you want, it gives you the information the person being tortured thinks you want to hear.The use of torture degrades everyone connected to it.It is barbaric and inhumane....whoever uses it and for whatever reason. it is also pointless other than to satisfy the lust for inflicting pain and humiliation.
Interrogation techniques can be very sophisticated, they are a mind game, knowing when to speak, when not to. It's a deadly game and frankly the only way you will get the accurate information you want. There are ways to play with your subjects mind, brain wash them if you like. Brainwashing which is a crude term is used by the military everyday.....on it's recruits. the process of breaking and then making recruits into soldiers is a classic case of 'brain washing'. I believe the jesuits were also good at techniques dsinged to retain control over their subjects, usually under 7 years old if I remember aright the phrase they use.
I could write a thesis on the effectiveness of interrogation techniques...oh wait I did. Physical torture is never acceptable morally and practically is pointless. so - very much a no win situation there.
And for good measure
http://www.cvt.org/main.php/Advocacy/TheCampaigntoStopTorture/WhatCVTknowsaboutTorture


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 15, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Empty Hands,
> You are 100% wrong. Former CIA director James Woolsey says so.
> 
> http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjNkYmU2NWVlOWE4MTU5MjhiOGNmMWUwMjdjZjU2ZjA=
> ...


 
NO. names can be given very easily, usually minor players and to convict on the say so of someone who's been tortured is dubious. You don't know for sure you got the major players there, only those who are expendable and every terrorist organisation has a few of them.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 15, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> http://www.cvt.org/main.php/Advocacy/TheCampaigntoStopTorture/WhatCVTknowsaboutTorture



yeah, totally unbiased source there.............

sorry, There is evidence that disagrees with you, so while you may have a point, my jury is still undecided.

BTW- While I realize that Don and I seem we share some of the same opinions,  we are not the same person.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 15, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> yeah, totally unbiased source there.............
> 
> sorry, There is evidence that disagrees with you, so while you may have a point, my jury is still undecided.
> 
> BTW- While I realize that Don and I seem we share some of the same opinions, we are not the same person.


 
The evidence doesn't disagree with me at all, I've spent 25 years and counting on this subject, it's the subject the RAF put me through university for and one I practice today. It's an interesting way to pass your working life. 
I love the way you are so sure of everything you post, it's amusing. I love too that your posts are so unbiased, it's refreshing in a sort of say red backwards sort of way.
How many terrorists have you interrogated or even actually met? It must be a great many for you to be so sure that the evidence is against me. 

Note to self...contact all 'varsity depts of Psychology in the morning to inform them all current thinking on interrogation techniques is wrong and all we have to do is stuff the subjects head in water for him to cough up the truth.
Damn, better start looking for new jobs people!


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 15, 2008)

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/10/01/787/66998

http://www.socialistworker.org/


http://www.socialistworker.org/



 Up the Reds



 Liverpool, Liverpool, Liverpool!

sorry, that was apropos nothing. back on track now.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 15, 2008)

Tez,
no offense, but you = "someone on the internet" as far as i know. 

James Woolsey = former head of the CIA giving an interview on widewide TV

hmm, who to believe....

nothing personal you understand, but I take everyone on the internet with a grain of salt. It seems the prudent thing to do.

And I didnt say you were wrong, but dont think you can just tell me you know everything on this subject and expect me to believe it. Grain of salt. Thats why I post links so  often.

BTW- no need to get personal or to be insulting.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 15, 2008)

Good grief, you'd be an idiot to believe someone on the internet just as you wouldn't believe the head of a spy agency!! hell spies don't even believe each other, and don't think we don't know your lot are spying on us and of course we're not spying on you!
I don't expect you to believe anything I write just as long as you understand I don't believe anything you write!

Moi, insulting? I don't know how you got that idea.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 15, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> KSMs revelations helped authorities identify and incarcerate at least six major terrorists:



You complain about biased sources and then post articles from the National Review? 



Twin Fist said:


> care to reevaluate your statement?



"One official cautioned that many of Mohammed's claims during interrogation were "white noise" - designed to send the U.S. on wild goose chases or to get him through the day's interrogation session."
http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/031607/news_20070316065.shtml

"Several senior counter-terrorism officials said they believed that Mohammed falsely confessed to some things, including the Pearl slaying, under duress or to obscure the roles played by operatives who might still be on the loose."
http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-t...5.story?coll=la-tot-topstories&track=ntothtml

There are other sources which claimed that other methods, such as implied threats to his family, is what produced what real information he did provide.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 15, 2008)

Empty Hands
he didnt talk, nothing
90 seconds of WB, he sang like a bird

hmmmmm

Tez,
thats why I post links.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 15, 2008)

Regardless of the sources, sometimes, they are all wrong. I'm not saying that's the case here, but sometimes the truth is not out there. (Yup, I said it....take away my XFiles badge now, LOL!)


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 15, 2008)

Blasphemy!!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 15, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Blasphemy!!


LOL!


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 16, 2008)

Spymasters lie, that's why we employ them, who on earth wants a spymaster of a secret organisation who tells everyone the truth, oh good grief we'll be having people expecting honest politicians next!

Singing like a bird is no good when you want is talking like a man who has crimes to confess. After all, who understands birdsong? Ah yes, another birdbrain.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 16, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Plus, the way he was water boarded isnt the same thing as we are doing now.


 
please explaine the differences, and how you know they are different.



> Water boarding as we do it produces only the FEAR of drowning, there is no water entering the lungs, therefore no "lasting harm or injury" therefore not legally torture.


 
well, just a week or two ago, 60 Minutes ran a story about a German national who was picked up as a terrorist suspect and sent to Guantanamo Bay for a few years.  Eventually, he was released to Germany, where he now lives as a free man.  He was never formally charged with anything.  He had converted to Islam, and was in the wrong place at the wrong time shortly after 9/11.

This guy, (sorry, I can't remember his name) described the waterboarding done to him.  His head was held in a bucket of water, while he was kicked in the stomach to force him to exhale and cough and inhale water.

This was among other things done to him, all the while being monitored by doctors to make sure he wasn't about to die and he could continue to be tortured.

The thing with torture is that you don't necessarily want lasting injury.  You don't want to risk killing the victim, 'cause then you can't continue torturing him.  You just want to put him into agony and extreme fear.

If you torture someone badly enough, they will tell you anything, whether it's true or not.  If they think you want to hear it, if it will stop the torture, they will say it.



> For that matter, we water board our military officers as part of their training to resist the technique. If it was that bad, we wouldnt do that.


 
well, I don't know about that, but I suppose I could ask my brother who served in the US Army JAG Corps, reaching the rank of Captain.  Maybe he was waterboarded.  I dunno.  I'll let you know, the next time I talk to him.

At any rate, if they do this, I suspect it is not to the same level as would be done in a real interrogation.  When you are in a training situation, you feel the agony of the technique, but you KNOW that it is training, and you TRUST that no real harm will come to you. 

When you are being interrogated for real, there is no TRUST in your ultimate safety, and you believe you will actually be drowned in a bucket of water.  You know that you are not safe with the people doing the interrogation.  You believe that they do not care for your life, and they may just decide to drown you and be done.  It's a much more volatile situation.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 16, 2008)

Flying Crane said:


> well, just a week or two ago, 60 Minutes ran a story about a German national who was picked up as a terrorist suspect and sent to Guantanamo Bay for a few years. Eventually, he was released to Germany, where he now lives as a free man. He was never formally charged with anything. He had converted to Islam, and was in the wrong place at the wrong time shortly after 9/11.
> 
> ,


 
Would that be Murat Kuranz?


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 16, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Would that be Murat Kuranz?


 

yup, that's the guy.  thanks!


----------



## Big Don (Apr 16, 2008)

What is it exactly that makes Kuranz so much more believable than the government?
Is it, at least partly, that his worldview is more like yours? 
I mean, CBS would never air anything false would they? Oh, yeah, they did, didn't they...


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 16, 2008)

Flying Crane said:


> well, I don't know about that, but I suppose I could ask my brother who served in the US Army JAG Corps, reaching the rank of Captain. Maybe he was waterboarded. I dunno. I'll let you know, the next time I talk to him.


 
Well, I just got an email back from my brother.  He has never experienced waterboarding, said he isn't even quite sure how it's done.  He prosecuted some Afghan detainee abuse cases, but they did not include waterboarding.

The closest thing he experienced in the course of standard Army Officer training was exposure to CS gas, which was designed to give them confidence in their chemical masks.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 16, 2008)

Big Don said:


> What is it exactly that makes Kuranz so much more believable than the government?
> Is it, at least partly, that his worldview is more like yours?
> I mean, CBS would never air anything false would they? Oh, yeah, they did, didn't they...


 
Or is the Government's worldview simply more like yours?


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 16, 2008)

Big Don said:


> What is it exactly that makes Kuranz so much more believable than the government?
> Is it, at least partly, that his worldview is more like yours?
> I mean, CBS would never air anything false would they? Oh, yeah, they did, didn't they...


 

I suppose we can all just point fingers at each other and shout "LIAR!" as loudly as we can.  Good discussion and debating technique there...


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 16, 2008)

Flying Crane said:


> At any rate, if they do this, I suspect it is not to the same level as would be done in a real interrogation.



They do indeed, although it is part of special forces training IIRC, not general training.  As part of this training, the soldiers are "captured" by the "enemy" and held like prisoners, interrogated, mistreated, etc.  All of this is only to give them experience with it to help them resist and know what to expect, not to actually break them or test their limits.

I believe the type of waterboarding done is where a cloth is placed over the mouth and nose, and water poured on the cloth.  Certainly not what you describe.  Your points about trust and knowledge are very relevant too.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 16, 2008)

Big Don said:


> What is it exactly that makes Kuranz so much more believable than the government?



Well, I have no idea if Kuranz is a liar.  I know the government is though.  We've gone from "we don't torture" to "OK, we tortured these three guys, but it wasn't that bad, honest!".  Thus, the government's actions give credence to Kuranz' story.

Also, Kuranz is not the only one making believable accusations of torture.  Maher Arar, among others, have also made such claims.  Although Arar was handed off to the Syrians to have them do our dirty work for us.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 16, 2008)

Flying Crane said:


> The closest thing he experienced in the course of standard Army Officer training was exposure to CS gas, which was designed to give them confidence in their chemical masks.



OMG. I remember that day. That crap really cleans out your sinuses. If it weren't so damn painful and scary, it would sell like hotcakes.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 16, 2008)

CS training is common for all soldiers and marines, I don't know if the AF and Navy do it, but , what Empty is thinking of is SERE school, at least that is what it sounds like.
SERE is an acronym for Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape, from those I know who have been through it, it doesn't sound like fun.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 16, 2008)

Big Don said:


> OMG. I remember that day. That crap really cleans out your sinuses. If it weren't so damn painful and scary, it would sell like hotcakes.


 
yeah, years ago I remember seeing a documentary on Marine training on TV, and they showed this.  It looked pretty miserable.  Not something I'd do for fun on the weekend.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 16, 2008)

Flying Crane said:


> yeah, years ago I remember seeing a documentary on Marine training on TV, and they showed this.  It looked pretty miserable.  Not something I'd do for fun on the weekend.


On the upside, you've never breathed so clear as you do for a while after every micron of snot leaves your body in a 3 min period.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 16, 2008)

Big Don said:


> SERE is an acronym for Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape, from those I know who have been through it, it doesn't sound like fun.



Yes, that's the one.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 16, 2008)

Flying Crane said:


> please explaine the differences, and how you know they are different.



The difference being, McCain had water poured down his throat. Today, American interigators  cover the mouth with cellophane before pouring the water. No water enters the lungs. 



Flying Crane said:


> well, just a week or two ago, 60 Minutes ran a story about a German national This guy, (sorry, I can't remember his name) described the waterboarding done to him.  His head was held in a bucket of water, while he was kicked in the stomach to force him to exhale and cough and inhale water.


He is suing if i recall correctly, so, grain of salt.....He is also a muslim, with motivation to make the US look bad.BIG grain of salt



Flying Crane said:


> well, I don't know about that, but I suppose I could ask my brother who served in the US Army JAG Corps, reaching the rank of Captain.  Maybe he was waterboarded.  I dunno.  I'll let you know, the next time I talk to him.



Jag lawyers dont go through SAR school. Or BUDS training.

Flying Crane,
I get what you are saying, and it does have merit. Those techniques may well produce some false information. But we know for a fact that it produces true information as well. KSM proved that.

And I dont think Don was calling anyone BUT CBS a liar, and in that case, he is correct.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 16, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> The difference being, McCain had water poured down his throat. Today, American interigators cover the mouth with cellophane before pouring the water. No water enters the lungs.


 
again, that's not what Kuranz describes.



> He is suing if i recall correctly, so, grain of salt.....*He is also a muslim, with motivation to make the US look bad.BIG grain of salt*


 
Ah, so being a Muslim is automatic reason to suspect what he says.  Again, you and I have a big difference in worldview.

He may have a legitimate lawsuit.  Altho I doubt the current regime would allow it to be acknowledged.



> Jag lawyers dont go through SAR school. Or BUDS training.


 
True, but you simply stated that military officers go thru this as part of training.  My brother was a military officer.  He did not go thru it.

As a prosecutor with the US Army, a specialist in military law, I thought he might have some knowledge on the subject.  He did not.  That is his experience, which I have passed on here as I felt it was relevant to the discussion.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 16, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> The difference being, McCain had water poured down his throat. Today, American interigators cover the mouth with cellophane before pouring the water. No water enters the lungs.
> .


 
Actually, I think you mean cloth, rather than cellophane-which would pretty much do the job of asphyxiation by itself, and no need to pour water. The subject is inclined with the head down, so that the lungs are higher than the mouth, and their head or mouth is encased in cloth, which has water poured on it-inducing the feeling of drowning and asphyxiation without introducing water into the lungs....while some CIA men have said that the mouth is wrapped in cellophane and water is dripped into the nose, I don't think this technique is employed much, out of expedience more than anything else.

....of course, it could kill them either way, but hey-if the governement says it's not torture, I guess that should be good enough for me.


----------

