"Now, as we try to get to the bottom of what happened during those years, we have to acknowledge that doing so might put us in further danger."
The LA Times thinks we need to see more of those graphic photos.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१६८ टिप्पण्या:
Act II: There is "widespread public outrage" that will convince the Dear Leader (PBUH) to reverse his decision, criticize those who suggested it, and set the stage for the prosecutions to come during Act III.
The dried voices
Of the nameless editorials
From the LA Times,
These are the hollow men
The stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpieces filled with straw.
They are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats' feet over broken glass
from Eliot
War is cruelty. So what has moral standing got to do with killing active war time opponents? The LA times wants to ask our enemies, sworn to their God to enslave and kill us, to see how open and tender we have suddenly become towards them in the middle of the war. Yeah that should work fine. So why not go all the way to become tender and disband the cruel American Military so the world can live in peace forever? That is a moral standing that also gets you and your children buried by next year.
- if the detainees in these pictures aren't wrapped in pig skins, I don't want to see them - show me Nancy Pelosi seated front row at a water boarding session, glossy eyed, mouth agape.....
One thing I learned while watching All My Children and One Life to Live: The truth always comes out.
"Now, as we try to get to the bottom of what happened during those years...This is a fradulent argument. No one has any trouble knowing what happened during "those" years. What the LA Times wants is a bloody flag to wave.
The media serves its own interests and what it wants is to sell more copy. Anti-war propaganda is the yellow journalism of our time.
What further purpose can be served by releasing more pictures of the misdeeds at Abu Graib? I can't recall hearing anyone calling for the release of photos taken by rapists doing their evil deeds, and for the life of me I really can't see much qualitative difference here.
I suppose that the LAT might hope to sell more papers, but what other good would arise?
Zero is atoning for our unpardonable past aggressions by releasing the Gitmo muzzies to take their justified revenge on us, all over the country.
The Times is only interested in posterity, of course.
This kind of pornography may only come around once in a lifetime.
It’s artistic value cannot be overstated.
I propose a compromise. The photos should be released but only after Perez Hilton has doodled semen on them.
As I wrote in your previous abuse photo post, why not wait until the conclusion of all military operations in theater to release all of the photos of detainee abuse? That way ALL of the abuse photos, including those from events that have yet to occur, can be displayed. It's win/win, and will save everyone money and free up the courts from having to continually hear the ACLU's cases to free pics up after every single event.
And when the time comes to display the abuse photos, how about making a big special exhibit of them right in the Newseum, America's News Museum?? I think the Newseum could do a rocking exhibit, maybe entitled "Detainee Abuse throughout the Bush/Obama Era", complete with the infamous photos, a few makeshift displays of skinny, raggedly clothed detainee mannequins prostrate and fearful-looking before imposing American Soldier mannequins with grim faces and full combat gear, pointing weapons at the detainee mannequins' heads and stuff.
And of course no newseum exhibit would be complete without numerous enlarged and laminated editorials surrounding the rest of the exhibit, including the brave LA Times editorial screaming for the release of the photos.
It probably wouldn't be as exciting as the current "Hunting Lincoln's Killers" special exhibit currently drawing 75-80 people per day to the Newseum, but hey, it's great history, and maybe the Bush-hating teachers will force, er take their classes there to check out the display. . .
Desperate times for the LA Times.
Even Abu Ghraib porno won't save their hemorrhaging bottom line.
This is the way the LA Times ends
This is the way the NY Times ends
This is the way the Star-Tribune ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
Yep. The LA Times just wants more blood spilled. It's good for business.
Good stuff, Pogo.
""This country has already alienated allies and seen its moral standing crumble.""
Just replace "country" with "newspaper" and you have a theme.
Torture keeps us safe. But photos of it will kill us.
Is there some evidence that prisoner abuse (outside of that alleged during interrogations) has gone unpunished? Or is this merely an attempt to morally flagellate ourselves for the actions of a few ne'erdowells?
Unless, for balance, they wish to show the abuse photos of our enemies, the photos from 9/11, the shots of Muslim Arabs dancing in the Middle East to shots of our falling towers, the decapitation of Danny Pearl. Photos of Saddam's "Children's Prison" then I don't really want to hear about any moral preening from these guys.
They may be trying to save themselves, but in reality, they are acting as sacrificial lambs. As I said yesterday The One (PBUH) will come out winning no matter what.
Hey maybe before publishing them the LA Times can take them on the road like King Tut.
Or they can keep the paper alive via the infusion of a Web peep show concession.
It’s a potential gold mine.
Here's an idea for the LA Times:
Don't buy any more ink or pay any writers; just shred their newsprint stock and sell it as good liner for horse stalls and gerbil cages.
Aren't there numerous of examples of hideously disturbing photos not released by the federal govt that have similar news value?
Mangled victims found inside the WTC?
The charred bodies of children at Waco, Tx?
Nancy Pelosi's boudoir photos?
garage, I'm curious...do you want these released? And if you do, why?
Torture keeps us safe. But photos of it will kill us.
When the LAT calls for the release of photos obtained by the govt, say, of the "civillians" killed in Predator drone attacks ordered by Obama, then you might be arguing from equivalence.
Why should no talent Paris Hilton and countless of C list celebrities have a lock on the porn market?
The LA Times have got to find a way.
Say whatever you want to say about DeLorean, but you can never say that he failed because he didn’t try.
We can't show the Mohammed cartoons, it would enrage Muslims. We must show the Abu Grab photos it will enrage Muslims.
This country has already alienated allies and seen its moral standing crumble.
What moral standing are they talking about? Can someone actually point me to the time when the United States was looked upon as some moral beacon by the international community? Was there some point in between of being accused of genocide of the American Indian, enslaving the black race, nuking the Japanese, killing millions of Vietnamese that our halo shone bright?
Newsflash for the LA Times, we never held any moral standing with the rest of the world. At best grudging respect during and shortly after WW2 and that was watered down because we didn’t get off our ass and preemptively join the bloodletting until we were actually attacked. And what allies have we alienated? Has NATO folded (God knows it should), ambassadors recalled? Sanctions put into effect? Considering the millions continuing to pour across our borders we don’t seem to be alienating as many as the Times thinks. I tend to think that the only way the left thinks we can regain our moral standing is to self-flagellate ourselves on the world stage. Maybe Obama should have done his apology tour in a horsehair shirt and prostrated himself to more world leaders than the Saudi King.
Torture keeps us safe. But photos of it will kill us.
As a matter of fact, yes. Why would this not be possible? The same as anything else uncomfortable that we do to win a war. Of course, Abu Grab had no function and will enrage without benefit. Except to the LA Times.
I expect that publishing the water boarding of KSM would make them less scared of us and more willing to take up arms as well.
Look, if the LA Times doesn’t publish them their competitor Chavez will.
Of course Chavez would probably flood the market with low quality shit, practically giving them away.
See?.. They really have no choice.
"Torture keeps us safe. But photos of it will kill us."
Bonehead.
You sit at your keyboard acting superior while men better than you, away from their loved ones and at risk in a way you've probably never experienced in your life, protect your right to type such tripe.
Take a deep breath Garage and thank God I don't know where you live.
"Aren't there numerous of examples of hideously disturbing photos not released by the federal govt that have similar news value?"
Scare Force Won.
"Can someone actually point me to the time when the United States was looked upon as some moral beacon by the international community?"
Dead on. The idea that other countries look to us for moral guidance and reassurance is pure and utter bullshit. Never have, never will. Put another way, what countries do we do that to? If they thought our way was better they'd mimic it to a tee.
As has been noted before, nations don't have permanent friends, only permanent interests. Our "moral standing" and other such sophomoric (used in the truest sense of the roots of the word) garbage fly right out the window when another country finds it in their interest to oppose us.
The last line of the article should be, "plus, we would sell a whole lot of newspapers with the photos on page 1.)
You sit at your keyboard acting superior while men better than you, away from their loved ones and at risk in a way you've probably never experienced in your life, protect your right to type such tripe..
Oh fuck off. This has nothing do with soldiers. And believe me when I say wanting to know where I live is the last thing you want to know.
One thing I learned while watching All My Children and One Life to Live: The truth always comes out.
And that everyone has an evil twin.
Speaking of photos...somebody explain this:
"Washington Times Runs Obama Girls' Photo With Story About Murdered Chicago Kids"
On Wednesday, a story in the Washington Times about murdered Chicago schoolchildren was inexplicably paired with a photo of President Obama's daughters.
The two girls are not mentioned in the story, and aside from having at one point been schoolchildren in Chicago have no conceivable connection to it.
The Obama children, of course, are not actually mentioned in the news story. But somebody at the WashTimes thought it made perfect sense to insert the image of the underage White House occupants into a story about murdered kids in Chicago.
And no, this was not an example of an unfortunate juxtaposition, where the the Obama girls photo was actually part of another, more innocuous story and because of a layout quirk simply appeared near the murdered-kids story. Instead, the Obama girls photo was specifically selected to accompany the article.
I realize the Washington Times is a conservative publication what would possibly think this is decent?
Where are the adults?
That is an interesting point, the LA times would not reprint the mohammed cartoons for fear of enraging muslim sensibilities but is chomping at the bit to show detention photos. One major point folks on the left refuse to acknowledge is what do we do with future detainee photos? You think this is the last of the bad guys that have been rounded up? Should we just publish all the detainee photos on the web on a weekly basis? Where is the cut off? Forgive some of us for thinking there is another agenda at work.
"Torture keeps us safe. But photos of it will kill us."
We engage in harsh interrogation because, even though we would rather not engage in such distastefull tasks, it is helpfull to our side.
How exactly it helps our side by releasing inflammatory images has yet to be explained.
Given the lack of reasoning as to how or why this could be good for us, I have to conclude that people who wish the release either have a vested interest (LA Times) or are not on our side. Or both.
If someone was actually interested in "getting to the bottom" of the (supposed) destruction of our moral standing and alienated allies, we could start with the press who saw fit to present such things as the abuse at Abu Graib as ours alone.
For a clue... when we arrived at that prison, it had been a prison. During conversion for our use we found a building so soaked in human blood that the US military commander in charge ordered it razed rather than have our soldiers suffer the psychological distress of cleaning it.
For another clue... the treatment of prisoners by the US, as bad as it ever got, did not even begin to compare to the treatment of prisoners by the enemy. And explaining that condemning the enemy for behavior so depraved as to be near incomprehensible is pointless because they have no shame, only shows who doesn't have it.
Yes, true... it might "do some good" to point out the sins of America, because America CARES about its sins...
But to turn around and cry that our moral standing in the world has crumbled and then to have the gall to wonder why?
That's just amazing.
That is horrific judgment on the part of The Washington Times, Jeremy.
That is horrific judgment on the part of The Washington Times, Jeremy..
It's complete irrelevance to this thread notwithstanding but I consider the source ;-)
Jeremiad = Threadkill.
That is an interesting point, the LA times would not reprint the mohammed cartoons for fear of enraging muslim sensibilities but is chomping at the bit to show detention photos..
It's not so much interesting but flat out telling of where loyalties lie. Display obscene and insulting depictions of Christian icons and they're celebrated as works of art and free expression. Hey, need more cowshit on the Virgin Mary! Christians who are offended are simply told to STFU and deal with it. Show a cartoon of Mohammed and it's denounced as racist, culturally insensitive, deliberately provacative of a 'vulnerable group', how dare you offend a billion people?
It would actually be funny if it wasn't so fucking tragic.
Oh. Good point, Hoosier Daddy. ;-)
My reccomendation is to create a Ken Burns film of the the Iraqi Army leaving Kuwait in February 1991 with highlights of Smart bombs going into the precise Baghdad windows. Then show the scenes of the Trade center Towers jumpers, followed by a narration reminding viewers that 1991 war happened without the 2001 attack happening first. That should restore our moral standing 100% in the enemy eyes, since Moslems have no respect for mercy or forgiveness, but do respect American power. Then we pray that Sweet Ole Barrie does not cry on camera apologising to his sweet ole Moslems.
Excellent point from Josh Marshall:
Following the LogicIf we need to keep evidence of torture, like photographs, secret, to protect our troops, doesn't that suggest that torture isn't a great way to keep them or us safe? .
As more news comes out it becomes increasingly clear that much torture was directed toward extracting (false) confessions of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.
I doubt most con's, cloistered in their Faux News bubble, even know that.
traditionalguy, Saddam was not involved in 9/11.
Please wrap your brain around that historical fact.
Excellent point from Josh Marshall:
Following the LogicIf we need to keep evidence of torture, like photographs, secret, to protect our troops, doesn't that suggest that torture isn't a great way to keep them or us safe? ..
Actually that's pretty shitty logic. Try this. We need to keep the information about our aircraft stealth technology secret to protect our pilots from being shot down. That suggests the methods used to protect them should be kept secret.
HoosierDaddy, when did the LA Times print "more cowshit on the Virgin Mary?"
And why should they print those anti-Muslim cartoons? Those cartoons are different than photos of torture.
Do you understand that basic difference? The cartoons were someone's opinion and not someone who worked for the LA Times. You like to insult Muslims and, so, would like to see insulting cartoons published.
But these pictures. They are different. They are the historical record of when the USA descended into the barbaric and sadistic abyss of torture with other lawless or rogue states.
Hoosier Daddy's response makes me wonder if he just may be insane:
Actually that's pretty shitty logic. Try this. We need to keep the information about our aircraft stealth technology secret to protect our pilots from being shot down. That suggests the methods used to protect them should be kept secret. .
You didn't address Marshall's point at all, except to curse it.
Are you dumb? Or nuts?
Try again. Address the actual point, which is core to the thread topic (which doesn't include Muslim cartoons or Stealth planes).
The LA Times? Ha. I thought they were dead.
They are the historical record of when the USA descended into the barbaric and sadistic abyss of torture with other lawless or rogue states.
Only if you're ignorant enough to think that prisoner abuse by US personal [military and civies] didn't start until the Bush admin.
Please, we know the Left doesn't really believe in the things they lecture us about.
we could start with the press who saw fit to present such things as the abuse at Abu Graib as ours alone.
Actually, Newsweek with their fake Koran-flushing story. And I bet peeps like Alpha swallowed all of it.
Fen, you're good at making stuff up. For once, back up your claims.
Show us where there was a previous existing US policy to use torture on prisoners.
Show us the historical records of what happened under Cheney/Bush:
- Beatings (many to death)
- Hanging people from shackles for long periods (days in some cases).
- Near-drowning
- Putting people in confined boxes in stress positions for long periods.
- Shackling people to the floor so they couldn't move.
- Threatening naked people with dogs. (Allowing some to be bitten).
- Withholding food and water.
- Denying people the ability to sleep for days.
(And let's not forget, these are alleged terrorists, with allegations often coming from people collecting the bounties. Many innocents were tortured by the USA).
Put up or shut up.
garage: Oh fuck off. This has nothing do with soldiers
Right back at ya bitch. Even your anointed prophet has admited that the release of these pics will do nothing but put our troops lives at risk.
Then you can stand with Code Pink outside the hospital with your "maimed for a lie!" placards.
Its a win-win for pathetic liberal parasitic scum like yourself.
I hope your kidney fails. I hope you see your children choke to death on their own blood.
Ok, that was very disturbing, Fen.
AlphaBitch: Show us where there was a previous existing US policy to use torture on prisoners.
"I began exploring the historical continuity, the connections, between the CIA torture research back in the 1950s and Abu Ghraib in 2004. By using the past to interrogate the present, I published a book titled A Question of Torture last January that tracks the trail of an extraordinary historical and institutional continuity through countless pages of declassified documents. The findings are disturbing and bear directly upon the ongoing bitter debate over torture that culminated in the enactment of the Military Commissions law just last October."
"... After codification in its 1963 KUBARK manual, the CIA spent the next thirty years propagating these torture techniques within the US intelligence community and among anti-communist allies across Asia and Latin America"
"...Yet when President William Clinton sent this UN Convention to Congress for ratification in 1994, he included language drafted six years earlier by the Reagan administration—with four detailed diplomatic “reservations” focused on just one word in the convention’s 26-printed pages. That word was “mental.”
Significantly, these intricately-constructed diplomatic reservations re-defined torture, as interpreted by the United States, to exclude sensory deprivation and self-inflicted pain—the very techniques the CIA had refined at such great cost."
More at:
http://hnn.us/articles/32497.html
AlphaBitch: Put up or shut up.
You shut up. You don't give a damn about torture, except to use as a poltical weapon against your enemies.
Darcy: Ok, that was very disturbing, Fen.
Nah, it was hysterical. Its the new "humor" as approved by the Left and President Obama. See, if you're telling a "joke" then its okay to wish death and suffering upon your enemies.
Hope and Change!
BTW Alpha - Fuck you.
And why should they print those anti-Muslim cartoons? Those cartoons are different than photos of torture.
Do you understand that basic difference? The cartoons were someone's opinion and not someone who worked for the LA Times. .
No you don't understand the difference. Those cartoons became news with the subscribers of the Religion of Peace went on a violent rampage and killing spree because they haven't quite made that social evolution beyond the
11th century.
You like to insult Muslims and, so, would like to see insulting cartoons published. .
And you like to insult Americans and want to see the photos published. Actually I could care less. I really don't care if Muslims are inflamed considering they get inflamed over stupid cartoons. Maybe they could get just as inflamed over their own Muslim bretheren who continually self detonate among them.
You didn't address Marshall's point at all, except to curse it. .
No I provided a counter analogy. It's not my fault you're not smart enough to understand it.
Fen-
Don't let garage crank yank ya.
He has no idea...actually both of them-and that is readily apparent by their contributions...
"It's terrible that the president was faced with such an unpalatable choice, but it's just one of the many awful results of the culture of torture and lawlessness put in place by the Bush administration."
The LA Times wants to forget about the culture of terrorism. Even Chris Matthews was talking over a guest from Salon last night reminding her that Presidents need to sometimes make lawless decisions to protect this nation.
HuffPo wasn't showing a clip of that this morning. Go figure?
"As more news comes out it becomes increasingly clear that much torture was directed toward extracting (false) confessions of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11."
I thought torture occurred because our military and Repubs are bloodthirsty cretins on the brink of psychosis.
I'm talking about Alpha.
Anyways supposedly according to Andrew McCarthy-Obama could end the whole issue by-
Executive Order.-
Their is no need for him to punt the responsibility of the decision to The Supreme Court.
Supposedly they are saying that Obama sees a new argument that could be presented to the Court.
Some are hoping that yet again-[and all we do have left is optimism in the face of this]-that Gibbs is misstating or flubbing what Obama intends to do.
Because again supposedly he can choose to end the whole thing by Executive Order based on previous statements he has issued saying that it is a National Security issue.-I'm not really sure what the technicality is there.
He has no idea...actually both of them-and that is readily apparent by their contributions...
Yup.
The book on the US history of torture was the first hit I found with a simple net search.
If they were really concerned about torture, their research would have led them to it long ago.
Fens Rule: "The Left doesn't really believe in the things the lecture us about"
Because again supposedly he can choose to end the whole thing by Executive Order based on previous statements he has issued saying that it is a National Security issue.-I'm not really sure what the technicality is there..
There isn't a technicality. This is just another example of Obama voting present. I'm glad to see the Left with their panties in a twist over this because its about time the scales fall from their eyes and see this fraud for what he is. Oh he's doing a bang up job with his socialist takeover of the auto/financial and soon the health care industry so the AlphaLibs should be able to take some solace in that. Unfortunately for them, I think Obama is less concerned with the potential threats to our troops over this than the exposure it could shed on prominent members of his party who not only knew this kind of shit was going on but were concerned it wasn't enough.
Here are the previous torture photos.
HoosierDaddy:
No I provided a counter analogy. It's not my fault you're not smart enough to understand it.Marshall's point was not an analogy. It points out the inconcistency in the Republican embrace of torture:
a) Republicans say we need to torture to be safe.
b) Republicans say that publishing photos of torture will decrease our safety.
It's not the photo that decreases our safety, but the actual act of torturing people. Point A is completely false.
Penney:
Presidents need to sometimes make lawless decisions to protect this nation. .
No. There's a reason they're called "laws." Cheney had people tortured to create "proof" of a link between 9/11 and Iraq. That wasn't about protecting us.
You start opening that door and a lot more nasty and lawless stuff quickly goes through it.
And that's the problem today. We have a political elite that thinks the laws don't apply to them. Problem is, they may be right.
Fen:
Actually I knew about the CIA record of training other nations in torture. And have opposed it for decades.
But you haven't shown where US forces conducted torture. It's one thing to train other forces to use it (to suppress their own populations under military dictatorships, no less).
It's a whole different thing when we jump to use torture. And, when people are waterboarded 183 times in one month, it's not to get information but just to be sadistic.
Alpha Liberal was dancing on Capitalism's grave and doing a celabratory jig over Posner's post.
Posner -is a conservative Chicago boys economic/law judge on the rather Conservative Seventh Circuit-
Posner was vague on many points in his post-I think in an effort to get people to buy his book which is entitled something to the effect-
The End Of Capitalism...-
What Alpha Liberal fails to understand is that part of Posner's premise is that Obama has been- The Death Knell for the End of Capitalism.
Now how anyone could say that Capitalism the most successful economic system for a lengthy period of time-is over or a bad idea-well I dont' know how you do that.
But-to celebrate the end of Capitalism as Alpha Liberal does?
Well explain to me how America is or was America without Capitalism?
And again we've defeated a lot of ideologies via Capitalism-there is an argument to be made that the Arms Race put forward by Reagan culminating with SDI is what caused Russia to falter. Essentially the Ivans of Russia who were more inspired by vodka than doing their best for the common good were not putting out very well-economically.
Again immigrants want to come to America for the economic opurtunity-our moral superiority-not so much.
Failing to publish the cartoons was an epic failure of journalism because without showing the cartoons it was impossible to tell the story, to show the facts, or to begin to understand what happened.
First, and most important... the cartoons published in Denmark were not the same ones used to stir up the hatred and strife. They may have violated rules about depicting Mohammad, but they were pretty mild.
They were added to.
The same fellow who got all the Danish flags prepared ahead of time *added* truly offensive pictures to the cartoons. Pictures that had nothing at all to do with the Danish cartoonists.
To understand this, we'd need to actually see what pictures were involved.
The pictures used as evidence in trials (hey, why not consider how our investigations and convictions relates to our "moral standing"... or would reporting on how investigations were already underway and the first photos released *after* soldiers had been arrested ruin the narrative of the press as heroic?) are not necessary to understand the events and sequence of events.
They are really *only* useful to dredge up additional bad will and hard feelings... but that's the goal isn't it?
The cartoons are STILL more important to actual understanding and reporting the why's and how's of riots that lead to the deaths of innocent people.
Well explain how Obama-says we need to open up investigations-while at the same time telling everyone that his judgment is that it is torture.
Seems to me if he were smart he would have left his "conclusion" out of it.
Instead he exposes himself as politically motivated.
By the way. It was Ronald Reagan who signed the Convention Against Torture that is part of the law of this land.
He deserves credit for that.
And modern Republicants are the world cheerleaders for torture and have betrayed the Gipper's legacy.
For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.
The Republicant Party is the party of torture. Good for us they are out of power.
Madawaskan, I think Obama was under intense pressure to flip and, to his discredit, did.
I'm very unhappy that he is helping Cheney and Bush cover up their crimes.
Alpha-
You just expose yourself to-all you are motivated to do is paint Republicans badly-
Which Republicans are saying what you are asserting-
Republicans say we need to torture to be safe. That's showing that you lack credibility and that your only motive is-anti-Republicanism.
Sal:
Considering the perpetrators of those actions are convicted and serving time in Leavenworth...Cheney is in Leavenworth? Great!
Oh, you mean ONE fall guy, Graner, is in Leavenworth. Remember when they told us that was all done by a "few bad apples"?
Have you seen the photos? Then don't claim to know what's in them.
Marshall's point was not an analogy..
I said I provided a counter analogy. Seriously, work on the reading comprehension.
It's not the photo that decreases our safety, but the actual act of torturing people. .
Is it? Last time I checked, we haven't been attacked by Muslim terrorists since 9/11. Prior to that we weren't torturing any Muslims and they pretty much kept themselves busy all through the 1990s right up to 9/11/2001 killing Americans and anyone else unfortunate enough to be in the blast radius.
You remember those days don't you? When Islamic terrorism was just a 'nuisance' best handled by law enforcement? Ah the good old days.
For the record, we're not discussing release of "torture" photos. Photographs of interrogations is not in this.
What the photos allegedly are of is Abu Ghraib style prisoner abuse, which was not used to extract information but for the entertainment of a few sicko's. Considering the perpetrators of those actions are convicted and serving time in Leavenworth (something that seems conveniently forgotten when newspapers choose to air our dirty laundry before the world), I don't really see why the US Government should assist in making our soldiers look bad, especially considering how the pictures get taken out of context, with really no balance at all in their depiction compared to our enemies.
This is like blaming the mayor because a liquor store got robbed.
Well again Alpha I'm telling you that was Obama's biggest mistake.
In fact that was the whole issue that Bybee was trying to define.
In fact the argument that could be made is that regulations were being formulated to prevent that-to set up parameters.
Synova, all of a sudden you give a shit about innocent people? Except when they're bought on bounty, denied due process, tortured and kept in cages for years?
------
Madawaskan, this is not the Posner post.
Anyway Obama is saving capitalism (from itself), not burying it. As did FDR.
And, it's a lie to say I applauded the death of capitalism. I said that unregulated capitalism leads, time and again, to the very sort of economic crisis we are living through.
It's happened many times.
Fen, you got nothing pal. It doesn't sound like you have a clear conscious either. So there may be a glimmer of hope for you.
HoosierDaddy shovels up the bullshit:
Last time I checked, we haven't been attacked by Muslim terrorists since 9/11.So, the US troops in Iraq are not a part of us? I'm not saying all the maimings and deaths are from terrorists, but many were from al Qaeda, attracted to Iraq by the presence of US troops.
Not to mention attacks in Spain and elsewhere.
Whatever. You guys are impervious to facts and logic. Deadenders.
Has anybody thought the linkage of the photos to the release of the memos was also a little "suspect"?
The ACLU law suit was over the photos-the judges on the Second Circuit they said nothing about the CIA memos that "timing" and decision was all completely made by the Obama Administration.
That has always looked politically motivated to me.
We know how much mileage Andrew Sullivan got out of the few that have been released-the memos release seems to be timed to go along with that for purely political purposes.
Can't pass on this idiocy:
HoosierDaddy:
Marshall's point was not an analogy. .
I said I provided a counter analogy. Seriously, work on the reading comprehension.A counter analogy counters an analogy.
You can't handle the truth. You never addressed the core point.
I understand the memos to be released as part of a lawsuit. Not sure offhand who the complainants were.
OK Alpha it sure didn't seem that way to me-thanks for clarifying that.
But again-
I don't know if you saw this question to you-
Where is the pressure coming from to make Obama pivot?
I'm interested in where you think that is originating.
You have a link for that?
That's the first I have heard that the memos were part of a lawsuit.
The Second Circuit Court's ACLU lawsuit decision on the photos can be found here-
ACLU. org pdf
So, the US troops in Iraq are not a part of us? I'm not saying all the maimings and deaths are from terrorists, but many were from al Qaeda, attracted to Iraq by the presence of US troops. .
Yeah it's called warzone dumbass. Interestingly enough al Qaeda was doing a far more effective job of killing their fellow Muslims than they were US soldiers.
Not to mention attacks in Spain and elsewhere. .
Huh? You mean Spain was torturing Muslims too? Is that why those guys blew up 300 Spainards? And the Brits too? I mean if torture makes us less safe then that would imply those two nations were also engaging in torture.
Oh wait, but they didn't torture now did they and yet, some subscribers of the Religion of Peace went out and killed a bunch of innocent people anyway. I'm am shocked.
A counter analogy counters an analogy. .
You're becoming as stupid as Jeremy and that takes some doing.
Madawaskan:
Link requested and delivered:
The memos produced by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel were released to meet a court-approved deadline in a lawsuit against the government in New York by the American Civil Liberties Union. .
From an AP story published here by MSNBC:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30249847/
I thought it odd that the Obama people didn't play up this point more.
OK, now I gotta get off this site. Work to do. Too nice to work late.
OK, now I gotta get off this site. .
Darn and I was hoping Alpha would tell me why countries like Spain and Britain who don't torture still get their citizens blown up by the headhackers.
Because torture is supposed to make us less safe.
Alpha-
Well this is from your own link that you provided-
A dark and painful chapter'
Obama's decisions — to release the memos before a judge forced his hand, and to absolve those who carried out the interrogations .-
Ya I should get going too-catch you later and hopefully you can answer from where Obama is being pressured to pivot.
Oh....
Where is the pressure coming from to make Obama pivot?Well, I just don't know. But it's an intriguing question. We may not learn the answer for about 20 years.
Forces within the CIA are releasing their own memos and seem to be playing tricks. (See Nancy Pelosi for more).
We've also seen reports of campaigns by military officers to affect policy. (IMHO, they should be summarily fired).
There are people Obama brought on board who were torture apologists. See previous uproar.
Then there's the moderate Dems who think embracing torture makes you a centrist. See Nelson, Lieberman, Emmanuel, whatshername from California, etc.
There's no end of pissypants Democrats running scared from GOP threats.
What do you think?
Hoosier-
I think you wore him out.
Good stuff.
Spain and Britain haven't been attacked in quite some time. And they don't torture. How can that be? Even the U.S. from what we know haven't tortured since Abu Ghraib. How can that be?
Alpha-
We've also seen reports of campaigns by military officers to affect policy.
Oh when you have time- give me a link for that-intriguing!
And hell I have to agree with much of the rest of your premise.
I don't see how the pressure for Obama to pivot on this point can be coming from Republicans who are the minority in the House and such the minority in the Senate that they are about to lose the ability to even filibuster.
garage-
Do the terms- NATO, alliances, security umbrellas, joint inter-agencies mean anything to you?
Jeez-now I am really having to go.
What an embarassing over reach on Josh Marshalls part. What part of his ass did he pull the idea that the detainees were being pressured to connect saddam to 9-11? Sources please, not dementia.
Spain and Britain haven't been attacked in quite some time. And they don't torture. How can that be?.
Well garage, let me bring you up to speed. Alpha and Co. insist that torture doesn't make us safe. As I pointed out, we didn't torture anyone under the benevolent Clinton Administration and the headhackers gleefully went about killing Americans here and abroad right up to 9/11/2001. Britain and Spain didn't torture anyone ever and they still got blown up. That's the argument garage. Torture makes us less safe yet I just proved that non-torture doesn't either.
Maybe it's not so much an issue of torture and simply an issue of Muslims not being able to play well with others. If its not photos of Achmed with panties on his head, it's a cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb on his turban. Or a female interrogater rubbing her boobs on some jihadist. Or not wearing gloves when handling the Koran. Or making a movie about Leonidas and the 300.
You know some folks just look for an excuse to act like savages.
Why don't we just hire some Danish cartoonists to draw pictures of the photos and then publish those?
Hoosier Daddy looks like you beat me to the cartoons, sort of.
You can't know that torture. . .oh, sorry, "advanced interrogation" would have prevented the WTC.
It seems like there was a lot of information that the WTC was going to happen but that it was ignored.
NYT May 16 2002
"The White House said tonight that President Bush had been warned by American intelligence agencies in early August that Osama bin Laden was seeking to hijack aircraft but that the warnings did not contemplate the possibility that the hijackers would turn the planes into guided missiles for a terrorist attack.
"It is widely known that we had information that bin Laden wanted to attack the United States or United States interests abroad," Ari Fleischer, the president's press secretary, said this evening. "The president was also provided information about bin Laden wanting to engage in hijacking in the traditional pre-9/11 sense, not for the use of suicide bombing, not for the use of an airplane as a missile."
Nonetheless the revelation by the White House, made in response to a report about the intelligence warning this evening on CBS News, is bound to fuel Congressional demands for a deeper investigation into why American intelligence agencies and the Federal Bureau of Investigation had failed to put together individual pieces of evidence that, in retrospect, now seem to suggest what was coming."
You can't know that torture. . .oh, sorry, "advanced interrogation" would have prevented the WTC. .
Never claimed it would have. Again, like I said to garage, the argument is that torture makes us less safe. I say it doesn't really matter since we weren't torturing anyone prior to 9/11/2001 yet the Islamofascists came after us with a vengeance.
It seems like there was a lot of information that the WTC was going to happen but that it was ignored..
No, there was information that bin Laden was determined to strike the US. That kind of narrows it down to a couple thousand targets.
As for hijacking aircraft, SOP was don't be a hero and do what the nice Muslim fanatics tell you to do. Which is exactly what 3 out of 4 airline passengers did.
As I pointed out, we didn't torture anyone under the benevolent Clinton Administration and the headhackers gleefully went about killing Americans here and abroad right up to 9/11/2001.
No, the benevolent Clinton administration didn't torture anyone, they just handed them over to the not-so-benevolent Egyptians who promised (wink) not to torture. I don't think the Egyptians have released any photos of those sessions...prolly not for the faint of heart.
For some reason that type of casuistry earns us global "moral authority" points while forthrightly doing our own dirty work makes us worthless pariahs.
Strange world.
I do see the hypocrisy of saying "we've alienated the world" while simultaneously demanding the release of photos that will further alienate the world.
The LA Times point of view from Ivy-educated head editors Newton and Goldberg, both who were nurtured in the NYTimes system under Reston? Their point of view is wonderfully "first world". It could even be described as 21st century. And as such has absolutely no value or understanding of the threat we face nor of those whom we fight. Pictures have no rebuttal. No context. They are plain and open. The cause passions to run amok. In the "fertile crescent", that results in the death of Americans.
As Elites, they have no sons or daughters at risk of them seeing coming through Dover in caskets - due to their folly. If other sons and daughters of Americans die to "restore" what those Elitists think is THEIR "moral standing" when they are sipping wine in Provence in the summer with like-minded Euro Elites or at parties in the East Hamptons or the Vineyard, skiing at Aspen - what's the problem?
Remember, it was not the actions of 8 renegade hillbillies the US was out to punish for Abu Ghraib that caused US soldier deaths and large recruitment of Jihadis.
It was a decision by liberal Jews in control at the NYTimes and in production at the 3 big MSM Networks to run hundreds of stories and re-run pictures and broadcast them to the enemy hundreds and hundreds of times as the "feature story" on broadcasts and the Front page that killed Americans and aided the enemy recruiting.
They did this mainly to bash Bush II, who they hated almost as much as they hated Nixon. But what they did was do their best to deliver the enemy propaganda that Abu Ghraib was absolutely typical of American soldiers and America. They festooned pictures with incorrect depictions - "possibly innocent freedom fighter being electrocuted by America." and so on.
It was right out of the liberal Jew's Vietnam playbook. Demonize American troops as atrocity-committing, sadistic, mindless barbarians.
Give the US another defeat like Vietnam to help out the cause of transnational progressivism and international law ruling all peoples..
It just shows how disconnected the media elites are from the people, why the mainstream media is failing as badly as the equally disconnected Republicans dominated by Wall Street Corporatist elites and multimillionaire preachers guaranteeing they can deliver the rubes of the Religious Right to the likes of Tom Delay and Denny Ghastert.
AlphaBitch: I'm very unhappy that he is helping Cheney and Bush and Pelosi cover up their crimes.
/fixed
Just more evidence that this is a political issue for you, instead of a moral one.
Its the equivalent of stealing from a charity you set up. Your integrity is shot.
"Now, as we try to get to the bottom of what happened during those years, we have to acknowledge that doing so might put us in further danger."
Then we shouldn't do it. That really should be the end of the discussion. The US Government exists to protect Americans, not to reassure our "allies" or flaunt its "moral standing".
If the best way to protect Americans from harm was to kill everyone else in the world, our government would be obligated to do so.
Cedarford-
You don't have to be Jewish to be an Elitist.
Otherwise good work keep it up!
[ya, ya this was the best I could come up with-cripes I just read his whole post...]
It seems like there was a lot of information that the WTC was going to happen but that it was ignored.
Jen, the example you cite is that we had reason to believe Al Qaeda planned to hijack airliners.
Let's say the information is correct, and we knew with 100% certainty that Al Qaeda was going to hijack airliners (though not what they planned to do with them. What, exactly, could the White House have done to prevent 9/11? Ban Muslims from boarding aircraft in the United States? Institute Israeli-style draconian security procedures?
Please. The Left and the media (but I repeat myself) throw a screaming hissy fit over that stuff NOW, after it has been PROVED that Al Qaeda is willing to hijack airlines and crash them into buildings. How the hell would Bush have gotten away with it *before* 9/11?
You lot live in a fantasy world where terrorism can be prevented without significant violations of human rights. That has never, in all of human history, been possible.
Jen: It seems like there was a lot of information that the WTC was going to happen but that it was ignored.
Rev: [...]
Wasting your breath Rev. Look again at the structure of her sentence - she knows there wasn't actionable intel but phrased it in a way that was vague and damning.
You're not responding to someone arguing in good faith. Jen is likely a sockpuppet.
Rev said:
"If the best way to protect Americans from harm was to kill everyone else in the world, our government would be obligated to do so."
Really Rev? Do you really believe that this is true?
"You lot live in a fantasy world where terrorism can be prevented without significant violations of human rights. That has never, in all of human history, been possible."
It has never been possible because violence always ALWAYS begets more violence. Humans are revengeful animals. We want an eye for an eye. And so, the cycle of violence in this world will never end because someone will always want retribution for something.
The only way to stop violence is to be responsible for your own violent tendencies, to not act violently in return for a violent action.
My sister was in the WFC on 9/11. We didn't know if she was alive for a day and a half. What she has shared with me about that day is horrific. You must defend yourself. You have every right to do so. But you cannot exact revenge on a stranger for the actions of another.
It has never been possible because violence always ALWAYS begets more violence. .
Of course it does lassie. It's the natural way of things. Physics tells us that for every reaction there is an opposite reaction. You hit me, I hit you back and there we are. Victims of mathematics.
The only way to stop violence is to be responsible for your own violent tendencies, to not act violently in return for a violent action..
Aye. Those that do that are called victims. Dead ones usually. I on the other hand have found from experience that violence inflicted on me has always ended when the inflicter is lying on the ground covered in his own blood and urine ;-)
My hope for humanity springs eternal.
Well I'm always hoping for the Cubs to make it to the world series but I've resigned myself to world peace happening first.
My hope for humanity springs eternal.I get it.
Hope and change.
It seems like there was a lot of information that the WTC was going to happen but that it was ignored.You mean the information from those liars at the CIA?
Really Rev? Do you really believe that this is true?
It is completely hypothetical, since in fact doing so wouldn't protect Americans. But if it did -- if, say, the rest of the world converted to radical Islam and was intend on our destruction -- then yes.
It has never been possible because violence always ALWAYS begets more violence.
What a load of ignorant nonsense. If violence always begets violence, why aren't the Japanese still at war with us? Why aren't Native Americans regularly staging suicide attacks on white Americans? Why doesn't capital punishment regularly cause the criminals' families to murder judges and juries? Most importantly, why were the biggest acts of genocidal violence perpetrated against peaceful civilians?
A statement like "violence always begets violence" can only be made by a child or an idiot. It is empirically false.
We now have charges from the former head of the WMD search in Iraq, Charles Duelfer, that Cheney wanted to waterboard Muhammed Khudayr al-Dulaymi as a part of post-invasion briefings.
The goal was to find out what he know about the Saddam-al Qaeda connection.
There is no indication of an imminent threat to the US being involved to justify torture. This was torture to CYA. Cover Your Ass.
That's a pretty low bar for torture.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/05/bubbling.php
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-13/cheneys-role-deepens/
In a subthread above, people are discussing the memo titled Bin Laden determined to strike in US.
This was actionable intelligence, no matter what the parrots of the Right squawck.
- Bush/Cheney could have ordered the information distributed to federal agency heads.
- Bush/Cheney could have raised alert levels within the federal government at all levels.
- Bush/Cheney could have asked that the threat be researched more and diverted federal resources to make this task a priority.
- Bush/Cheney could have shared this information with the airlines and foreign governments.
- Bush/Cheney could have ordered immediate increased security screening on airplane flights.
- Bush/Cheney could have have turned to someone and admitted they didn't have a clue what to do and asked "Will you please advise me what I can do to head this off?"
History took a different turn and Bush took his dog to play in the brush. And Americans died.
Rev said: "A statement like "violence always begets violence" can only be made by a child or an idiot. It is empirically false."
Or the Dalai Lama, or Jesus, or Gandhi. . . .all children and idiots surely.
Or the Dalai Lama, or Jesus, or Gandhi. . . .all children and idiots surely.
But perhaps not so idiotic as those who believe Jesus or Gandhi ever said "violence always begets violence".
So we should run government like religion...?
Rev said, "But perhaps not so idiotic as those who believe Jesus or Gandhi ever said "violence always begets violence"."
"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent." Gandhi
"Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man." Gandhi
Alpha-
Muhammed Khudayr al-Dulaymi -was head of Saddam's M-14.
Saddam was convincing the world community that he had the means and the method to wreck mass destruction-he also managed to look like an irrational actor, invading other countries, fomenting assassination attempts and gassing his own minority groups-for instance the Kurds.
In other words the imminent danger scenario still remains intact.
And, Saddam sure did his best to act the part, no?
Again-you'd rather have religion rule than secular governments?
Hope will keep us alive?
Genocides -let it be?
No wonder you like Cedarford.
"Put up again thy sword into its place: for all they that take the sword shall perish by the sword."
Jesus of Nazareth
I'm answering to Rev, who said that I'm an idiot for thinking that these people ever said these things. Gandhi? Seriously?
No. Religion should have no place in secular government.
You do not need religion to be a non-violent human being. You need a sense of decency.
"Put up again thy sword into its place: for all they that take the sword shall perish by the sword."
And you think that translates to an admonition that violence always begets violence? Get thee to a Bible class, lady.
Jesus was speaking to one of his followers who had just attacked the people who had come to arrest Jesus. It was a warning that fighting back would get them killed -- obviously appropriate, considering they were up against the Roman army. It was not a claim that "violence always begets violence".
Like I pointed out above, it is am empirical fact that the claim "violence always begets violence" is wrong. If you truly believe it then you are deeply ignorant of reality. If you can find people who share your belief then you will succeed only in establishing that you are not alone in your ignorance. But the fact that you're wrong won't change. :)
You do not need religion to be a non-violent human being. You need a sense of decency.
Mostly what you need is to live in a protective bubble, with the bad things kept at bay by non-"decent" folk.
Because let's be realistic. Your silly belief in "non-violence" only lasts until around a tenth of a second after the rapist has your legs spread and his knife at your throat. Then suddenly the knowledge that inflicting violence on him will "always" result in violence being inflicted on you is revealed as the empty-headed horseshit that it is.
You're right. I know very little about Jesus of Nazareth.
But you also conveniently ignored the Gandhi quotes. I don't even need to quote the DL.
So sad and typical.
Spin spin spin
From Indian Express newspaper:
The Dalai Lama, a lifelong champion of non-violence candidly stated that terrorism cannot be tackled by applying the principle of ahimsa because the minds of terrorists are closed.
"It is difficult to deal with terrorism through non-violence," the Tibetan spiritual leader said delivering the Madhavrao Scindia Memorial Lecture here.
He termed terrorism as the worst kind of violence which is not carried by a few mad people but by those who are very brilliant and educated.
"They (terrorists) are very brilliant and educated...but a strong ill feeling is bred in them. Their minds are closed," the Dalai Lama said.
He said the only way to tackle terrorism is through prevention.
The head of the Tibetan government-in-exile left the audience stunned when he said "I love President George W Bush." He went on to add how he and the US President instantly struck a chord in their first meeting unlike politicians who take a while to develop close ties.
=-=-=-=-=-=
So that's what the Dalai Lama actually had to say about that.
I'm interested to learn how Jesus preached violence. Rev. Enlighten me.
So anyone during WW II was indecent...
You did tell us all you were a narcissist-I didn't think it was an actual psychological finding till now.
And again I'm pretty sure you pick and choose your beliefs-kind of like you're in a cafeteria.
Hector Owen...
Thank you.
Man you are good.
Hector:
Prevention does not mean violent action. You need to understand Buddhism a little better before you try to use that quote to prove that the DL condones violence. Which he doesn't. But I think that is too subtle a discussion for this crowd.
But you also conveniently ignored the Gandhi quotes.
I didn't ignore them, I just missed them. I'll reply to them now:
"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."
This quote says that violence always does more evil than good. While that is *also* an idiotic thing to say -- point to the "permanent evil" caused by the "temporary good" of waging war on the Nazis, for eample -- it does not in fact translate to "violence always begets violence". So it doesn't support your claim.
"Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man."
That quote also does nothing to support your claim. Whether or not nonviolence is superior to violence says nothing about whether violence begets violence.
I don't even need to quote the DL.
You're welcome to quote the Dalai Lama. I can't say that I give much weight to the opinions of the deposed religious dictator of a third-world nation.
Context Madaskawan.
I wonder if you have ever leveled a self deprecating joke at yourself in your life.
Can't laugh at yourself. That explains a lot.
I'm interested to learn how Jesus preached violence. Rev. Enlighten me.
I never said he did. I simply refuted your ignorant claim that he said violence always begets violence.
If you want to change your claim to "Jesus said that violence was bad" then that's fine. My response is: "so"?
From all this quoting from the Son of God's teachings applying in today's world first requires a Jewish or a Christian inspired culture in which to work. When faced with the others, you need to start quoting Jesus's most quoted scripture about himself which is Psalm 110.
In addition to my superhuman constitution for copious amounts of alcohol while maintaining the stamina to satisfy the weaker sex, the Good Lord also blessed me with olfactory senses that can smell bullshit further than I can catch a whiff of quim. I say if the lass Jen is not a clone of another commenter that lurks this forum, I'll wager she's at least a conjoined twin.
I say if the lass Jen is not a clone of another commenter that lurks this forum, I'll wager she's at least a conjoined twin.
She makes a good verbal punching bag either way.
I'd post my profile but you people are too violent for me.
"I on the other hand have found from experience that violence inflicted on me has always ended when the inflicter is lying on the ground covered in his own blood and urine."
Danny Boy
"She makes a good punching bag."
Rev
Ghandi: "The calculated violence of Hitler may even result in a general massacre of the Jews by way of his first answer to the declaration of such hostilities. But if the Jewish mind could be prepared for voluntary suffering, even the massacre I have imagined could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy..."
You're not going to shame me with Ghandi.
I gladly stand in opposition to him.
Jen: ""She makes a good punching bag."
Rev"
And a better liar.
Taking words out of a quote without even inserting ellipses is a sad sad indication of essential character.
Ok. Now how am I a liar.
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)
Also, please note that the "sword" quote from Jesus that Jen offered has implicit in it, the fact that Jesus's followers, while He was there with them, went about armed.
It would be wrong to try to claim that Christ promoted violence, but it is also wrong to suggest that He preached a pacifist message.
"And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one." Luke 22:36
"She makes a good verbal punching bag either way."
Is not equivalent to...
"She makes a good punching bag."
To present the second as a quote from Rev is a lie.
Ah. I stand corrected. When responding to inane and violent remarks from another blogger on a blog will always cut and paste.
You see, Jen, when you take words out you need to put brackets or ellipses in place of what you removed.
"She makes a good [...] punching bag..."
And what Gandhi was saying, if you read the entire passage, is that violence accomplished no more than non-violence in saving or preserving human life.
47 million dead in WWII
20 million from war and famine
Yes. Violence is clearly the answer.
I don't think we clearly understand the precipice we are on here. We have a global economy, we behave as if we are isolated. We talk about what is best for the United States, but when foreign oil went up by 3 bucks a gallon, the cascading financial crisis affected everything from the price of bread to getting to work from the suburbs. It affected all people. Not just the oil men.
Just as war affects not only the people fighting it, but the people trying to live in that world.
Did he say use the sword to hack another human being to bits?
Bush followed Dalai Lama's recommendation in launching Operation Iraqi Freedom. From the Lama's remarks following 9-11:
Ultimately, it is important to examine our own motivation and that of our opponent. There are many kinds of violence and nonviolence, but we cannot distinguish them through external factors alone. If our motivation is negative, the action it produces is, in the deepest sense, violent, even though it may appear to be deceptively gentle. Conversely, if our motivation is sincere and positive but the circumstances require harsh behaviour, essentially we are practising nonviolence. No matter what the case may be, I feel that a compassionate concern for the well-being of others - not simply for oneself - is the sole justification for the use of force.
---
So the US was essentially practicing nonviolence, by using minimal force to overthrow a tyrannical and violent regime, thus actually lessening the total amount of violence in the world. See? If the response to terrorism had been one of anger, there would have been nuclear weapons involved, and then you would have had a point.
Dalai Lama on prevention, from the Madhavrao Scindia Memorial Lecture (paraphrased at official site):
He said that if children in the kindergarten were to be taught compassion, tolerance and the spirit of accommodation, they would realise that dialogue was the way forward in situations that could otherwise lead to conflict.
-----
Well, yes, that could prevent terrorism, another generation or two down the road, but right now, ahimsa is not effective.
Jen said...
And what Gandhi was saying, if you read the entire passage, is that violence accomplished no more than non-violence in saving or preserving human life.
47 million dead in WWII
20 million from war and famine
Yes. Violence is clearly the answer.
[...]
9:22 PM.
Michael, are you suggesting that fighting WWII was a futile mistake?
See Synovia's 9:09 posting.
So THIS is how violence is justified! Thank you so much for the enlightenment.
Synovia, I'm going to take that Matthew quote out with me right now and buy myself a semi-automatic.
I'll feel so much safer!
I have to get to work. I'm signing off, which I'm sure will be misconstrued and spun as an attempt to get out of this discussion.
I'm most interested in pursuing it.
I'll check back tomorrow.
I'm not sure which gun to buy. . . .
"47 million dead in WWII"
If only we'd sent that mean nasty ol' Hitler happy peace rays instead of the terrible violence we brought instead, then maybe there would be no more violence on the earth at all ever anymore!!!!!1
Synovia, I'm going to take that Matthew quote out with me right now and buy myself a semi-automatic.
I suggest a 12 gauge pump shotgun for home defense.
If you are going to get a handgun and aren't real knowledgeable about firearms I recommend a revolver over a semi-automatic as they are simpler to use. A Smith and Wesson 357 would be a good choice.
The M-1 is my favorite semiautomatic rifle but I'm a sucker for the old school stuff.
Jen: violence accomplished no more than non-violence in saving or preserving human life.
47 million dead in WWII
20 million from war and famine
Yes. Violence is clearly the answer.
Jen, you're leaving out the years of the "soft diplomacy" of appeasment at any price that enabled WW2. And The Czechs had the 4th largest army on the continent - Hitler would have been stopped then, if not for "diplomats" like yourself who threw the Czechs to the wolves in the name of "peace".
And while you're taking remedial history, puruse the interlocking treaties that gave us our first World War.
Need more examples? Diplomat April Gillespie telling Sadddam's henchmen that we did not consider Kuwait to be under our umbrella of protection, greenlighting its invasion by Iraq in diplospeak.
"Diplomacy" is responsible for more deaths than Violence or War.
A statement like "violence always begets violence" can only be made by a child or an idiot. It is empirically false.
Exactly.
"You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you." -
Trotsky
WW2 was fought to the death because a Hungaria Jewish physicist named Szlard had left Germany and come to England, and then quickly on to the USA with the news that a radioactive superbomb coul easily be built from a critical mass of U-235. The race for survival began with the race to beat Germany to finish the Bomb. If we had lost, it is unlikely anyone commenting on this blog, or their family members, (except maybe C-4) would be alive today.
What I learned yesterday on this thread.
1.Violent action is the solution to violent action, and Newton’s third law (the law of reciprocal action) can be used to prove it.
2.Gandhi was an anti-Semite
3.“ […] “ even when you don’t do it yourself.
4.A 12 gauge pump shotgun is best for home defense.
5.Because the Dalai Lama said that he loves George W. Bush, he condones war.
6.Liberal posters shouldn’t capitalize excessively and conservative posters shouldn’t use excessive punctuation
Palladian said. . . “ [ . .] maybe there would be no more violence on the earth at all ever anymore!!!!!1 [sic] “
7.Jesus condoned violent action as well.
8.I am a clone of another commentator or a conjoined twin.
9.Madawaskan really can’t recognize a joke (especially one designed to be self deprecating) which explains a lot about the kidney discussion.
10.All this difference of opinion proves that historical preservation of buildings is very important even if you personally think they are ugly, because clearly there are people who disagree with you about more than just your sense of style.
11.There is a wingnut rugby guy who thinks his phony digital accent gives him liberty to call people “lass”.
There. I think that sums it up rather nicely. Oh, and I am now the proud owner of a Glock17.
Oh, and I am now the proud owner of a Glock17.
Presumably you got around the mandatory waiting period the same way you get around having to pay the self-employment tax. :)
On the contrary, Jen.
You're entirely correct. Far far fewer people would have died if no one had opposed Germany. If Hitler killed every last Jew, every Gypsy, and euthanized every terminally ill or differently born person... still, fewer people would have died.
This is true.
Had no one opposed Japan, far far fewer people would have died. The number of souls lost on Iwo Jima is nearly beyond comprehension.
This is true.
I don't dispute it. It's an objective fact that the butcher bill would be lower if one side or the other refuses to fight.
In places like Darfur or Burma, where one side really can't fight, there would be fewer deaths if the people there didn't even try to oppose those with power. Opposing genocide causes more humans to die and in more painful ways.
And all you have to do...
... is nothing.
That was very poetic but inaccurate.
Non violence is not synonymous with inaction.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा