DescentBB

Another one of those interesting reads:

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/interna ... 99,00.html

Rather longish but worth checking out IMHO.

Note: Even tho it's a FYI post I placed it here since it does cover E&C in the sense of word.

better them than me

Interesting that people won't run the Belgian Muhammed cartoons because they don't want to offend Muslim sensibilities or \"pour fuel on the fire\", yet nobody has a problem running these photos.

It's hardly relevant that the previously unpublished Abu Ghraib photos taken in 2003 -- about two dozen of them -- are merely variations on familiar themes. It also doesn't matter that at least some of the perpetrators -- absent higher-ranking officers -- have already been hauled before US military courts. Just as their predecessors, these new pictures have the power to generate a dynamic of their own -- making them the perfect propaganda tool for ideological adversaries.

...it doesn't matter, in large part because of the media coverage. When the media decides to make the images \"the perfect propaganda tool\" by playing them up, ignoring the court martials, and ignoring what's going on in Abu Ghraib NOW, they make the above paragraph true.

Even so, we are winning in Iraq. We've already won most of their hearts and minds, DESPITE the media doing their best to put crap like this at the forefront of their coverage while they bury all the good stuff. Hearts and minds are being won because the Iraqi people see what's going on through their own eyes instead of through the biases of Western media.

Don't miss the other 3 pages of that article -- IIRC the link on the bottom to the next page isn't that obvious.

Grendel wrote:Don't miss the other 3 pages of that article

Looked over all 4. Not sure what you think is of value in the article.

Although I don't support the war in Iraq(mostly because it wasn't against an islamist regime(i.e. Iran, Syria, Pakistan)), I would hope that our(Canada's) new government will increase military spending.

Unfortunately, one of the biggest problems we have that the islamist world doesn't is lack of resolve. A lot of that world is resolved to wiping western nations of the face of the earth, but the second that anyone even mentinos the possibility of just \"offending\" them, the societal reaction is to stick our heads into the sand and hope it won't really affect us. No one is even beginning to talk about destroying these regimes which are clearly and repeatedly intending to destroy us.

The other big problem that we have is population decline. With an average amount of children per family of approximately 1.1-1.5(Source), if the islamists don't kill us, we will. Unfortunately, they aren't about to stop breeding more children who will then learn to hate us, join the army, and assist the islamist dream of world domination.

Lastly, if this were to escalate into a second cold war, I would certainly hope that our leaders wouldn't be hesitant to push the button, because unlike the Soviet Union, these suicidal islamist regimes will not care about mutually assured destruction. They will fire as soon and as often as possible, and will want to die for their cause. Interestingly enough, They want to die for their cause, and we want them to die for their cause. I'm surprised that there has been so much conflict to date.

The great Winston Churchill once said that America had the habit of committing every possible mistake to ultimately arrive at the right decision. The first part of the Churchill quote is proving to be reality, while the redemptive second part has yet to materialize.

I find this funny, coming from a nation whose overall military strategy until about world war II was akin to trying to knock down a wall with eggs.

Lothar wrote:

Grendel wrote:Don't miss the other 3 pages of that article

Looked over all 4. Not sure what you think is of value in the article.

What he said... X2

So what are you saying Lothar? The torture doesn't matter...the Iraqis don't care about it? Then again, as woodchip said, the \"torture\" was a couple of simple beatings, a few deaths, a few rapes, no big deal right? I love the fact that a self proclaimed mega-Christian doesn't mind the obvious rape/murder/torture of fellow humans. Always the hypocrite = Lothar.

Always the subtle politician = Zuruck.

Zuruck wrote:So what are you saying Lothar? The torture doesn't matter...the Iraqis don't care about it? Then again, as woodchip said, the "torture" was a couple of simple beatings, a few deaths, a few rapes, no big deal right? I love the fact that a self proclaimed mega-Christian doesn't mind the obvious rape/murder/torture of fellow humans. Always the hypocrite = Lothar.

No, he's saying that new photos of the same old event don't represent new events happening today of that nature.

I think it's the equivalent of saying "New picture of Kennedy assassination emerges" implies "The president has been shot!!" in the headlines today.

well dissent, it sickens me that people in this country think that torture by americans is no big deal. sure saddam did it, but we removed him and now we do it, and it IS a big deal.

The court martials? Please, they threw the blanket at a couple of non coms and called it quits. It went higher up...but the grunts took the heat for it. Everyone says \"Support the Troops\"...are we supporting this? I don't support torture/murder/rape of prisoners. I guess the only people that do support that are Christian Conservatives huH?

Zuruck wrote:I don't support torture/murder/rape of prisoners. I guess the only people that do support that are Christian Conservatives huH?

You continually paint with too broad a brush. Conservative Christians are a diverse group! We aren't a mob of mindless zombies, all alike.

Lothar LIKES G. W. Bush. So do many of my Conservative Christian friends.

I think G. W. Bush is a monster who is pushing us directly towards armageddon. So do many of my Conservative Christian friends.

Do I believe that G. W. Bush knew what was going on in Abu Ghraib. Probably not. But:

When our president insists that congress has authorized him to take ANY ACTION WHATSOEVER that he personally deems necessary to fight terrorism, no matter what the laws...

When our president puts captured prisoners into a special prison removed from U. S. Soil, specifically so that the courts can't get at them...

When our president announces that ANYONE, U. S. Citizen or not, that he thinks is an enemy combatant has NO rights of ANY kind. No appeal, no evidence requirements, NOTHING. They can be locked up and dissapear forever on HIS say so...

When our president sends his lawyers out to see whether or not he can get away with torture legaly...

Yeah, big surprise, the troops start thinking that prisoners have no rights and they can do whatever they want to them if it "helps the war on terror".

So no, I don't think Bush authorized, or even wanted, the Abu Ghraib abuses. But yes, I hold G. W. Bush personally responsible for the unbelievably shameful thing that happened there. And I hold him personally responsible for the fact that Al Queda is recruiting new troops every day because of it.

It wasn't a crusade. We almost had the Muslim world convinced that it wasn't Christians vs Muslims, it was civilized people vs. barbarians. But Bush had to turn it into a peeing contest and now we are not only printing the Al Queda recruitment posters for them, we are busy training their troops in Iraq.

Do YOU feel safer? I don't.

And are you convinced that I don't agree with Lothar?

Zuruch, broaden your Horizons a bit. Peter and Paul were both Conservative Christians, and THEY didn't agree on everything! I even know Conservative Christians who voted for Clinton. TWICE. (Go figure that one out, I can't)

If you want to debate Lothar on the merits of G. W. Bush and torturing prisoners, I'll stand right there next to you and back you up. I'll ALSO still consider Lothar a pretty good fellow. If I couldn't have friends who disagreed with me, I wouldn't have any friends at ALL. We can disagree and discuss without immediatly turning it into insults. And ESPECIALLY don't insult the Christians who are on OUR SIDE. We NEED them.

Zuruck wrote:So what are you saying Lothar? The torture doesn't matter...the Iraqis don't care about it? Then again, as woodchip said, the "torture" was a couple of simple beatings, a few deaths, a few rapes, no big deal right?

Geez, man... can't you just ONCE manage to read and comprehend what I'm saying? Can't you just ONCE enter a thread and say something TRUE about my position, instead of inventing a completely moronic position that superficially resembles mine and criticizing your own fictional version of me?

I don't mind when, once in a while, people misunderstand me. It's OK to make mistakes; it's OK to need clarification; it's OK to misunderstand. But it's NOT OK to consistantly, intentionally, systematically misrepresent everything I say. I didn't say crap about the torture; I only asked what Grendel thought was of value in the articles (ie, what has NOT been argued to death 50 hojillion times already), and I said I think the media has handled the whole situation badly.

-----

Let's ask me some questions to see where I stand:

Do I think brutal torture is OK? No. It's both wrong and ineffective. Its only use is to scare people or to satisfy sadistic desires. Anyone who orders or engages in such things deserves a court martial, and probably significant prison time.

Do I think some things that are called "torture" are sometimes OK? Yes, some of the techniques people call "torture" (but which are not brutal or harmful) are OK when used effectively for information-gathering purposes. If putting a known terrorist in a cold room or putting panties on his head or making him stand all day is expected to lead to useful information gathering, go for it. If the guy isn't a known bad guy, then it's wrong and anyone engaging in it deserves prison time, and if it's not expected to lead to useful info, then it's pointless, and anyone who engages in it deserves to be forced to attend "sensitivity training" workshops.

Do I think what happened at AG was OK? Of course not. Some of it was brutal, all of it was pointless, and those involved deserved the punishment they got.

Do I think what happened at AG was a part of something much larger that stretched through more levels of government? No; everything I've seen leads me to believe this is an isolated incident. If we were seeing similiar pictures from other prisons, other incidents, other times, I'd change my mind and start calling for those higher up to be held accountable. But the next closest thing anyone seems able to point out is "OMG somebody at Guatanamo had to endure the weather WITHOUT AIR CONDITIONING! And there was a Koran flushed down a toilet, oh wait, that was a fictional story."

Do I think the media should be covering the new pictures 2 years later, and hyping them up as "the perfect propaganda tool"? Not if the media wants the Iraqi people to live in a safe, free environment. Pouring fuel on the fire is a bad idea unless you WANT the fire to burn. And when the media refuses to print the Danish cartoons because they don't want to anger people, but then they print 2-year-old photos of Abu Ghraib, they're being completely hypocritical.

Do I think Bush has insisted that he can break the law, that we should do "whatever necessary" to prisoners because we've determined they have no value as humans? No. I think that's a horrible misrepresentation of the positions he's stated and the programs he's authorized. I think people, as a whole, have been misled by sensationalist media stories about wiretaps, etc. when the actual programs are fairly sensible.

Do I think Al Qaeda is getting stronger and the US is getting weaker? Nope. The soldiers on the ground who I talk to on a regular basis seem to be of one mind on this -- the terrorists they're fighting are getting weaker and weaker, less and less effective, and more and more desperate. But AQ is not stupid; they're putting out plenty of propaganda and they know how to exploit media coverage for their aims. And the article at the top of this thread plays right into their hands. Quite possibly, that's because the media people publishing the article have themselves fallen for the propaganda.

Read some real news from Iraq. Try Iraq the Model or Michael Yon for starters. Stop trusting the crap put out by CNN, Der Spiegel, Fox, CBS, etc. and go to the sources who are actually THERE and living the experience.

Good post Kilarin, all except that part where we need Christians. We need good people, if there was no religion, there would still be good people. I broaden the brush simply for the fact that is seems the right wing doesn't mind this sort of treatment. I've heard commentators call it college antics, I don't know about you guys, but we didn't KILL our roommates.

America claimed to be a country with morals, now the front line is doing this to the prisoners? Bush may have not known about it directly, but you're right, he made it possible. He wanted to keep making it possible until Congress got balls and said no. It's funny, the FISA court was created and Congress was given additional powers because it was seen that presidents were abusing their power. Bush & Co claim that 9/11 granted them this, we're seeing the exact same problem. Absolute power corrupts. It has/does/will continue until something is done. Bush has snubbed his nose at everything that the Constitution and 230 years of experience built. His presidency will go down as one of the black marks on American society, how people voted him in twice, I'll never know.

Freedoms that used to be granted in this country were great because everyone got them, there was no choice, people got them.

Jeffrey Dahlmer ate 15 people, he got due process. Juan Padilla did nothing more than be a bad man and he has yet to get his day in court. How bout the thousands of others?

Kilarin said: I think G. W. Bush is a monster who is pushing us directly towards armageddon. So do many of my Conservative Christian friends.

So do I! Except, in reality, I think he's trying to incite a third World War. (Heck, W. can't even spell \"nuclear\" right! (Says, \"nucular\"))

Anyway, I totally agree w/ Kilarin and Zuruck. We need smart, peace-loving, well-educated people rather than power-hungry morons like Dick Cheney.

Lothar wrote:Do I think Bush has insisted that he can break the law, that we should do "whatever necessary" to prisoners because we've determined they have no value as humans? No. I think that's a horrible misrepresentation of the positions he's stated and the programs he's authorized.

I listened to the some of the senate hearings with attorney general Gonzales about the wiretapping issue. The following argument was made by Gonzales:

Congress confirmed and supplemented the president's inherent authority by authorizing him, quote, "to use all necessary and appropriate force against Al Qaida."
This is a very broadly worded authorization. It is also one that must permit electronic surveillance of those associated with Al Qaida.
...
The words contained in the force resolution do not limit the president to employing certain tactics against Al Qaida. Instead, they authorize the use of all necessary and appropriate force.
...
Importantly, the Supreme Court has already interpreted the force resolution in the Hamdi case. There the question was whether the president had the authority to detain an American citizen as an enemy combatant and to do so despite a specific statute that said that no American citizen could be detained except as provided by Congress.

A majority of the justices in Hamdi concluded that the broad language of the force resolution gave the president the authority to employ the traditional incidents of waging war. Justice O'Connor explained that these traditional powers include the right to detain enemy combatants and to do so even if they happen to be American citizens.

If the detention of an American citizen who fought with Al Qaida is authorized by the force resolution as an incident of waging war, how can it be that merely listening to Al Qaida phone calls into and out of the country in order to disrupt their plots is not? Link to transcript

Now please note, my complaint here is not JUST with Bush. the Congress were a bunch of IDIOTS to pass the force resolution worded this way, and the Supreme Court was absolutely insane in their decision. Also, my complaint isn't really with the wiretapping. I don't think it should have been done this way, but he DID tell congress about it. And, again, those idiots failed to object or put any restraints upon him.

My complaint is with the general direction here. The president is clearly arguing that he should be able to do whatever he deems "necessary and appropriate" in order to fight Al Qaida. And the President decides what is "necessary and appropriate". He certainly includes the ability to pick up a US Citizen and detain him without a trial, on the presidents say so.

Now I happen to think wiretapping is unnecessary (the way they are doing it is a lousy source of intelligence), but I don't think it was inappropriate. It was only inappropriate because they didn't go through FISA when they could have so easily. I also think that most of the people Bush has "disappeared" probably ARE connected to terrorists. It's not the specifics here, it's the direction. It's the insane increase of the presidents authority without any checks or balances from the other two branches of government.

As I've pointed out before, the Republicans will NOT stay in power forever. I suspect they will lose the presidency in the next election, but that's just a wild and uneducated hunch. But if they don't lose it this time, they will lose it next, or the one after that. EVENTUALLY someone else will get the presidency. And when they do, they will have inherited the war on terrorism. (No, it WON'T be over), and with it, the power to use whatever force the new president deems "necessary and appropriate". At home or abroad. And how comfortable will you feel about handing that kind of power to, say, Mrs. Clinton?

Zuruck wrote:Good post Kilarin, all except that part where we need Christians. We need good people, if there was no religion, there would still be good people.

You let your hatred blind you. While I would certainly agree with the idea that we need Christians because they are "good people", (in general anyway), that wasn't what I meant at all. I meant we need them because they are on our side and can vote. No reason to alienate people who agree with us.

Take a few deep breaths and realize that not every Christian is out to get you. Probably no more than half of them are. ;D

Attacking Christians every time you attack Bush is as bad of an idea politically as Bush Senior saying that Athiests should not be considered citizens or patriots. There are Athiest Republicans who voted for him in the first election, and not the second, based upon that statement. There is no point in chasing off people who agree with you about one issue just because they don't agree with you on another.

It's not the specifics here, it's the direction. It's the insane increase of the presidents authority without any checks or balances from the other two branches of government.

I don't think what Bush has actually done is an increase in authority over what previous presidents did. As was mentioned in the bold text, the law gave Bush authority to do what has traditionally been done in war -- detaining those fighting for the \"other side\" regardless of their official status.

I hadn't heard about Congress passing such a vaguely worded resolution. That most certainly *does* allow for an increase in presidential power, and that's a problem. (SCOTUS is correct to uphold it, however, if that's the way the law is worded.) IMO, Congress needs to fix that -- word the resolution so it grants appropriate war-time powers, but no more.

Lothar wrote:I don't think what Bush has actually done is an increase in authority over what previous presidents did. As was mentioned in the bold text, the law gave Bush authority to do what has traditionally been done in war -- detaining those fighting for the "other side" regardless of their official status.

If this were an ordinary war, I would agree. But this is NOT an ordinary war. Granting the president war time powers to fight the war on terrorism is like granting the president war time powers to fight the war on drugs. This war will only end if the Islamic radicals push hard enough to get the west to commit genocide. Otherwise its a hydra.

Kilarin wrote:This war will only end if the Islamic radicals push hard enough to get the west to commit genocide.

Unless the islamist leaders are assassinated and the people convinced that they were a threat to everyone.

Shadowfury333 wrote:Unless the islamist leaders are assassinated and the people convinced that they were a threat to everyone.

While I would love to see Osama dead, I don't think it will actually do us much good. He's going to be deadly as a martyr. AND, someone else will simply rise to take his place. Look at the numbers of people they have protesting over cartoons right now? I mean, they are SERIOUSLY requesting UN action. I don't think we are likely to convince them to start making sense any time soon. And one of the worse problems with that mindset is that the harder you attack it, the more stubborn it becomes. Every time we kill one of them, they use that to recruit a few more. I'm not saying we shouldn't fight it, we have to, but Islamic fundamentalisim is a hydra and I see no end in sight for this "war on terrorism".

Kilarin wrote:Every time we kill one of them, they use that to recruit a few more. I'm not saying we shouldn't fight it, we have to, but Islamic fundamentalisim is a hydra and I see no end in sight for this "war on terrorism".

I'm sure that there is a possibility of inciting rebellion. European society used to be ruled by hereditary autocratic dictatorships aka monarchy, but through the anger of a few peope, they've been all but destroyed, and have no power except in a few principalities.

All we would need is a way to look better to them then the theocrats. If we can do that, inciting rebellion would be easy. One could even use the "it's in the Koran" argument against them, by quoting peaceful passages that contradict the theocrats. I doubt that there are tons of them who absolutely want war at all costs, so I'm sure little by little that they would listen.