Iraq: Haliburton Employers gang rape an employee.

[TSDguy]

For what it's worth, I'd like to see more quotes and coherent writing in this thread as well. It's pretty tough to follow.

[cxt]

Val

And like I keep saying--I'm replying DIRECTLY TO YOUR POSTS.
Essentially what your saying is that you don't recall what you said in your own posts and can't be bothered to look at them again.

Besides, I directly quoted you in my last post--put "quoation marks" and everything around them--and you STILL refused to address it-----THIS time instead of claiming you could not follow my "grammer" I belive the phrase was, you instead decamp with a NEW reason for not answering my direct questions/posits.

On the off-chance you'll grace us poor benighted souls with your advanced ethical wisdom---lets just keep it simple--3 things.

1---


You have stated that...and I QUOTE

"Given the choice I'd obviously pick an innocent little girl over a hardened terrorist."

Yet you ALSO stated...again I QUOTE

That you-- "wouldn't torture a terrorist to save one life"

Clearly you have a choice in waterboarding--which you clearly see as torture---and just a clearly you choose the "hardened terrorist" OVER the "innocent little girl."

I just like a clear explination of a "ethical" system that ranks non/low physical pain/injury causeing although mentally and emotionally stressful questioning technique so far ABOVE the basic right to life itself.

Or put another way---Why is the mental and emotional comfort of a "harded terrorist" worth more than the very LIFE of an "innocent little girl????"


2-----

Why should such a system of "ethics" as that be used/embraced/considered as superior to other ethical systems?
Why should THAT particuler method be viewed as a the de-fault ethical setting so to speak.???


3-----

You have made repeated reference to "humanity."
Which basically is an appeal to the lowest common denominator...essentially from there you have to go to our commonality as "warm blooded" or "oxygen breathers" or "carbon based lifeforms
Sure we are all "Humans" but that is a SPECIES description--not a statement of moral/ethicial value.

And the plain fact of the matter is that not all "humans" are equal.
Jeffery Dhamer does NOT have equal, intrinsic value as say Jonas Salk...one is a mass murdering scoicopath--the other cured polio.

You have "hardened terrorist" on one hand and "innocent little girl" on the other.

Appealing to the common "humanity" of each would seem at best to delibrately ignore the very real difference with each "human" and at worst to suggest that such distinctions are essentially meaningless in the scope of their "human" commonality.

I'd just like an explaination for that as well.

Have a very merry and safe Christmas and New Year yourself.

[IJ]

Catching up a little on this during a lull in the hospital admissions. The whole thing might as well be a repeat of any argument I've had with cxt. He picks a position, and then, defends it to the death, which generally requires accusatory hyperbole and confidant assertions about x y and z which he won't deign to justify with references; I remember the big one from our "discussion" was that he knew more about the gay rights movement as a casual observer than all the involved parties (lawyers. lawmakers, activists, and so on) and knew so fully they were incompetently managing the efforts that he didn't need to bother to produce evidence or any suggestions for alternative strategies. It won't be productive to go line by line, period; that just leads to endlessly complicated argument and confused statements, smugly stated, along the lines of "first you said civil unions weren't equal and now you're saying they should count as progress " as if those mutually exclusive. In any case:

"Yeah, probbaly....I just can't come up with an workable argument where a person willingly, delibratly, CHOOSES to break fundemental rules of society---and yet should expect decent and humane treatment FROM the very society they so horribly reject. Society has a fundemental right to defend itself."

This is the central issue; cxt believes the "enemy combatants" don't have rights. The problem is this is such a broad concept. Cxt doesn't say, "with regards to mass murder or extreme acts of terrorism or unusual torture, etc." He just says if you choose to break those fundamental rules of society, you shouldn't expect anything but indecent and inhumane treatment. I'm not going to imply he's hinting we should torture an 18 year old who sleeps with a 17 year old, although some would call that a "fundamental" transgression, but we'll all agree that killing a family or raping someone or armed robbery goes against the rules, right? Well, all those things about America that protect the innocent citizen (warrants, jury trials, no double jeopardy, beyond a reasonable doubt, miranda warnings, you name it) apply to criminals as well as innocent people. That's true while they're "presumed innocent" and its true AFTER they're proven guilty by video and DNA.

There is NO question that these terrorists could not be subject to waterboarding or other "nonextreme" torture if they were American citizens. I think we should focus the discussion not on how they are rodents but on:

1) Proving (not just claiming) that if you don't put on a uniform and you get caught, pretty much you can be tortured, bummer (does this apply to our agents in Iran? Would you like it to?)

2) deciding whether or not it's in our interest to torture gently. As I've explained before, the idea that it matters what they think of us was raised by me, poo pooed here, and then validated by a government report that explained how our mishandling of the Iraq mess led to sentiment that fueled insurgency and enemy recruitment.

Where I come from (the hospital) before you make an extreme intervention, you have to show that it will work better than alternatives and has a sufficient return (eg, saves more than 1 in 1 million). Where is the non "gut feeling" evidence that torture produces more useful info than is counterbalanced by the enemy, and the guy on the fence in Iraq, getting riled up by it? Don't state a case about a little girl and a terrorist; cite a paper. I'm all ears.

And of course, society can defend itself. The question is what is the best way and at what cost.

NB: Further comments / replies limited to external documentation and evidence that ununiformed combatants have nil rights and that torture produces a net benefit of info over bad press.

[cxt]

IJ

I pick positions that are rational, defendable, have support and are well thought out........quite unlike the overly emotional, poorly supported and illrational rantings of those that often choose an alternative postion.

I could go point by point---but why bother??....nope lets just deal with the central issue you raised......doing things that help terrorist "recruit."

This is one of the things that I find so irksome about commited ideologies---they get to the point where they can't think stright on a bet.

Case in point---your an openly gay man--so presumably you have some interest in how gays are treated--yes???

You also advance a theory in how ...what was your term, ah yes.."bad press" not only "can" but "does" help these relgious zealots "recruit."

So tell me, what have the gays "done" to them to garner such "bad press" that homosexuality is a DEATH PENALITY CRIME with many of these people???

If "bad press" is the root cause here---then why do they HANG gay people in Iran???

What have the gays done to these relgious extremists that have caused such anger and antipity towards them???????

See, your assumption is that relgious extremists are motivated by sweet, sweet reason is weak...at best.

When cartoons and gays and women being allowed to hold public office, "infidel boots" on the holy soil of Saud, (one of OBL main complaints/explinations as to why he attacked us on 9/11) all set off murderous rage.....then waterboarding would seem to be a rediculous objection for ire---seemingly EVERYTHING the west does/belive in/hold dear is cause for mass murder for these extremists amd thus it helps them recruit.

And your not suggesting that we stop doing things that help them "recruit" are you???

Lets think that through...........

Since the west is causing murdeous rage and helping them to "recruit" by not only allowing gays to to live among us...but actually givening them rights...allowing civil unions, maybe even full adoption and even gasp...marriage!!!!

Are you really suggesting that we should stop doing things that might help these zealots recruit???

Really?

Somehow I really doubt that IJ.

And the sad thing is that you should have thought it through yourself.......and were you more interested in being actually correct instead of being just "politically correct" I'm sure that you would have.

[Bill Glasheen]

why do they HANG gay people in Iran???

Um... Correction here. Didn't you know that Iran has no gays?



So sorry... I couldn't resist.

Carry on, gentlemen. And please be respectful of others while having a sense of humor about yourself and your beliefs.

- Bill

[cxt]

Bill

Maybe he meant NOW they don't---you know after he had them all put to death....along with women whom dressed immodestly and a man and women whom had the affrontry to actually hold hands in public.

And we allowed that murderous zealot a platform to spew his dreck...shame on us.

Seriously, I honestly don't get people that refuse to see the handwriting on the wall.......or is that, being a "religious" reference considered offensive?

Mark Stien (sp) said it best: (my paraphrase)

" I'm a social conservative----so if the mullahs were to take over, I'd just grow my beard longer, pick up a couple of extra wives and keep my head down."

Its the social liberals and leftists that are going to have the serious problems is such situtations....yet they are the very people that refuse to see the danger.

[IJ]

CXT: Your capacity for making a mess of an issue never ceases to amaze me. A psychiatrist friend had a patient admit he was "mixfused" about what was going on. What a lovely neologism for the moment. Here's why:

As a starting point, remember I claimed that terrorist recruitment is aided by press about American abuse of prisoners. This isn't a wingnut theory I came up with. This was the view of a government report on the Iraq situation. If you're smarter than all those analysts, awesome. But I think I'm willing to trust the conclusion, given how reasonable it seems. Think about it--political belief isn't black and white; it comes in grays, a spectrum. There are many potential AQ operatives who haven't joined but would consider doing so. Any missteps we make, from not guarding Iraqi heritage after the war to firing all the Baath officials to disbanding the army to our embarassing prison photos from Abu Ghraib to Bush's crusade comment to news from Gitmo, may and I believe does sway some pseudonuts into full-on nut status. This is a plausible claim made by our government, not my crazy opinion. Ok.

You state that I believe "relgious extremists are motivated by sweet, sweet reason," which, of course, I've never said anything like. I never said reason. I said some fence sitters were susceptible to influence and if we screw up and tip them over into nuthood, that would be a costly mistake. I didn't say they sifted through objective news stories and signed up with AQ out of principle. Where you got this is a complete mystery, and thus, that whole side of your post goes right in the trash, because it is nothing more than your counter to an imaginary post that never occurred.

Next, your major point is basically, "if you support doing one thing to avoid enraging muslims, then you must support doing anything possible to avoid enraging muslims." This idea is obviously without any merit. The world doesn't operate in a complete black or white all or nothing matter, as you seem to believe. For example:

If I support painting a house to protect the wood, that doesn't mean I have to put a glass dome over the whole thing.

If I cut bacon out of my diet, I don't have to eliminate every animal product.

If I run one mile I don't automatically have to swim ten. Got it?

More importantly, there are very good reasons to support civil rights for gays (outlined elsewhere and endorsed by you), and there is less evidence that torture is providing us good information (for example, you cite nothing, nothing at all). We can value the more sensible of the two more highly, of course.

We also have zero, none, zilch evidence to suggest that radical islam attacks us because they hate the gay marriages of Massachusetts, or any other social liberty. They state their reasons rather clearly in their rants, and they DO chant in the street when any insult to their religion is trumped up, whether a cartoon or a teddy. They DO complain about Abu Ghraib and American occupiers and the West meddling in local affairs. They DO complain about civilian casualties and some isolated attacks on civillians there by our troops. They DON'T hold rallies about our same sexers or any of our other freedoms, and while they may disapprove, you haven't produced one atom of data to suggest anyone has ever bothered to attack us because of gay rights. If you can produce any evidence of a rally based upon our less discriminatory approach to gay rights, I will happily admit I was wrong. If you've got a government report that says our gay couples incite people to join AQ, that'd be damning evidence.

In the meantime, your post is absurd. You are basically claiming that if anyone supports doing anything to minimize bad press for our troops, we support converting the USA to an islamic nation and banning the eating of pork and the selling of bikinis, because that would be going all out to win their favor. I suppose since it's all or nothing, you think we should make zero effort to avoid making horrible headlines throughout the mid-east. what a foreign policy that would be!! I'm not sure how you concluded that this was worth typing and publishing, but type and publish you did.

This sorta reminds me of your civil union / marriage confusion. As I just explained, you could not grasp that a CU was progress, but not as good as full equality; they were either worthless or good enough. And now, you have to do nothing or everything possible, including unreasonably value-compromising things, to improve our regional PR. You cannot grasp, or tolerate, any subtlety. I don't know which it is, but it might be a function that comes with proofreading or spellchecking.

Good day & happy NY's.

[cxt]

IJ

In the first palce that opinion that it helps them recruit is exactly that---an opinion.
I don't happen to share it, but even if true, there are no numbers that suggest that its MORE of help to their efforts than anything else we do.

Please look back at what OBL HIMSELF claimed was the reasoning behind attacking us on 9/11----waterboarding ain't even on the list.....

2nd, in any case, what motivates people YOU call "pseudonuts" is, in my opinion an "iffy" proposition----as evidence by the whole Danish cartoon mess.
I'm simple not sure that you or anyone else has established that people willing murder, burn and multilate over CARTOONS is wrapped tight enough to assert that they require what we would see as rational reasons to hate and murder.

Or another way to look at it, if they hate gays so badly they are willing to HANG them---make homosexuality a death penealty CRIME---then how can the west's largely accpeting attitude toward gays (and women) NOT cause them to hate us more????

Dude its NOT illegal to torture people in most ME nations--and the terrorists don't have any problem doing so themselves.
BUT THEY ARE murderously against homosexuality----connect the dots IJ.

I ask AGAIN, if the hate requries "bad press" and is rational in its actions....ie and cause and effect--they what have gays and women done to them to cause them such hate?????

(BTW--that would be NOTHING IJ, they are religious zealots that require no such thing to hate and kill.)

My "point" is that you presume in the face of the evidence that we are dealing with people the apply resonable standards to their decsion making--and they don't....religious zealots seldom do.

What do you consider "evidence" that Shiria law et al have a serious antipithyy toward gays and women??
I consider hanging gays and stoning/flogging women to be "evidence" enough----perhaps you don't?????

But as long as we are talking "evidence" please list the EXACT number of terrorist that were motivated by our waterboarding of other terrorists---by name and what they did if you please.......and if you DON"T have such proofs---then I guess "evidence" is really not what your wanting to present.

(BTW, since it worked well enough to bring down some big players in the terrorist world--I don't really expect them to like it )

Nope, I grasped that civil unions were "progress"--its just that:

A-We were not debating "progress" per-se.

B-You were more concerend with someone daring to contridict you than you were about the issues involved.
A point BTW proven by your wanting to re-hash a months old debate ON A DIFFERENT THREAD ALTOGHTHER.

C-Your whole "progress" arguement was a fall-back postion you took up after I shredded the others you attempted.

Would it be too much to ask to keep things on the current topic??????

[TMoore]

Sounds a little like the Bill Clinton stories told by certain women. Dont you think?

[IJ]

"In the first palce that opinion that it helps them recruit is exactly that---an opinion. I don't happen to share it, but even if true, there are no numbers that suggest that its MORE of help to their efforts than anything else we do."

Like I have said before, you don't have to believe me, believe the government report. The occupation and its missteps were the cause celebre for militants throughout the middle east. If you're smarter than all the analysts who wrote it, please work for the CIA. Anyway, your claim there are no numbers to suggest it is "MORE" of an issue than other things we do does not mean anything. It could be the #2 issue and still cause more harm than good. Clearly.

"Please look back at what OBL HIMSELF claimed was the reasoning behind attacking us on 9/11----waterboarding ain't even on the list....."

And that's because all the waterboarding furor occured AFTER 9/11, as is perfectly obvious. Futher, OBL is one person; he could attack us for one reason, and insurgents could kill troops in Iraq for another. Obviously.

"I'm simple not sure that you or anyone else has established that people willing murder, burn and multilate over CARTOONS is wrapped tight enough to assert that they require what we would see as rational reasons to hate and murder."

Wait, you're saying that they're willing to be outraged about cartoons.... but that we shouldn't worry about any outrage about torture... hmmm, is that really a thesis you want to advance? Just because they're not as rational as computers doesn't mean they don't take notice when Al-Jazeera broadcasts reports about abuse at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib.

"Or another way to look at it, if they hate gays so badly they are willing to HANG them---make homosexuality a death penealty CRIME---then how can the west's largely accpeting attitude toward gays (and women) NOT cause them to hate us more?"

I will try to explain this to you, again. We have a different culture than them. They would prefer that we completely mimic theirs. We are not going to. There will always be some friction. Fine. However, they are not attacking us because our women wear bikinis, or because my boyfriend and I aren't beaten down by the government. Read anything about the middle east, and you will see they are primarily concerned with outside interference in what they view as local affairs to control oil and support israel; our economic policies such as sanctions that hurt regular Iraqis; our occupation, and other things they view as attacking their society, and they seem to make special note of hypocritical events (in their eyes) such as our proclaiming we champion human rights and then getting caught promoting waterboarding more than the rest of the West.

Further, we have to decide what we value and what we're willing to give up. Example: it is not crucial to our culture than Bush use the word Crusade in reference to the occupation, so he should give that up, since it offends people. Torture has NOT been shown, to my knowledge (eager to be educated on this however) to be a useful tool in interrogation, in proportion to its negative press. It creates a bad image for us that helps the other side recruit and diminishes willingness of allies to join our fights. Civil rights ARE crucial to our culture, which is based on freedom. We should NOT start oppressing gays, women, and nonislamists in the USA to curry favor because that is a wrong and abhorrent thing to do and destroys our values.

I hope that's clear.

"Dude its NOT illegal to torture people in most ME nations--and the terrorists don't have any problem doing so themselves. BUT THEY ARE murderously against homosexuality."

Ok, this is not clear. What is your point? I don't look to the ME for ethical guidance, I just try to avoid needlessly inciting their rage.

"But as long as we are talking "evidence" please list the EXACT number of terrorist that were motivated by our waterboarding of other terrorists---by name and what they did if you please.......and if you DON"T have such proofs---then I guess "evidence" is really not what your wanting to present."

You've lost it. In a series of threads, you have consistently demonstrated a complete refusal in posting any proof. You don't respond to direct questions. Then you think that everyone else is obligated to list the addresses of terrorists who joined because of waterboarding.... that's absurd. Everyone joins for complex reasons. I can PROMISE you that people have died because of obesity, but there is no way to prove a certain individual's heart attack was from obesity and not bad luck or smoking or high blood pressure. That doesn't mean we advise obesity! As I mentioned before: The. Government. Wrote. A. Report.

They concluded our behavior was making it easier for AQ to recruit. You want to prove the opposite? YOU need to compile a detailed case. Why don't you start by listing every person in the ME who wasn't upset by waterboarding? Then list every accomplishment we've had because of it.

See how silly that request sounds?

[cxt]

IJ

Nope, what I'm saying is that ascribing "rational" motives to relgious zealots is self-defeating....and a little willfully slow.

If cartoons are causeing murderous riots and waterboarding is not....then it does not take a genius to figure out that your ahm......"reasoning" is lacking something critical somewhere.

Either the masses--ie potential recruits, find cartoons vastly more offensive than waterboarding.....or the group as a whole is working off a set of rules that don't follow the same cognative assumptions you might think.

Sadly, you can be counted on to consitantly try and prove me wrong than take an objective look at your own set of personal bias and ill-logic.

BTW, if you claim that waterboarding is helping them recruit than its would seem a resonable request to actually present some actual proof that it was so....so fan it out...show it to me.

(A---Asserting that "some" people assert that is not really the same as proof.
Please recall that "some" people assert that waterboarding should be done as well.

(B--Of course in the unlikly event you do......I'll just fall back on the SAME logic you and Val expressed on waterboarding....that we don't really know to what extent and how often it works----in context, out of millions of Muslims finding "one" or "some" that were recruited by hatred of waterboarding is hardly a convincing percentage. )

But lets deal with central issues----you claim not to understand my point and you claim that waterboarding causes more terror--more or less--and you claim that I don't provide proofs.

So lets deal with ALL THREE at once.

I suggest you read what OBL and his evil ilk have to say on the matter.

Recall that I posited that they hate homosexuals and homosexual marriage ALOT more than they hate things like waterboarding.........tit would be logical to conclude that the things they hate the most would tend to drive MORE hate--pretty simple concept IJ.

In his Letters to America in 2002 OBL called upon the USA to, --and I quote

"Reject the immoral acts of......homosexuality"

Sure there is alot of stuff OBL wants us to "reject" but homosexuality is number 2 on the list and waterboarding is not there AT ALL.
A resonable person would conclude that in OBL's world--homosexulaity is seen as a far greater problem than waterboarding.

But hey--lets go to the number 2 guy Aymen al Zawahiri--you know the guy that PLANNED the 9/11 attack....what gets his hate on, what really hacks him off....what was on the minds of those he recruited to hlep him kill 3000 plus human beings.....lets go to one of his taped interviews (Agence France-Presse Feb 11 2005)

"The Freedom we want is not the freedom of.........an industry of obscenities and homosexual marriage."

Again, NOWHERE to found in his insane ranting is so much as a mention of waterboarding--but he does have a lot to say about Western decadence in general and homosexual marriage in particular.

(In fact homosexual marrige is higher up on his hate list than Gitmo)

Again--which things bothers him and those that think like him, MORE and thus would help him recruit more people to his cause is not that hard to figure out....if one is actually trying.

Sheik Yusuf Qaradawl---influental person regulary seen on Al-Jazeera BTW had this to say.

"There are strong tendencies in the West to destroy the family...and example of this is the marriage of men with men and women with women....they want to make this homosexulaity seem natrual. They want to make this perversion widespread. This is what they want."

(Nov 28th, 2004 broadcast of Al Jazeera.....memri.org)

AGAIN, no mention of waterboarding--but what REALLY bothers him is homosexual marriage.

So if YOUR arguement is that we should stop doing things that piss off the terrorist and help them recruit MORE terrorists.

As YOU SAY above .....if:

"they concluded that our behavior is making it easier for terrorsts to recruit."

Then why not focus on the "behavior" that ACCORDING TO THE TERRORISTS THEMSELEVS AND PEOPLE IN THE REGIONS that are really hacking them off and they are deeply, deeply, deeply opposed too????

Or should the idea of mass-murdering terrosits dictating to us how we do things be giving everyone the shudders???

You pick genius.

See how "silly" THIS sounds----your essentially argueing that we should stop waterboarding--because even though its worked in a number of high profile captures, brought down some terror cells and saved lives, BUT it might help the terrorist recruit.

But at the same time you wish to utterly ignore things that SPECIFICALLY, EXPLICITLY pissed off OBL himself and motivate his followers to commit mass murder and recruit others to help him do it.

Nah, that does not sound "silly" to me at all........ sheesh.

I eagerly await your ponderous post hoc rationalizations for why we should be doing EVERYTHING we possible can to keep murderous scum from recruiting EXCEPT the one thing that they, people in the region, etc see as a really serious issue.....homosexuality and homosexual marriage.

In my opinion, we should NOT allow some mass-murdering terrorist/and religious fanatic to tell us how we should live our lives, whom gets to marry and what techniques we employ to stop them.

I think/feel/belive that gays should have the same rights as every citizen when it comes to their lives, marriage etc.

You however, seem to arguing from the same position as OBL himself....that its a bad idea to do things that upset him and his followers

[IJ]

As expected, you really haven't fed back anything worth quoting in detail. However, to summarize:

1) Our activities in Iraq, and particularly PR missteps like abu ghraib and prisoner mistreatment, is a cause celebre for extremists and aided recruitment, per a government report compiled by more experienced and smarter persons than yourself, and you haven't done a thing to refute that ... FACT. NB: seeing as the government went to the trouble of producing this report, I'm not going to duplicate their efforts for you here.

2) Many people (eg, see an article on this at Slate, or ask McCain) don't believe that torture is either justifiable or effective at providing useful information. Even if it is, it may not be worth the cost-benefit exchange involved.

3) Your assumption that they hate us more because we are more permissive toward same sex relationships than because we have invaded their countries and meddled in their affairs is totally unproven. Great, OBL mentioned homosexuality 6 years ago once... what was the rest of the speech about? Do you really expect him to list different forms of interrogation and refer to his preferred methods for captured accomplices? Of course not, just like he's not going to outline whether its ok to kiss, hug, etc another man. And you may have missed this one: the huge insurgency in Iraq isn't led by OBL and is largely motivated by hatred of the occupying army and our behavior / mistakes (I'm reading the excellent "Imperial Life in the Emerald Palace," right now, and honestly neither homosexuality nor torture have come up yet and I'm 80% done. *Mistreatment* and resentment are the obvious themes, whereas there hasn't been a single reference to dislike of the way americans behave themselves on the other side of the world (shocker, eh?). I'm impressed you actually found some quotes from Arabists on homosexuality to halfway buttress your claim, but you sound a little foolish when you claim that they're upset about homosexuality and not torture. Would you have me believe you couldn't find ANY quotes about their response to Gitmo and Abu Ghraib? That would be outlandish, no? Comparison, this is not.

PS: the cartoon situation was whipped up by PR extremists. It wasn't as if the general populace decided to be upset about it; that was staged. Either way, there is no reason to think that because cartoons upset some nutjobs, that waterboarding won't help.

"Then why not focus on the "behavior" that ACCORDING TO THE TERRORISTS THEMSELEVS AND PEOPLE IN THE REGIONS that are really hacking them off and they are deeply, deeply, deeply opposed too?"

Maybe you should read my post? Where I explain that giving up things that offend withour proven benefit is wise, but compromising the very foundation of our culture by denying people their freedoms is, as you probably know but don't want to acknowledge because you'd prefer to continue asinine arguments unhindered, NOT wise, or worth it.

"In my opinion, we should NOT allow some mass-murdering terrorist/and religious fanatic to tell us how we should live our lives, whom gets to marry and what techniques we employ to stop them."

Brilliant. Because that's what I've really suggested, that we ask him to tell us how to fight him. I haven't, you know, merely asked us to consider whether some strategies cause more harm than good?

"You however, seem to arguing from the same position as OBL himself....that its a bad idea to do things that upset him and his followers."

Har har. You know me, always kowtowing to OBL. Tell ya what, if the alternative is arguing with a child, I'll kowtow to you and apologize. Yeah, I'm OBL's tool and we should torture without regard to the PR effects on their recruitment of terrorists and our recruitment of allies in the war on terror

[IJ]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/washi ... ssess.html

This is what I'm referring to. Report says our management of the Iraq war is driving recruitment and anti-US sentiment. Takes a minisecond to google. Anyway, it ISN'T a report that says torture caused massive recruitment; it IS a rebuttal to the asinine approach that dismisses the PR effects of our actions with lines like "you want OBL to tell us how to fight the war on terror?" or "who cares what they think of us?"

One thing not mentioned anywhere: gays. Dur.

[cxt]

IJ

And as per your SOP---you merely assert what I have failed to do---in your opinion rather than deal in the specifics you demand from everyone else.........which as I have pointed out prior---holding others to rules you except YOURSELF from is a unfortunate habit of yours.

As to your point "1"

Actually I have "refuted" that quite well---I have repeatdly asked you to PRODUCE the folks motived by waterboarding to join the terrorists-----and you have consitantly failed to do so.
SO AGAIN---show them to me---fan it out.

I also note that you have now conflated and expanded the discussion to include AG etc.....clearly you lack the requested information and hope to cloud the WATERBOARDING discussion with extranious issues.

As to your point "2"

And "many people" don't consider waterbaording "torture"---with all due respect to McCain his is not the only voice.
Of course that could change if he become POTUS.

If its a "cost benefit" that you want--I point to the high profile people its helped capture......a debatable point, but hardly conclusive at this stage.

(BTW--I point to the high level captures/intel we got thu waterboarding as the "proven benefit" you seem not to be aware of. )

As to your point "3"

Nope that is a serious ERROR on what I actually said--again sadly typical of discussion with you IJ, you keep mis-reading what I said---I can only assume willfully then attacking the MISTAKE YOU MADE--rather than responding to what I REALLY said.

In this case I was dealing with waterboarding compared to other things that drive their hate and presumably their recruitment........NOT as you put it--and I quote

"invading their countries and meddled in their affairs."

See were talking about WATERBOARDING here of late--not the complete scope of the entire history of the Wests foreign policy in the region.
And in CONTEXT with the topic---I present all sorts of quotes from the main evildoers of our time--comparing and contrasting their own published hate lists---comparing and contrasting waterboarding with other things they hate.

And I don't see much mention of waterboarding at all---and compared to things like homosexuality, gay marriage, drinking, fornication, genders danceing etc-----waterboarding is not even an also ran.
Heck, even Gitmo is listed AFTER gays/gay marriage in terms of what the guy that planned 9/11 hates MOST.

The inference is cystal clear...for those not blinded by ideological frothing.

Last section.

Nope, not "brillant"---its a pretty simple mistake....one that it disapoints me to see you make/have to point out....your usually better than that.

Your essential arguement above breaks down as a simple assertion--NOT AN ACTUAL QUOTE-MY PARAPHRASE.

"we should not waterboard because it helps them recruit"

I merely presented a behavior that they clearly hate MORE than waterboarding that just as clearly helps them to recruit murderers.

(Along with the aformentioned drinking, danceing, fornication, etc of course.)

Since YOUR NOT calling for us to stop any of those things that help them recruit, fornacation, drinking, danceing, gender mixing, homosexuality, gay marriage etc--SAVE waterboarding......the logical conclusion is that your really NOT actually opposed to helping them recruit at all.

Or you don't really belive that doing things that they themselves REPEATADLY claim to deeply hate, actually helps them recruit at all.

At least that is the actual arguement and its ramifications/implications as you laid it out.

Like I said, kinda disappointing------an unusually Sophomoric mistake for you.

Another interesting thing---again your demands for actual quotes etc is that I quote OBL HIMSELF, I QUOTE AL ZAWAHERI HIMSELF, I quote DIRECTLY from Al Jazeera.

I quote the murderers and zealots IN THEIR OWN WORDS.

You---you quote opinions in the New York Times.

Sheesh.......

Its also telling that the story you link states essentially states that the terrorists "are outpaceing Mr Bush."

Yet you and the Times are AGAINST any measures that might help...such as waterboarding.

Easy to prophesy doom when your helping bring it about.

[IJ]

1) it is an absurd request to ask for specific terrorists who joined because of waterboarding for so many reasons that if you cannot grasp a handful on your own, there is no reason to begin explaining it.

2) McCain is far from the only person who'd view waterboarding as torture. If you're not already well aware of this, no point in trying to persuade you.

3) As for your high level captures, a link or a listing would be more convincing. Also, make sure you prove that they wouldn't have been captured using other methods, because if you don't know that, what have you shown, really? (admittedly this is tough to demonstrate, but that's partly me reminding you how your requests sound).

4) I know you're trying to keep this discussion limited completely to waterboarding, but that's kinda stupid. I mean, we all know that perceptions are complex. When we talk about what upsets fantatics, that won't be limited to waterboarding, or homosexuality. Obviously (to some) multiple things all factor in; I'm sure you would like to limit this to W.B. alone so you can make it nearly impossible to show the insurgency is driven by it, but of course, it'd be as impossible to show this is all driven by homophobia. The sadly more complex truth is that all the complexities of the Iraq war (the fact we invaded, how we behave now that we have, how much electricity baghdad gets, how we manipulate media there, the whole shebang) affect our image and thus recruitment. I'm just saying the idea that horrible press about WB/torture in our news hurts us, and you're unable to show WB helps us more than it sets us back, which really isn't such a hard concept to swallow.

5) as for your quotes, I'm thrilled you were able to find a bare few of em over the last 10 years that mention homosexuality. If you think that shows that homosexuality influences the average extremist more than our image as questionable champions of human rights, again, no point in explaining anything to you. You seem to think OBL carefully ranked his dislikes, and then you seem to assume that applies to the large populations of different sects and cultures across the ME that contribute to the extremist pool--wow--that's a leap of faith, eh?

6) "the logical conclusion is that your really NOT actually opposed to helping them recruit at all."

No, this is an illogical conclusion. You keep defending the most ridiculous positions (in this case, if you support giving up torture to reduce recruitment, you either support gutting the freedoms and civil rights that underpin our culture and nation, or you're inconsistent), and as usual, because you're NOT too stupid to remember to breathe, this appears to be just to be argumentative.

Look, a 4 year old could understand that its consistent to promote civil liberties broadly (eg, don't torture, don't discriminate against gays), or that a mature mind weighs pluses and minuses and could decide that hanging on to civil rights is WORTH offending extremists and but hanging onto torture is NOT WORTH offending extremists. Just like I've given up all regular sodas and red meat but still occasionally have icecream.

Let's put it this way--if you understand that people might rationally give up one thing for their diet (eg soda but not icecream) or to please a spouse (eg maybe cocaine, but not pot), we're in essential agreement.

If you can't, you're unteachable, and goodbye.