Pentagon tries to plug the Wikileak
The Pentagon is trying stay aloof from allegations US soldiers were ordered to turn a blind eye to torture and instead is concentrating on condemning the leak.
Here is their statement:"We deplore Wikileaks for inducing individuals to break the law, leak classified documents and then cavalierly share that secret information with the world, including our enemies.
"We know terrorist organisations have been mining the leaked Afghan documents for information to use against us and this Iraq leak is more than four times as large.
"By disclosing such sensitive information, Wikileaks continues to put at risk the lives of our troops, their coalition partners and those Iraqis and Afghans working with us.
"The only responsible course of action for Wikileaks at this point is to return the stolen material and expunge it from their websites as soon as possible."
The nearest they get to talking about the substance is to refer to "a snapshot of events, both tragic and mundane". They say the reports "do not bring a new understanding to Iraq's past".
It will be interesting to see if they can maintain this line, or whether further investigation into the allegations is inevitable.
But there have already been a series of leaks about Afghanistan. Are they right that lives have been put at risk?
Sources say that as far as they know no individual has been harmed yet, but they don't know the status of every individual associated with the documents.
They fear that locals could be put off working with the intelligence community because their identities are not secure, and I suppose at a stretch that could be seen as putting future lives at risk.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~55~RS~)
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Horrible crimes and abuses are an integral and inevitable component of war. To pretend that our presence in Iraq has been focused on liberating the indigenous population from themselves is naive.
The problem is not Wikileaks, or the troops that followed orders, the problem rests on the people responsible for the invasion and the policies that followed.
Complain about this comment
Why are you focusing on the spin emanating from the Pentagon, rather than on the content of the leaks?
Complain about this comment
rather than plug the leak, i think the pentagon has some explaining to do.some conduct out in iraq is appalling considering the number of people who have died for this cause, across all nations.
Complain about this comment
I have to agree with poster number 2 on this Mark.
The sound and fury erupting from Washington is nothing we haven't heard before. This sinister regime of suited and uniformed tyrants would rather you and your colleagues depict their war on Iraq as a necessary struggle for freedom, when in reality it was a bloodbath where innocent men, women and children were subject to the most terrifying, humiliating and hopeless of ordeals in the name of "freedom"
We all know the reality - but never had the proof. Well, now you have the proof and the fears that we all had prior to the invasion have been proven. This country and it's media is a disgrace for it's nonchalance in the face of such unabated evil and even now, with the smoking gun in your hand you refuse to hold the establishment of the United States to account for its crimes against humanity.
Shame on you and your wretched profession.
Complain about this comment
Thank-you wikileaks. I hope the lying, murderous politicians realise that they have been complicit in torture. It makes me ashamed to be English.
Complain about this comment
#2
Because, perhaps, he's concerned with the greater ethical question of lives put in danger (or lost) vs. news leaks? The nature of your inquiry clearly indicates where your values lie. Mark's question addresses a moral/ethical dilemma.
Complain about this comment
If disclosing sensitive information may put lives at risk, what will 'turning a blind eye to torture' do?! If ONCE AGAIN the US are seen to have no morals they will ONCE AGAIN look stupid for pointing a finger at the morals of others - this time Wilileaks.
Complain about this comment
Absolutely correct Gary Hay, the BBC is teeming with this kind of nonsense, our licence fee is being used to provide cover for the war crimes of the US and UK forces.
Take this piece of 'Analysis' from "Gordon Corera Security correspondent, BBC News"
"The Pentagon claimed terrorists had been analysing those documents.
The last US combat brigades departed Iraq this summer. But the debate over what happened during the war and after remains.
The raw, leaked reports may reveal new, perhaps dark episodes of that story - and the disclosures are likely to prove highly controversial, not least for Wikileaks itself."
Rather than focus on what is actually happening in Iraq, the BBC were prefer to focus on the US spin i.e. that terrorists will gain from the information in the leaks. Then we have some stupid comment about how controversial the leaks are for Wikileaks. Yeah, it's not the UK/US that should hang their heads in shame for complicity in torture, it's Wikileaks who are the bad guys!
This isn't journalism.
Complain about this comment
My uncle spent 3 months in jail for not paying a tax bill of 2k. Tony and Bush deceiving the planet. Where directly responsible for genocide and torture and get away Scott free and more so get roles in 8the middle east peace process ... aka genocide project. and roles in industry... Then the pentogon decide to complain... Hasta Siempre
Complain about this comment
If it helps to deter any future “adventurism” from certain governments, then I’m all for it.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
BBC is simply echoing and supporting the Pentagon mantra - "By disclosing such sensitive information, Wikileaks continues to put at risk the lives of our troops, their coalition partners and those Iraqis and Afghans working with us."
It is the truth about this "war of liberation" and "regime change" effort that the US government (and its allies in all of this) do not want the everyday citizen to know as a fact via actual documents. Governments (all of them) deny the truth when it shows them for what they are - promoters of fear and doers of harm.
Wikileaks is providing a great service by letting millions of people know what harm governments (in this case now, the US one) are doing. Then hopefully growing numbers of individuals will question the insistence of governments and their supporters that all would be utter chaos - murder, rape, pillage, etc - if the "order" provided by government were not there. Instead, it will become clear that the nature of human beings does not automatically lead to the conclusion that individuals must be ruled by others in order that there be orderly interactions between them. Governments have created an atmosphere where unfortunately far too few understand that just as people can become physical adults, so can they become psychological and social adults - if only they are allowed (and even required in the sense that they will not achieve their desires unless they do) to socially mature sufficiently.
Understanding the social interaction methodology by which more individuals would progress to become fully socially mature adults requires a paradigm shift in thinking about human interactions. Wikileaks revelations are providing the atmosphere in which more individuals may be stimulated to seek and understand how this is possible - "Social Meta-Needs: A New Basis for Optimal Interaction"
Complain about this comment
Mr Mardell,
The war has been a filthy business from start to finish, so the leak of these documents is most welcome. We can only hope it will discourage oil-hungry nations from waging wars in the future. Of course, unless the media holds the guilty parties to shame, it won't make any difference at all. Wikileaks are not the criminals here.
Complain about this comment
It is naive to assume that these issues have any hope of resolution via sticking to policy and the law. Policy and the law are being seen as basic causative problems here. Exposing them while remaining true to policy and law is not possible. Keeping them hidden from view is also, clearly, not possible in the proper sense of the word. And in an instance of human struggle, such as this one, the "proper sense of the word" includes its political sense(s). So: it is not politically possible to keep this material hidden. It is, however, *criminally* possible.
Laws are made by the powerful, not by the good and honest. We all know that. We *ALL* know that.
Complain about this comment
Is this another whistleblowing? Or is it just the continued systematic release of illicitly obtained materials by an organisation with a clear agenda.
Complain about this comment
I wish you guys would tell me specifically which parts of my comments are breaking the house rules, so that I might tailor my future postings to conform to your incomprehensible regulations. That was a damn fine bit of commentary and your blog is diminished for removing it.
Was it the bit about me witnessing CIA-condoned torture? Or was it my Muslim joke? What gives?
Complain about this comment
#16
Most likely the latter. BBC = Political Correctness Inc. Not that different from NPR, come to think of it, who fired some reporter the other day for saying that he feels uncomfortable around them.
Complain about this comment
I wonder, if reports were leaked of Al-Qaeda (or whomever) torturing NATO soldiers what would the focus be on? The whistleblower or the crimes against humanity that were occuring?
Complain about this comment
And you aid them by focusing entirely on Wikileaks and not on the information released?
I suppose Murdoch and News International have some serious smear-viable information on folks at the BBC too, huh.
Complain about this comment
If our intelligence community was up on its game (and remember the old saying that even a stopped clock is right twice a day), two or three percent of the wiki documents would be paid advertisement inserted to sell the home team's product, 95% would be designed to put over-worked analysts to sleep, and the remainder would be placebos targeted at establishing the credibility of the whole package.
I mean, come on: how hard could it be to -use- something called "wikileaks" to spread the odd bit of helpful disinformation? My grandchildren could do it.
Otherwise, I like #1 for good, brief but spot-on analysis. And #11 when he/she asks: "How about we try being honest with everybody, especially ourselves, about why we invaded Iraq in the first place?" Which causes me to think: does anybody believe that the Bush boys from Cheney down had even a -remote- clue "why"? (G.W., it goes without saying, didn't have a clue about anything.)
Complain about this comment
To PoeticUSMCWarVet_LivinginChina #16
If you're interested in turning speculation into fact, try and post your comment in sections, so that the bit that broke the house rules can be identified. You can then hint at the part that was removed, so that we don't lose your contribution to the debate.
Complain about this comment
I guess it does put lives at risk. in particularly those who will no longer sit on their hands, were previously supportive and had high hopes, but now realize that in at least some respects the Maliki Government is not that different from Sadam's; the boot is just on the other foot this time. Unless the Maliki government is powerless of course..And the fact that the US and allied forces on the ground have not come to grips with this problem. Which in itself is unsurprising as it is impossible to fight two such enemies at the same time. Unless the intention is to stay there indefinitely of course, which never was the case and would be unsupportable, both "back home" and with respect to the democratic principles which it was intended to introduce there. Catch 22.
Complain about this comment
1, SaintDominick.
"The problem is not Wikileaks, or the troops that followed orders, the problem rests on the people responsible for the invasion and the policies that followed."
Thank you for keeping everyone on track.
Complain about this comment
I have always espoused # 1's feelings about the nature of war. Atrocities will happen. There can never be a conflict where one side has acted righteously. It is all relative.
With utmost respect for the troops who were characterised as defenders of the frontiers of freedom, they are merely grunts who follow orders. What Assange is doing with wikileaks is callous and unethical. His actions will not hurt the policy makers as he intends, and I am sure he is perceptive enough to realize that, but it could definetly jeopardize the lives of innocent soldiers. I doubt if any of the people here who support wikileaks has truly been in a combat situation day after day. Like the saying goes - "In a war there are no unwounded soldiers". There may have been a few bad apples but I believe the common soldier is honorable and everything needs to be done to bring them home safe.
Complain about this comment
#24 Jay
Well spoken!
While it is fortunate for many of the contributors commenting on the release of sensitive material, to have never been "personally" involved in the horrors of war. They seem to not care that the accountability of Wikileaks actions could also aid in the demise of others.
Complain about this comment
Jay Krishnan #24
There's also a cultural difference. In the USA it's seen as being right that it is better to be "patriotic" than fair-minded.
Complain about this comment
These leaks can be likened to selected stills from a movie. They do not show what happened before or afterwards. They were obviously selected in order to promote a concern or point of view.
The problem, how can we judge them? We clearly cannot assume their validity. The source of these leaks had an axe to grind, be it valid or not. Yet another problem because we are denied to chance to question the source.
Complain about this comment
''The Pentagon is trying stay aloof from allegations''
Ship of fools. The Pentagon can only protect the high ground by proof of sound behaviour. The current strategy is tantamount to admission of fault. If this is the level of acumen shown in a media conflict it is no surprise a real conflict on the ground is sub optimal is it.
Complain about this comment
In November 2009, hackers leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (commonly called Hadley CRU). These emails indicated a premeditated plan to hide dropping temperature data points from the public. When this broke, the left was all about the crime that was committed in hacking the emails and pay no attention to the data in the emails. Now we see the Pentagon talking about how bad it is to release this stolen data and the left is outraged at the Pentagon and you, Mark, for bringing up the fact that it may not be prudent to release this data. Seems like a definite double standard to me. But of course, I’m sure the usual lefty suspects will endeavor to sit me straight with some porous argument like, “Bush lied, people died,” or maybe, “Of course, human-induced climate change is an indisputable fact, so how dare anybody bring up any stolen evidence that proves otherwise.”
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2009/11/21/climate-skeptics-smoking-gun-researchers-leaked-e-mails/
Complain about this comment
We are told 'US Forces ignored Iraq torture'.
Couldn't this actually mean something a bit more sinister than merely 'turning a blind eye'?
The US taste for torture by proxy is already documented. See 'extraordinary rendition' (or getting someone else to do your dirty work for you.)
Complain about this comment
The Pentagon are simply trying to shoot the messenger. Their reaction is confirmation that the details of these events are accurate.
They should concentrate on behaving correctly, instead of trying to deflect attention from their complicity in these crimes.
All those saying "these things happen in war" should bear in mind who started the war, because those are the people who bear the responsibilty, not their victims.
Complain about this comment
I feel I must also register my dismay at the editorial line taken by BBC News. The content of the Wikileaks papers is surely the salient matter of public interest in all this.
The papers are primary source documents from the US establishment, yet their details are being treated as if they were the unsubstantiated slander of a drunk in a pub.
They can and should be reported in great detail. Notwithstanding the redactions of names or identifying detais which has already taken place, BBC news would have ample scope further to deliver the facts responsibly.
Have the courage to do your duty as journalists.
Complain about this comment
"have already taken place", sorry.
Complain about this comment
24. At 04:45am on 23 Oct 2010, Jay Krishnan wrote:
I have always espoused # 1's feelings about the nature of war. Atrocities will happen. There can never be a conflict where one side has acted righteously. It is all relative.
With utmost respect for the troops who were characterised as defenders of the frontiers of freedom, they are merely grunts who follow orders. What Assange is doing with wikileaks is callous and unethical. His actions will not hurt the policy makers as he intends, and I am sure he is perceptive enough to realize that, but it could definetly jeopardize the lives of innocent soldiers. I doubt if any of the people here who support wikileaks has truly been in a combat situation day after day. Like the saying goes - "In a war there are no unwounded soldiers". There may have been a few bad apples but I believe the common soldier is honorable and everything needs to be done to bring them home safe.
-----------------------------------------
The problem with your reasoning is the pentagon would be exposing any other country or organisations misdeeds if it could. It just happens that they are on on the receiving end this time and its making them squeal.
You say it could jeopardize innocent soldiers lives, surely sending them to attack another nation does that but as you also point out they are just grunts and expendable.
All actions of war should be accountable, you can't just say "These things happen " Why do you think we have the Hague to prosecute war crimes.
Complain about this comment
Hi Mark. After 9/11 attacks and all to the way to Afghanistan and Iraq wars, we were told that Al Qaeda attacks our values the values of the "Free World". So after what was unfolded through the wikileaks files, are these the values of the "free world"???
Considering the little I know about Afghanistan & Iraq wars and Kashmir & Palestine issues, for the first time ever, I've started to understand the viewpoints of people who hate the "free world", because it's far far from being free and just. No wonder Bin Laden has millions of supporters. Shame on the "free world".
Complain about this comment
34. At 08:55am on 23 Oct 2010, load_of_bull wrote:
Why do you think we have the Hague to prosecute war crimes.
___________________________________________________________
Good question. Why do you all have the Hague? The US doesn't participate, and for good reason. Those that support the Hague think that all military actions are inherently criminal, I suspect even actions of self defense.
Anyway, the Pentagon's point about these leaks putting American GIs at risk is a moot one to me since the current C-n-C's rules of engagement has already proven to increase risk to service members in difference to the bad PR that comes from collateral damage.
Complain about this comment
"Lives will be put at risk" is the US mantra everytime their actions are exposed. In reality, the families of the tortured and the murdered needed no Wikileaks. They are already fully aware of the horrors inflicted on their loved ones. Thus the seeds of hatred and revenge are already sown.
Complain about this comment
These reports may seem "mundane" to the Pentagon, but that just shows how low the US administration's morals have sunk.
They bemoan 'their' torture and atrocities, but torture and atrocities committed by 'our' partners are not worthy of investigation. 'Our' torture & murder is 'good torture & murder', 'theirs' is 'repugnant'.
Will lives be put at risk from this leak? Possibly. Giving an American a gun and let them out of the house increases 'lives being put at risk' by several orders of magnitude more.
Complain about this comment
All the advance publicity given by the U.S. to this latest Wikileaks release has failed to diminish the effect. The information serves only to confirm the identity of the true axis of evil - Bush/Blair. One can only assume the same is being played out in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Our tax dollars at work and meanwhile Britain and the U.S. are morally and financially bankrupt. Very sad, very sick examples of corrupt power.
Complain about this comment
This is such a nuanced issue that black and white declamations lose all their value.
How are we defining torture? Intimidation, exhaustion and mind games are all central to the breaking of will needed to get at information in a timely fashion. Do the leaks speak of electrodes and rubber truncheons? Do they speak of sleep deprivation? Are we talking about imprisonment and periods of psych warfare? Imprisonment itself can be defined as torture.
How did the US turn a blind eye to it? Did they count upon their less civilised allies using physical methods not outlawed under their own regimes? Did they hand over prisoners for torture by less encumbered free agents? Was the torture carried out by foreign agents who operated outside of US law?
Then we move onto the question of what you do with intelligence delivered to you by a less ethically encumbered source that you suspect may have been gathered through the use of torture. Do you discard that intelligence, even though it may save lives? Do you continue to pass it on whilst delivering a stern warning to the originating agency that you do not condone torture?
It's entirely understandable that troops on the ground should have an ambivalent attitude towards the abuse of insurgents whose on record on human rights issues is downright atrocious. In fact Al Qaeda and the Taliban are virtually the dictionary definition of atrocity.
The status of Insurgents is a legal grey area in international law. In World War II they would have been called partisans and would have been executed as soon as they were captured. The rules of war seem not to have been written with them in mind. They don't wear uniforms and obey the Law of Arms so they aren't soldiers. They, equally, are not helpless civilians who are entitled to the utmost respect and a duty of care from occupying troops.
Don't people understand that they cannot and will not hurt the monolithic entities that they are aiming at with these imprecations? The US Military will not be harmed one iota. The US Government and especially the persons of Bush Junior, Cheney and Rumsfeld will all have made sure that they are corporately and individually protected from prosection.
At most, some Colonel will get a reprimand and a demotion and some poor frontline soldier will go to prison. That's not a blow for justice, it's putting your boot into the scapegoat.
Complain about this comment
The main issue I have with Wikileaks is the non-censorship of their information. It is raw. Also, dare I say, not fully vetted. The nature of the material they do receive is clandestine. Extremely difficult to fully corroborate. However, to not redact inconsequential names that are not public figures is irresponsible,lazy, and detrimental towards true investigative journalism.
Wikileaks is a great idea and an outlet for the public to gain access to information, but to classify it as journalism is equally as lazy and detrimental to public discourse as a whole.
The U.S. State Department and their counter intelligence agencies are on record as saying, “[t]he identification, exposure, termination of employment, criminal prosecution, legal action against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistlblowers.". After this fire storm how many staffers or persons accessible to damning information in any governments or larger multi national corporations will be readily willing to volunteer information?
Unwittingly, Mr. Assange might have silenced himself as well as others. "The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry." Robert Burns would agree.
Complain about this comment
Let me ask all of you a simple question. Suppose that everything in the leaks is true. Torture ignored and all of that.
Now suppose that the leaked documents causes the death of a single British or American soldier, either in Iraq or elsewhere. There is no doubt that the cause of his death can be traced to something in one of these documents. A name, a place, anything. Further, suppose that the killers post about it on the Internet, a video of the murder and a statement in which they justify it with something they consider evidence, from these "leaks".
Here's the question and it comes in two parts. 1. Would the leaks be justified, in your system of morals and values, that is do you see the leaks as a worthwhile endeavour that outweighs the life of the soldier killed? 2. If your answer is "Yes", would you say that his death served a realistic purpose, policywise (by that I don't mean your pedestrian political perspectives on how the world ought to be or is), that is if the death of this soldier will have any impact on anyone or anything, other than his family, friends and immediate community?
Complain about this comment
36. At 09:14am on 23 Oct 2010, Oldloadr wrote:
34. At 08:55am on 23 Oct 2010, load_of_bull wrote:
Why do you think we have the Hague to prosecute war crimes.
___________________________________________________________
Good question. Why do you all have the Hague? The US doesn't participate, and for good reason. Those that support the Hague think that all military actions are inherently criminal, I suspect even actions of self defense.
---------------------------------------
The US doesn't;t participate but was happy to help set it up and also provide any intelligence needed to prosecute others. Hypocrite springs to mind.
Complain about this comment
Mark Mardell.
the Pentagon states: "We deplore Wikileaks for inducing individuals to break the law, leak classified documents and then cavalierly share that secret information with the world, including our enemies."
well, I look at Mr Assange and his stated aims, then I look at the CIA, the black op's, the drug and gun running, and the extraordinary renditions, and I ask myself, are they for real?
but then I remember that the US of A squanders more than $660,000,000,000 a year on its military delusions (equivalent to nearly $100 for every human being on Earth) and think: where there's that much money at stake, people will lie, kill, do anything, to keep their fingers in the pie.
also, very much agree with Gary Hay's #4 (and others expressing similar concerns).
Complain about this comment
#42, Jeremy Clarkson,
Leaks don't cause death, belligerents with guns cause death. There's no notes in those released documents which states a reader should go out and kill so-and-so.
The "cause" of a soldiers death could be due to many factors. Taking the Queens' shilling ups the risk by an order of magnitude. Being ordered into a high risk environment such as a self-created war zone is another "cause".
All this talk of "innocent soldiers" makes me laugh - they're trained killers who take the Queens shilling for the risks they choose to allow themselves to be put into.
The death of a human being is tragic, the death of a human being who chooses to be a soldier, a killer of man, is mere the background noise to Shock and Awe.
Complain about this comment
@'Jeremy Clarkson'
i) Is a US/UK life more important than an Iraqi life?
ii) Should the family of a US/UK soldier get more consideration than the family of an Iraqi torture victim?
On both counts, clearly NOT, by any just and humanitarian measure.
You clearly do not seem to fully appreciate the extreme hypocrisy of the US rhetoric wikileaks has exposed. Nor do you seem to understand the concept of 'for the greater good'.
If it takes a few US/UK lives to shame current US/UK governments so that future US/UK governments do not needlessly waste future US/UK/Iraqi lives in wars justified on some false moral high ground, then the sacrifice of those few lives is entirely worth it. Otherwise the justification for the entire war is not only false (no WMD), but also hypocritical in the extreme.
Complain about this comment
Mark Mardell.
Since it was before your time you may have to do some research about damage done by Leftie "Ramparts" magazine, which, claiming a "public's right to know" "outed" quite a few CIA agents causing a significant damage.
Some might say that it was in the 60s atmosphere, when U.S. soldiers returning from Vietnam were spat at and CIA was considered an equivalent of Gestapo. [NKVD agents were the good guys then]
But unfortunately, the then chief "Ramparts" contributors, such as Noam Chomsky, Seymour Hersh, Tom Hayden, Angela Davis, etc., are still with us, actively trying do do as much damage to the United States and its system and interests as they possibly can.
Although today, unlike in the 60s, they'd of course deny it.
Complain about this comment
So...
Where are the reprisals meted out against the names in the first leak? Weirdly, I don't recall hearing about any.
Hmm.
Maybe it's because the US military doesn't record... their real names?!
NO! SURELY THEY WOULDN'T THINK OF DOING THAT, WOULD THEY!!!
Complain about this comment
"Yeah, it's not the UK/US that should hang their heads in shame for complicity in torture, it's Wikileaks who are the bad guys!"
If you look at the accusations raised by Sweden's prosecutor's office, it sure looks like at least Wikileaks creator and editor in chief is a bad guy indeed. [check]
Complain about this comment
"The problem is not Wikileaks, or the troops that followed orders, the problem rests on the people responsible for the invasion "
In that case Saddam Hussein, Chemical Ali and other Iraqi dictator's factotums who repeatedly violated United Nations' resolutions and sanctions.
Complain about this comment
I think it is clear enough that the BBC is more interested in presenting American spin. This putting "lives at risk" is a poor and unsubstantiafiable argument for avoiding discussing the substantive issues contained in the Wiki leaks reports. Shame on the BBC. It is little wonder that people are increasingly forced to turn to alternative media sources to try to establish what is really going on in the world and this in turn raises the issue of why the public should fund a compromised media source. Its rich that the American authorities talk of illegality and potential loss of lives when they themselves have been proved to have been instigators of the same actions. How can such abuses not radicalize those who have suffered. Illegality is anyway a moot point when it is decided by those who would use it to legitimate their own actions even after violating their own laws. One thing stands clear above all this in any case and that is human rights, and doing what is moral by any standard. The American Authorities have breeched these rights and certainly engaged in immoral acts. Their continued defense of their actions and weasel words indicate that their objectives have been other than the professed moral actions of "spreading democracy etc". The sad thing is that you Mark Mardell facilitate these lies and i genuinely believe that you know better and are most probably a decent and moral person. The world needs wiki leaks and others like it, they provide a necessary mirror for the actions that some would prefer hide. The public too have a duty to inform themselves. Im mindful that in years to come we will all be asked how we managed to blind ourselves to the blatant atrocities that occur in our world today and why we allowed things to come to this pass.
Complain about this comment
"The information serves only to confirm the identity of the true axis of evil - Bush/Blair."
Thank God there's a true axis of goodness (Ahmadinnerjacket, Bashir Assad, Kim Jong-il) to protect us from that evil. ;)
Complain about this comment
powermeerkat #47.
well, one thing's changed since the sixties -- the CIA is now worse than the Gestapo.
Complain about this comment
powermeerkat, "If you look at the accusations raised by Sweden's prosecutor's office, it sure looks like at least Wikileaks creator and editor in chief is a bad guy indeed. [check]"
Would the file on such actions, had they been perpitrated by someone considered an Allie, be stamped "Not in need of further investigation" as they're such "mundane" accusations?
Complain about this comment
"Leaks don't cause death"
Yes they do. [Loose lips sink ships]
And I am not even referring to very real deaths caused by such "informants" like Philby, Howard or Ames.
Complain about this comment
powermeerkat #49.
investigation into rape allegation dropped in August, then reopened September, I wonder how much pressure behind the scenes it took. otoh, the investigation takes place in Sweden where on can have confidence that judgement won't be bought (easily). imagine, he could have been accused in the US of A (where he has a lot of enemies), now that would be scary.
Complain about this comment
I think we should all celebrate this release of the truth (note that even the Pentagon does not claim the released files are forgeries) by making a donation to Wikileaks.
Complain about this comment
Me, "Leaks don't cause death"
powermeerkat, "Yes they do. [Loose lips sink ships]
And I am not even referring to very real deaths caused by such "informants" like Philby, Howard or Ames."
'They made me do it guv' is something I remember hearing on the playground. Outside the playground, it was used at the Nurenberg Trials and was not taken to be much of a defense by the Allies there.
Torpedoes sink ships, loose lips kiss [with perhaps a little too much saliva) ships.
Complain about this comment
56. At 11:00am on 23 Oct 2010, jr4412 wrote:
Based on your statement and using the same rules of extrapolation many on the left have used against Mark for posting this question the way he did; I have to ask the reverse of what you are implying. If he really did rape a woman, should he get off simply because he is now a darling of the Hate America First crowd?
Complain about this comment
Oldloadr #60.
"If he really did rape a woman, should he get off simply because.."
absolutely not. but I do find it interesting that (a) the rape allegation surfaced shortly after Assange released the previous batch of documents (on Afghanistan), and (b) that the case was reopened, after being dropped, in the run up to this round of -- very damaging to US interests -- revelations.
time will tell whether Mr Assange has committed a crime, meanwhile he, and therefore Wikileaks, are being plagued (damaged?) by allegations. go figure.
Complain about this comment
Oldloadr & powermeerkat are dutifully following the line defined by Washington and Whitehall: obfuscate the material evidence with a lot of whataboutery.
Do you really believe that allegations against Assange are more important than proof that the USA/UK hushed up thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq? Perhaps you've been brainwashed by spin, maybe you are adopting this dialectic as a tactic, or maybe you really do believe that Mr Assange is more evil than the acts perpetrated in occupied Iraq.
Complain about this comment
Oldloadr #59.
oh, and what some call "the Hate America First crowd" is better known to others as 'enough of this fascism crowd'. hth clarify matters.
Complain about this comment
@59
Of course not. I personally feel that if someone has commited a crime then they should pay for it. Even if say Nelson Mandela had raped someone in his past I think he should be punished (extreme example but you get the picture).
The fact is, the pentagon clearly don't understand that they have done wrong, and just how horrified the majority of the world is with them. That is more scary than the fact they feel torture is justified in the first place.
Complain about this comment
Wikileaks is supporting islamic terroism aims just like Quisling and the Vichy goverment supported the Nazis.
Julian and the rest of Wikileaks should be tried for War crimes.
Complain about this comment
Gary Hay's knockout post (#4) says it all.
Complain about this comment
Controlling the most powerful violent force that has ever existed using money people are forced to pay confers some responsibility. How many times must you be shown to be abusing that *privilege* before you deign to answer for what you're doing?
That's regarding trying to stop the leaks. Regarding the content of the leaks, it's nothing new and will never be old.
I personally am fascinated to see what will happen next.
Complain about this comment
62. At 11:41am on 23 Oct 2010, jr4412 wrote:
Oldloadr #59.
oh, and what some call "the Hate America First crowd" is better known to others as 'enough of this fascism crowd'. hth clarify matters.
___________________________________________
Now that's funny. Considering all the lectures you lefties have put on previous strings of this blog about how Obama cannot possibly be a Socialist; expounding about how we righties obviously don't know what socialism is. Well, I have to say, on this one: Right back at ya! Especially when you consider who our current Apologist-n-Chief is. Are you saying that Obama is a Fascist? After all, he is still prosecuting both wars (although he has flipped which one gets all of the attention from George II).
Complain about this comment
The leaks aren't the problem. The fact that these practices went on and weren't dealt with are. Its no good hiding behind 'this sort of thing always happens', shouldn't we better than that?
Whether the wider world knows is irrelevant from a drumming up support point of view. Rumour about what happened will do that anyway. The real danger that the US sees from this is what their supporters and allies with think. What their own population will think. Whether this will impact the support they will get in the future.
The shame is that it shows that the US military hasn't learnt anything from the conflicts they have been in. They continually lose the hearts and minds of the people they are 'liberating' by abusing them and then escaping scot free.
Complain about this comment
Re #54
Julian Assange is a proven mythomaniac afflicted with mania grandiosa.
[some of his claims have been dismissed even by his former associates]
One of the few known hard facts about him are that he was a hacker (at one time a member of International Subversive, and that in 1992 he pleaded guilty (in Australia) to 24 charges of hacking. [check]
[he denies most recent accusations of rape and sexual harrassment made by, among others, his female supporters in Sweden.]
And his Weakileaks is hosted by the same company (Swedish PRQ) which provides Internet access to many pedophile sites, NAMBLA among them.
Daniel Yates, a former British military intelligence officer, believes Assange has jeopardised the lives of Afghan civilians: "The logs contain detailed personal information regarding Afghan civilians who have approached NATO soldiers with information. It is inevitable that the Taliban will now seek violent retribution on those who have co-operated with NATO. Their families and tribes will also be in danger."
Complain about this comment
Ref 55, powermeerkat
"Yes they do. [Loose lips sink ships]"
The need for secrecy is addressed by granting security clearances to people that have access to sensitive information of critical importance to our national security. People who have such clearances abide by the restrictions associated with them, and even those who had high security clearances long ago remember the need to keep their mouths shut even after the information is no longer classified. Obviously, those restrictions do not apply to organizations like Wikileaks which is not bound by legal restrictions.
I think that it is important to remember that the danger of these disclosures has a lot more to do with awareness at home than revelations to those that have been subjected to the atrocities that are slowly becoming public. I doubt too many Iraqis or Afghans need Wikileak to learn what has been happening to them, their families, neighbors and friends. Consequently, the suggestion that these leaks are going to endanger our troops can only be described as absurd. The real concern involves the high probability of these revelations further undermining the dubious legitimacy of our presence and actions in Iraq and, to a lesser extent, Afghanistan.
While I would not exempt anyone who has committed murder or tortured other human beings from prosecution, I believe the ones that bear the brunt of responsibility for what has taken place are the ones that deceived everyone to invade Iraq, and the ones that created a climate of fear and hatred that contributed to the horrible events we are now learning about...which hopefully are not a surprise to anyone.
It would not surprise me if prosecution, if there is any, is limited to a low ranking officer or even NCOs, or if responsibility for the invasion is blamed on some obscured Lt. Colonel.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Wikileaks is trying to get the truth out there and surely that cannot be a bad thing. If Jeremy Clarkson (@42) has a problem with the truth being reported then surely he should quit his job because isn't that the purpose of the BBC "to speak truth to nations"? When did the caveats in that mission statement creep in?
Just want to say as well, we still haven't had the truth told us about 9/11 - the whole reason we are in this War of Terror mess. And still we hear the drum beats for future wars, yet to be fought. Don't you think timely reminders from the likes of Wikileak detailing the disaster-that-wars-create is a good thing!?
Complain about this comment
Torpedoes sink ships, loose lips kiss [with perhaps a little too much saliva) ships."
Your facetiousness aside that's simply not true.
That's why members of Walker ring rot in US jails (it's leader for life):
for selling US Navy codes which would allow US enemies, among other things, to find out positions of and orders sent to American nuclear submarines, particularly "boomers".
Complain about this comment
@64 - first you have to =prove= that there is "Isalmic Terrorism" - where is the legal basis for wars on Afghanistan and Iraq? There is none. Iraq not legal. Afghanistan not legal. Shall we just invade the next country we don't like? Cuba? Iran? France?
Do you believe just what your politicians say all the time? This is no better than what happened in Germany in the 1930s!
Complain about this comment
bluegawhale, (#46. At 10:18am on 23 Oct 2010)
“... If it takes a few US/UK lives to shame current US/UK governments so that future US/UK governments do not needlessly waste future US/UK/Iraqi lives in wars justified on some false moral high ground, then the sacrifice of those few lives is entirely worth it ...”
I read that you are comfortable sacrificing the lives of others.
What if it were your life?
Complain about this comment
Ref 50, powermeerkat
"In that case Saddam Hussein, Chemical Ali and other Iraqi dictator's factotums who repeatedly violated United Nations' resolutions and sanctions."
Saddam and his lieutenant we, indeed, evil, but they were our demons and they did nothing to endanger our national security or anything that would justify the deaths of over 4,000 American soldiers, hundreds of "coalition" soldiers, thousands maimed, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis slaughtered, and what was once a relatively prosperous country reduced to ruins.
After serving us well for decades, Saddam became an easy target top justify a neocon goal at a time when we needed a distraction to give the illusion of forceful retaliation to 9/11 to a public that still doesn't know the difference between an Arab and a Muslim.
Complain about this comment
@70, The control on "truth" is not always because "Loose Lips sink Ships" - its also because the whole Official Narrative has to be controlled and we have to believe the Authority Figures that spout the junk being fed to us every day. Whether it is about Religion, the importance that the Banks must rip us off or the need for to wage wars in the Middle East against some of the poorest people on the planet, the "truth" has to be managed.
When you can explain to why Three Skyscrapers exploded on 9/11 supposedly because of office fires - completely unprecedented event - and nobody has even questioned why this has never been seriously investigated, then you can tell me about "the need for secrecy"!
Complain about this comment
Oldloadr #67.
"Are you saying that Obama is a Fascist?"
don't think so, but then he's not in charge of the military–industrial complex, is he?
besides, the rot we're talking about set in round about the time Mr Obama was born. (you don't seem to rate him ("Apologist-n-Chief") though)
Complain about this comment
hairymary100, (# 51. At 10:47am on 23 Oct 2010)
“... One thing stands clear above all this in any case and that is human rights, and doing what is moral by any standard ...”
What are those rights and standards, and why do you believe that they are universal?
Complain about this comment
powermeerkat,
Your post 69 could be summed up as "Look, over there, look at THOSE allegedly bad people!! Don't look at OUR bad people and OUR bad friends!".
Whatever; keep drinking the neo-con Kool-Aid.
Complain about this comment
jr4412, (#53. At 10:53am on 23 Oct 2010)
“... the CIA is now worse than the Gestapo.”
An interesting claim. Can you produce evidence to substantiate it?
Complain about this comment
SD: "I doubt too many Iraqis or Afghans need Wikileak to learn what has been happening to them, their families, neighbors and friends. Consequently, the suggestion that these leaks are going to endanger our troops can only be described as absurd."
But I am sure Taliban sponsors and al-Qaida leaders do.
And will retaliate against civilian Afghans and Afghan village chiefs who've cooperated with NATO forces and who've been identified in leaked logs.
Read what former British intelligence officer Daniel Yates quoted in #69 says.
BTW. Would you cooperate with ISAF in a hostile environment knowing that your identity and whereabouts can be revelead at any time?
Do YOU remember harm cased by "Ramparts" I have mentioned earlier?
You should, since you haven't been been born yesterday.
Complain about this comment
@81 ""...CIA is now worse than the Gestapo.” An interesting claim. Can you produce evidence to substantiate it?"
The CIA have illegally destroyed all the tapes of their interrogations, so no. The CIA then outsourced their torture to the Iraqis and Uzbekistan (See Craig Murray)!
That, at least, sounds on par with the Gestapo.
Complain about this comment
powermeerkat #69.
LOL
"And his Weakileaks is hosted by the same company (Swedish PRQ) which provides Internet access to many pedophile sites, NAMBLA among them."
two points:
if guilt by company association is your thing, check out Dick Cheney and Halliburton for example.
re NAMBLA -- only in the good old US of A, eh? you couldn't make it up.
Complain about this comment
Me, "Torpedoes sink ships, loose lips kiss [with perhaps a little too much saliva) ships."
powermeerkat, "Your facetiousness aside that's simply not true.
That's why members of Walker ring rot in US jails (it's leader for life):
for selling US Navy codes which would allow US enemies, among other things, to find out positions of and orders sent to American nuclear submarines, particularly "boomers". "
Remind us, how many submarines or "boomers" were sank between 1967 and 1983 as a result of John Anthony Walker Jr & Co's "loose lips", or perhaps you literally meant "ships"?
The Walker ring are in jail for spying, not for sinking ships/subs/boomers but perhaps you have different info?
Complain about this comment
Chryses #81.
"An interesting claim. Can you produce evidence to substantiate it?"
I recommend you do some research into the issues touched on in #44, but if you cannot be bothered I'm happy to re-phrase this as 'the CIA is the new Gestapo'. hth
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"Do you believe just what your politicians say all the time? This is no better than what happened in Germany in the 1930s!"
Brits and the French did not conduct a preemptive strike at Nazi Germany in the late 30s (Churchill, who promoted one, was not in power at the time), although they could have.
The consequences are known even to elementary school pupils.
In more than one country. :(
Complain about this comment
Chryses #87.
only #87 comments to the first mention of the Holocaust, probably not a new record.
pray tell, would you care to explain the difference in value of a human life with respect to a Jew and, say, an Iraqi or a Nicaraguan?
Complain about this comment
powermeerkat #88.
"The consequences are known even to elementary school pupils.
In more than one country."
striking, isn't it, how so many of us 'know' the same history, having been informed by the same media, owned the same people, in so many different countries too. :-)
Complain about this comment
ynda20, (#83. At 12:33pm on 23 Oct 2010)
“... The CIA have illegally destroyed all the tapes of their interrogations, so no. The CIA then outsourced their torture to the Iraqis and Uzbekistan (See Craig Murray)!
That, at least, sounds on par with the Gestapo.”
Unless I am mistaken, you acknowledge in your first sentence that you are unable to substantiate your prior claim. I thank you for your honesty.
You acknowledge in your second sentence that the CIA did, in fact, not behave as did the Gestapo. I thank you for your honesty.
We are left with your claim in post #53, “... the CIA is now worse than the Gestapo” followed by your self-refutation in post #83.
A most unusual argument technique.
Complain about this comment
#90 oops.
'..the same media, owned by the same people..'.
Complain about this comment
Chryses #91.
"ydna ... your claim in post #53 ... A most unusual argument technique."
erroneous attribution, par for the course in obfuscating "argument technique"s. ;)
Complain about this comment
Chryses,
The comparison between the CIA and the Gestapo is clear. The Gestapo labelled their enemies "untermensch", the CIA labels them "unlawful combatants", in each case they're targets are afforded lesser rights than another human and in each case they're subject to abuse that another human would not have to endure.
Listening in on your own citizens and rescinding the usual human rights your citizens previously previously are also very similar, the CIA does this via the Patriot Act (what an ironic and Nazi-esque act title).
The jackboot is merely worn by the stars and stripes now, unfortunately.
Complain about this comment
"Your post 69 could be summed up as "Look, over there, look at THOSE allegedly bad people!! Don't look at OUR bad people and OUR bad friends!".
Whatever; keep drinking the neo-con Kool-Aid."
Since Mr. Assange himself has promoted his site by advertising:
"You can post whatever you want; you can edit whatever you want"
please, send me your name.
I'll write, edit relevant "evidence" and post an appropriate entry at Wikileaks, identifying you as:
a) CIA agent
b) al-Qaida member
c) Iranian Quds terrorist
d) GRU "illegal".
e) London madrassas' financier
depending which "legend" would you prefer.
Please, let me know.
Complain about this comment
jr4412, (#86. At 12:38pm on 23 Oct 2010)
“... I recommend you do some research into the issues touched on in #44, ...”
Are you now qualifying the context within which you claim that the CIA is equivalent to the Gestapo?
“... but if you cannot be bothered ...”
Are you suggesting that only you are treating the subject with sufficient seriousness? If so, why? It it merely because the others disagree with you?
“... I'm happy to re-phrase this as 'the CIA is the new Gestapo'. hth”
As and when the CIA has in place a program to arrest and deport for the purposes of genocide people of a particular ethnic group, then the equating of the two organizations will be accurate.
Of course, if you do, you’ll need to produce some evidence to substantiate your claim.
Complain about this comment
Ref 82, powermeerkat
"And will retaliate against civilian Afghans and Afghan village chiefs who've cooperated with NATO forces and who've been identified in leaked logs."
My point, which I am sure you understood, was that the allegation that these revelations will endanger our troops is absurd. Our troops have been in danger since the day they set foot in Iraq and Afghanistan and neither the the population at large nor the Taliban or Al Qaeda need Wikileaks revelations to know what has been going on in their backyards.
You are correct, the lives of those who have cooperated with the "coalition of the willing" are definitely in danger...and so is the credibility of our country. The latter is the reason the Pentagon, and the administration, are desperately trying to divert attention from the revelations to the source of the revelations.
Complain about this comment
Mark Mardell.
"..or whether further investigation into the allegations is inevitable."
seems inevitable now:
"Obama must investigate torture claims, says UN envoy"
"British soldiers repeatedly came under attack from US forces in a series of 'friendly fire' incidents.."
"Those cases raise the civilian death toll in Iraq to 122,000, said Iraq Body Count, an-anti-war group."
Complain about this comment
"The Walker ring are in jail for spying, not for sinking ships/subs/boomers but perhaps you have different info?"
Please, don't make me laugh.
Such information (if leaks had not been detected and codes changed) would have been used during a military conflict.
With deadly results.
Just as Enigma code (first broken before WWII) was couple of years later.
BTW. I'll take a neocon rather than a leftie con anytime.
[definitely lesser of two evils]
Complain about this comment
96. At 1:14pm on 23 Oct 2010, Chryses wrote:
"As and when the CIA has in place a program to arrest and deport for the purposes of genocide people of a particular ethnic group, then the equating of the two organizations will be accurate."
We can equate the actions of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Tito, etc as being similar even though their targest were not exactly the same.
There does not have to be an exact match for a similarity to occur.
The US/Israel are not Nazi Germany, yet they actions are Nazi-esque. The CIA is not the Gestapo, yet it's actions are Gestapo-esque.
The similarities are striking and way beyond reasonable doubt in my view.
Richard Nixon made this list, Bush should be on it as well: http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html
Complain about this comment
Chryses #96.
sure Chryses, let's go (further) off-topic, why don't we?
"Are you suggesting that only you are treating the subject with sufficient seriousness?"
if you read through the comments posted here by persons other than me, you'll find your 'question' answered (it's 'no', btw).
"Are you now qualifying the context within which you claim that the CIA is equivalent to the Gestapo?"
until you have done a little more research and reading up on the matter, any assertions or qualification would be moot. (please, do hurry though)
"As and when the CIA has in place a program to arrest and deport for the purposes of genocide people of a particular ethnic group, then the equating of the two organizations will be accurate."
there's more to 'gestapo' than concentration camps, see comment #94 for example.
as I said, a little more reading and researching, a bit more knowledge would help (you).
Complain about this comment
The Pentagon is trying stay aloof & is concentrating on condemning the leak. If you'll pardon the extreme reference: This is like the SS/Gestapo trying to stay aloof & condemning the leak of Holocaust records which were kept with such detail.
Here is the Pentagon statement: "We deplore Wikileaks for inducing individuals to break the law, leak classified documents...
What about this statement: "We deplore the depravity and the wanton killing that could do nothing less than inflame the passions of our enemies?
Here is the Pentagon statement: "The only responsible course of action for Wikileaks at this point is to return the stolen material and expunge it from their websites as soon as possible."
What about this statement: "The only responsible course of action is for the United States military to thoroughly review its compliance to the Geneva Conventions."
Pentagon statement: "do not bring a new understanding to Iraq's past".
What about this question: "Has not the Pentagon not buried the truth as well as the bodies & therefore the understanding?
Why would the United States further investigate the allegations? Don't they know, does not the world know, that these allegations are true?
Why would this endanger military or civilian lives any more than they have been com primised by the actions of the United States itself.
The electronic archive is believed to emanate from the same "dissident" US army intelligence analyst..."dissident"?? Maybe the intelligence analyst was just appalled and perhaps guilt-ridden. This would be the reaction of any moral, fairly compassionate human being.
Logs reveal that the coalition has a formal policy of ignoring abuse & death allegations. They record "no investigation is necessary". What does that say about the morality of the the coalition?
US generals claim that their army does not carry out body counts. Is this because they couldn't possibly count the bodies and go on killing bodies at the same time?
Phil Shiner, Human Rights Specialist at Public Interest Lawyers, plans to use material from the logs in court to try to force the UK to hold a public inquiry into the unlawful killing of Iraqi civilians. Where is the Chilcot Inquiry and why is it taking so long?
Pentagon said: " Our enemies will mine this information looking for insights into how we operate, cultivate sources and react in combat situations, even the capability of our equipment."
How about the statement:"The only responsible course of action is for the United States military to thoroughly review its compliance to the Geneva Conventions."
Complain about this comment
Ref 77, ynda20
"When you can explain to why Three Skyscrapers exploded on 9/11 supposedly because of office fires - completely unprecedented event - and nobody has even questioned why this has never been seriously investigated, then you can tell me about "the need for secrecy"!"
Intrigue is not one of my favorite topics, particularly when the subject was discussed at length a couple of weeks ago, but for the sake of new participants in this blog I believe I must reiterate the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers and the damage caused to the Pentagon was caused not only by fire but by the damage caused to the structure of those buildings when large planes crashed into them. The subsequent loss in strength of materials caused the buildings to collapse and, when that happened, the structure of adjacent building was also compromised.
The places that crashed against the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were seen by dozens of people in New York City and in the Washington area as they flew overhead and when they crashed into their targets. Insinuating that these planes did not crash into these structures or that the real reason for those events was something entirely different is, frankly, absurd.
I have no reason to doubt the information gathered by our intelleigence agencies that led to the identification of hijackers, their nationalities, religion and even the places where some of them lived and were trained which, sadly, included a university and a small regional airport not far from where I live.
You are free to believe Machiavellian hypotheses if you wish, but don't expect too many takers, not because we have been conditioned to trust our government, but because the evidence is overwhelming.
A more credible argument would be the logic and legitimacy of invading Iraq, a country that was not involved in 9/11 and whose secular government was itself a target of Al Qaeda. Another topic that deserves attention is the logic, or lack thereof, of removing the only obstacle to Iranian expansion (physical or ideological) and replacing it with Shiites aligned spiritually to Iran.
The result of those decisions has been a prolonged, cruel and costly presence in Iraq, the destabilization of an entire region, widespread hatred and loss of credibility, and the likelihood that when we withdraw the country will fall in the hands of the very people we tried to contain.
Complain about this comment
BluesBerry #102.
"Is this because they couldn't possibly count the bodies and go on killing bodies at the same time?"
aw, come on now BluesBerry, you know that men are notoriously poor at multi-tasking. ;)
Complain about this comment
The documents Wikileaks released are all old news. They merely tell us what most of us knew or suspected anyway. Is the DOJ going to investigate, apprehend, and prosecute those who broke our laws? I seriously doubt it. The real effect of the release of these documents may be more of an embarrassment than anything else. What it tells us of consequence is what we also suspected, that the US government will not defend the laws of the land, will not attack those who give aid and comfort to our enemies. Had the US Congress had the guts to declare war on Iraq and Afghanistan the way they should have, this would have been an act of war against the US or treason if US citizens were involved, the penalty for this would include execution. As it is, nothing will happen.
There is no way to sanitize war, no way to make it palatable to a squeamish overly sensitive public. War always means atrocities on both sides and mass murder. It cannnot be made to conform to a morality, it is beyond morality. This is why it is something to be avoided when possible, prosecuted to the limit on one's resources when necessary. The so called rules of war only work to favor the side which ignores them. That should always be our side. The only object in fighting a war should be to win as decisively, quickly, and cheaply in terms of your own sides lives and money as possible. All other ends should be superfluous. To the degree they aren't, the cost of war and chances for victory are diminished. If there is one immorality in war, it is not fighting with everything you have to win. That is a betrayal of your own people. That is what our leaders have done to us since the end of World War II. That is why we never really win anymore.
Complain about this comment
101. At 1:36pm on 23 Oct 2010, jr4412:
From your link jr4412:
"The basic Gestapo law passed by the government in 1936 gave the Gestapo carte blanche to operate without judicial oversight."
The CIA hides behind similar legislation in the US, the Patriot Act, etc.
"The Gestapo was specifically exempted from responsibility to administrative courts, where citizens normally could sue the state to conform to laws. As early as 1935, however, a Prussian administrative court had ruled that the Gestapo's actions were not subject to judicial review."
Gonzales and his and his aids memo's/directives arranged something very similar for the CIA.
"The SS officer Werner Best, onetime head of legal affairs in the Gestapo,[7] summed up this policy by saying, "As long as the police carries out the will of the leadership, it is acting legally.""
Very similar to the whatever-it-takes-to-get-the-job-done rhetoric from Rumsfeld and Bush.
"A further law passed later in the year gave the Gestapo responsibility for setting up and administering concentration camps."
Which brings us nicely to Gitmo, Abu Ghrab and many other "black sites" the CIA used to bring the US's untermensch"illegal combatant" for abuse, torture and in some cases, death.
Complain about this comment
jr4412, (#89. At 12:51pm on 23 Oct 2010)
"only #87 comments to the first mention of the Holocaust, probably not a new record ..."
As ynda20 equated the Gestapo and the CIA, and as the former were instrumental in implementing the Holocaust, it follows that ynda20 must expect the same from the latter. ynda20 made the allusion, I merely pointed it out.
"... pray tell, would you care to explain the difference in value of a human life with respect to a Jew and, say, an Iraqi or a Nicaraguan?"
As I did not suggest that there was any difference, I need not explain it.
Most, although not all, people are aware of the Nazi policy of exterminating Jews - for being Jews. For those who are not yet aware of this policy, follow this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution . The Gestapo was an important component of the apparatus that implemented this government policy.
For ynda20's claim that the Gestapo and the CIA are equivalent to be valid, both organizations must be operating on essentially the same basis. Pray tell, what is the equivalent genocide policy? Please be explicit, and detailed in your explanation.
It was ynda20 who equated the Gestapo, which was an official secret police agency, and the CIA, which is not.
As you certainly seem to agree with ynda20, and as ynda20 based the argument (Gestapo = CIA) upon a faulty premise, would you care to explain why you retain your beliefs?
Complain about this comment
18. At 02:01am on 23 Oct 2010, Paul Woodbridge wrote:
"I wonder, if reports were leaked of Al-Qaeda (or whomever) torturing NATO soldiers what would the focus be on? The whistleblower or the crimes against humanity that were occuring?"
Judging by the tone of some comments here, Al Qaida would be defended as just responding to evil western [US/UK] provocation.
That being said, while the US and the American people as a whole are not war criminals, President GWB and other members of the government certainly were that; and others were complicit in crimes, not the least of which was the high crime and misdemeanor of violating the Constitution and failing to see that the laws were faithfully exicuted.
One of the few justified criticisms of president Obama is that the culprits have not been investigated, much less put on trial. As to Tony Blair and the British government [and other partner governments] I have nothing to say: as an American it is not my place to do so.
Complain about this comment
32. At 08:43am on 23 Oct 2010, Bournemouth '84 wrote:
“The papers are primary source documents from the US establishment, yet their details are being treated as if they were the unsubstantiated slander of a drunk in a pub.”
This statement is incorrect, original material would be the people involved in a reported incident confessing [freely not under duress], or unprocessed photographic evidence, or documents certifiably originating in a government.
What this is, clearly, is second or third hand reportage, sometimes without context. Using suspect evidence does not make a good case.
Having said that, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Rumsfield and a number of others should be under investigation and should probably be put on trial, for violating the Constitution, breaking their oaths of office, and corruption if for nothing else. I believe they committed, ordered or tolerated crimes, including war crimes. Illegal war makes a good sound bite, but it may technically not hold water.
Complain about this comment
jr4412, (#90. At 12:58pm on 23 Oct 2010)
“...striking, isn't it, how so many of us 'know' the same history, having been informed by the same media, owned the same people, in so many different countries too. :-)”
The implication here is that there is a global conspiracy similar to that in Orwell’s “1984” that the “Truth” has been hidden from the general population for some nefarious purpose. For that claim to be valid, almost the entire academic community around the world would need to be complicit in the conspiracy.
Silly that, still there are those who do treasure their conspiracy theories. There’s the one that the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center were surreptitiously destroyed ...
Oh wait! We’ve already heard that one.
Complain about this comment
jr4412, (#90. At 12:58pm on 23 Oct 2010):
“...striking, isn't it, how so many of us 'know' the same history, having been informed by the same media, owned the same people, in so many different countries too. :-)”
110. At 2:20pm on 23 Oct 2010, Chryses wrote:
"The implication here is that there is a global conspiracy similar to that in Orwell’s “1984” that the “Truth” has been hidden from the general population for some nefarious purpose. For that claim to be valid, almost the entire academic community around the world would need to be complicit in the conspiracy."
Why would almost the entire academic community around the world need to be complicit in the conspiracy, and what definition of "complicit" are you using?
I would venture that only a very small part of the entire academic community around the world would be at all interested in investigating this field. That very small section of the entire academic community around the world that could be said to be in the academic field that perhaps should look into it have other thoughts to occupy their minds; their government grants, etc.
In summary, almost the entire academic community around the world is not interested in investigating as it's either: a) not their field and/or b) not worth the hassle they'll surely receive from the entities they should investigate. While the latter group could be, at a stretch, called "complicit", the much much larger former group cannot be, well, not unless we're having another one of these "Look! Over there!!" moments.
Complain about this comment
94. At 1:14pm on 23 Oct 2010, Andy wrote:
Chryses,
“The comparison between the CIA and the Gestapo is clear. The Gestapo labelled their enemies "untermensch", the CIA labels them "unlawful combatants", in each case they're targets are afforded lesser rights than another human and in each case they're subject to abuse that another human would not have to endure.”
My attitude toward GWB and the other members of that regime being what it is, I would like to agree with you. However, your use of propaganda renders your argument unacceptable.
You have made more than one false equivalency
“untermensch” = unlawful combattant, “lesser rights” under Nazis = lesser rights under Americans, Nazis = Germans = Americans, etc.
I understand the desire to bring criminals like GWB to justice, but this kind of distortion is only likely to increase their support from people [like McCain] who would otherwise take a more balanced [in the case of the Bush regime, negative] stand. It appears to be anti-American and can be made [through the same propaganda tricks] to look more so. This will have the effect of making Americans more defensive [not a difficult task in any case], which things are not what you want to do if you really want the problems and crimes addressed.
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#94. At 1:14pm on 23 Oct 2010)
"... The comparison between the CIA and the Gestapo is clear. The Gestapo labelled their enemies 'untermensch', the CIA labels them 'unlawful combatants', in each case they're targets are afforded lesser rights than another human and in each case they're subject to abuse that another human would not have to endure ..."
You are mistaken.
Untermensch is German for under man, sub-man, sub-human. The German word Mensch literally means human. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untermensch)
An unlawful combatant is a civilian who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action. (http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/terrorism-ihl-210705)
The former is not a human, the latter is. While some may disagree, many people believe that there is a qualitative difference between humans and non-humans.
"... Listening in on your own citizens and rescinding the usual human rights your citizens previously previously are also very similar ..."
Not everyone would agree that "listening in on your own citizens" is sufficiently similar to being the active agent, as was true of the Gestapo, in the arrest and execution of thousands of citizens to equate the two. Some may, but most will not. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo#Student_opposition) Further, I believe that a prior court order is required by the CIA to eavesdrop on an American citizen in the USA. I think that was not true for the Gestapo.
"... The jackboot is merely worn by the stars and stripes now, unfortunately."
One of the features I find interesting about anti-Americanism is the equating of facts that are, once they are examined in any detail, shown to be only vaguely analogous.
Complain about this comment
MM, (#109. At 2:15pm on 23 Oct 2010)
"... Having said that, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Rumsfield and a number of others should be under investigation and should probably be put on trial, for violating the Constitution, breaking their oaths of office, and corruption if for nothing else ..."
Assuming that there are Federal laws that may have been violated; I trust you can provide evidence to support your claims? This sounds rather like the anti-Clinton rants of a few years earlier, and they also came to naught.
"... I believe they committed, ordered or tolerated crimes, including war crimes. Illegal war makes a good sound bite, but it may technically not hold water."
Fair enough, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. However, a prosecutor's task is quite technical. It may be difficult to get many honest volunteers.
Complain about this comment
94. At 1:14pm on 23 Oct 2010, Andy wrote:
"Chryses,
The comparison between the CIA and the Gestapo is clear. The Gestapo labelled their enemies "untermensch", the CIA labels them "unlawful combatants", in each case they're targets are afforded lesser rights than another human and in each case they're subject to abuse that another human would not have to endure.
Listening in on your own citizens and rescinding the usual human rights your citizens previously previously are also very similar, the CIA does this via the Patriot Act (what an ironic and Nazi-esque act title).”
112. At 2:51pm on 23 Oct 2010, JMM wrote:
"My attitude toward GWB and the other members of that regime being what it is, I would like to agree with you. However, your use of propaganda renders your argument unacceptable.
You have made more than one false equivalency
“untermensch” = unlawful combattant, “lesser rights” under Nazis = lesser rights under Americans, Nazis = Germans = Americans, etc."
With all due respect, I did not portray an equivalence, I have portrayed a similarity.
I have added a portion of my post you missed off cutting and pasting and highlighted in bold the parts you may have overlooked. You may also like to read my views printed in post 100 where I stated, "There does not have to be an exact match for a similarity to occur."; post 106 where I stated, "..CIA hides behind similar legislation in the US.. ....."similar" ....."similar""
As you can now perhaps comprehend, I am not talking equivalency, I am talking similarity.
Again, with all due respect, please do not distort my views from what I have quite clearly stated.
Complain about this comment
I don't think one can dismiss entirely the negative fallout from releasing information like this. It certainly has had an effect previously. For many here, anger at Bush/Cheney trumps all reasoning.
Of course, we should consider the consequences of releasing this information. To claim that there will be no negatives consequences is stubborn denial.
To answer the earlier question of whether it is worth it if it causes one soldier's death? No, their lives are put at significant risk already. Anger at Bush/Cheney doesn't warrant the loss of one additional life
Complain about this comment
114. At 3:05pm on 23 Oct 2010, Chryses wrote:
"Assuming that there are Federal laws that may have been violated"
Misprison of felony could fit the bill:
""Misprision of felony" is still an offense under United States federal law after being codified in 1909 under 18 U.S.C. § 4:
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This offense, however, requires active concealment of a known felony rather than merely failing to report it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misprision_of_felony"
The active concealment of torture & abuse, a known felony, would not be too hard to prove I don't think.
Complain about this comment
Leak on my brothers and sisters !
If a men cannot stand free, honest and proud in front of their people then they should not stand in front of their people. There is no hiding from the father of creation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXf5tcjdO8s
Complain about this comment
113. Chryses:
I used to feel anger at the idiotic claims equating the US' actions with the Nazis' because of the disrespect shown to Jews. Now I just see it as idiocy, which is inevitably unearthed wnever the claims are challenged.
To equate Nazis with the US or even Bush is to show that one knows little about one or both. But it must bring some satisfaction since it's claimed so often. Thus, my statement about anger, which seems to be the underlying cause of the claims. They're always accompanied by references to the war in Iraq, Bush or Cheney. People are still very angry, which causes them to make some wild claims.
Complain about this comment
Andy 45 wrote: The death of a human being is tragic, the death of a human being who chooses to be a soldier, a killer of man, is mere the background noise to Shock and Awe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You state that a soldier, to you, is a killer of man.
To Americans like myself, each soldier is a defendor of our country, a person making the ultimate sacrifice: themself.
See how ultraliberals and moderates have different views of what a soldier is or means?
Complain about this comment
I wrote: "The death of a human being is tragic, the death of a human being who chooses to be a soldier, a killer of man, is mere the background noise to Shock and Awe.
120. At 3:32pm on 23 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:, "You state that a soldier, to you, is a killer of man.
To Americans like myself, each soldier is a defendor of our country, a person making the ultimate sacrifice: themself."
They don't often make the ultimate sacrifice though, they very often sacrifice innocent others in order to protect themselves.
An honourable soldier should put their life on the line to protect innocent civilians, not shoot at innocent civilians at the merest provocation.
Complain about this comment
Ref 53, jr4412
"...well, one thing's changed since the sixties -- the CIA is now worse than the Gestapo."
The use of hyperbole, more often than not, detracts from the logic or validity of our claims.
The Gestapo terrorized and arrested people in Germany and in occupied countries, including not only Jews, but anyone accused of being a socialist or communist, and anyone considered an enemy or threat to Nazism. Suggesting that the CIA - or the FBI since the CIA operates overseas - is carrying out purges is, frankly, laughable.
The essence of the CIA and FBI charters is to protect the USA, our interests at home and abroad, and enforce our laws. If you wish to blame someone, you may want to focus on the people that use deceit to justify the invasion of Iraq and who are responsible for the policies that led to so much misery in that hapless country.
Our government has made many mistakes and deliberate decisions that have caused great pain and misery to many and have affected our credibility worldwide, but we are far from having anything even remotely similar to the Gestapo or, by default, Nazism.
Ref 116, Andrea
"Of course, we should consider the consequences of releasing this information. To claim that there will be no negatives consequences is stubborn denial."
Of course we should consider the consequences of releasing sensitive information, that is why we have a system of security clearances designed to protect the information and that is why the Freedom of Information Act does not allow the immediate release of information.
Unfortunately, there is always someone somewhere willing to open his/her mouth, and when that happens they place they endanger allies and discredit our country; and there are also organizations, such as Wikileaks, that operate outside the jurisdiction of US law and are, therefore, immune to prosection. The real issue, however, is not who and why released the information, but the fact that it happened and, worse, that it was either condoned, encouraged or ordered.
The concern that so many of us have about the foreign policy and actions championed by the Bush administration is not influenced by hatred, it is influenced by concern about our credibility as a nation, the need to protect our constitutional rights, our laws and our values. Republiccans prefer to dismiss what happened for obvious reasons, and some of us prefer to set it aside, not because we believe what they did does not deserve prosecution and punishment, but because we are concerned about the damage that new revelations and the prosecution of a former President and Vice President would do to our country.
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#117. At 3:20pm on 23 Oct 2010)
“... The active concealment of torture & abuse, a known felony, would not be too hard to prove I don't think.”
These are serious allegations. I was unaware that this allegedly occurred where the law you referred to is applicable.
In what part of the U.S. did this occur?
Complain about this comment
119. At 3:31pm on 23 Oct 2010, AndreaNY wrote:
"I used to feel anger at the idiotic claims equating the US' actions with the Nazis' because of the disrespect shown to Jews."
My own personal feeling is that it would be disrespectful for me not to point out the similarities between the actions of an actor (US/Israel/Al Q'/Taleban/etc) and the Nazi's where I felt I saw it, especially considering my own Jewish ethnic heritage.
I am reminded of Pastor Martin Niemöller and feel the "Muslims"/"Arabs" are being treated similarly to the "Jews" & others labelled untermensch in history. The dehumanization by elements of the Allies is quite frightening and while we are not yet at the level of equality between the two, there's no doubt in my mind to the similarities are there.
Complain about this comment
The war was not wrong- we were attacked- it was the way we went about the war- our strategy- that was wrong. Our goal should have been dismantling terrorists and terrorists only, but sadly, there may have been a hidden agenda, the oil fields and making money off the war, which detracted from what should have been our focus. Because we could have easily taken out bin Ladin, but our focus was elsewhere. Oil. Money. And military contractors from Halliburton. Cheny and so on. They made billions off of the war- maybe even trillions. Who knows? Our soldiers did the best they could, but I agree with MarcusA that our political leaders and our military held back some of our best weaponry, likely due to oil and money, which is why we have not won.
Now, we are focused on saving civilian lives, which has not done hardly any good- in fact, I would say it has actually done the opposite.
So here we are, day after day, still involved in this war.
And the wikileaks and so on...
more traitors every day...
I don't agree with everything we've done, but I know that there are no rules in war. (All's fair in love and war). What the terrorists want to do to us is far worse than any nightmare.
What is most important is who wins.
Right now, USA could still win.
But as long as we have a policy trying to save civilian lives over dismantling terrorists, there is not much of a chance...
To win, USA has to bring our all her weaponry. ALL.
I fear that our President and Congress is too weak to do so.
We have shown the terrorists too much mercy,
and that's why we lost.
Complain about this comment
Even this debate makes my skin crawl. Men need to evolve beyond this type of consideration.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6cX61oNsRQ&feature=related
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#117. At 3:20pm on 23 Oct 2010)
“... The active concealment of torture & abuse, a known felony, would not be too hard to prove I don't think.”
123. At 3:51pm on 23 Oct 2010, Chryses wrote::
"These are serious allegations. I was unaware that this allegedly occurred where the law you referred to is applicable.
In what part of the U.S. did this occur? "
Does it need to happen in the US?
Being allowed to prosecture US citizens for torture they commit abroad was first used in the US to convict Charles “Chuckie” Taylor, Jr. for torture committed in Liberia:
"The Taylor case is the first brought under a 14-year-old federal law that allows the United States to bring charges against a person accused of torture abroad if the accused is in the United States or is an American citizen (18 USC § 2340A)." http://www.hrw.org/node/75681 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_McArther_Emmanuel
I think the "felony [misprision of felony] cognizable by a court of the United States" part coupled with the precedent set in the Taylor case should be enough to start proceedings.
Complain about this comment
121. At 3:44pm on 23 Oct 2010, Andy wrote:
An honourable soldier should put their life on the line to protect innocent civilians, not shoot at innocent civilians at the merest provocation.
_______________________________________________
Honorable soldiers do what you say every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. Because you have seen a few accounts to the otherwise does not make the entire US military deserving of condemnation. If we look at the few stories that have made the news, most were later dismissed for lack of evidence or the accused were acquitted in Court-Martial.
So, you are making 2 assumptions: 1. All (or the vast majority) of American GIs are dishonorable. 2. All the dead civilians were innocent. Considering the nature of an insurgency is to hide amongst the populace and to eschew uniforms; both assumptions are reckless to say the least.
Complain about this comment
Andy wrote: They don't often make the ultimate sacrifice though, they very often sacrifice innocent others in order to protect themselves.
An honourable soldier should put their life on the line to protect innocent civilians, not shoot at innocent civilians at the merest provocation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The truth is they very often sacrifice themselves for their fellow soldiers and for their country. In short, they are true heroes.
The kind you don't see in the movies. The kind who don't always get the credit they deserve. The kind who know that our country is worth fighting for...
You have rose-colored glasses, Andy, and that's good for you.
But there is rose-colored glasses and there is reality.
An honorable soldier is the one that defends our country.
Your rose-colored glasses likely lead you to believe that perhaps war can be fought without civilian casualties, but this is impossible...so what you ask is impossible...but you know that, don't you?
It is wrong to kill innocent civilians, but sometimes they are in the wrong place at the wrong time, which is easy to do in times of war.
Sometimes there are terrorists masquerading/hiding behind innocent civilians.
Andy, is political correctness or safety/security more important to you?
Complain about this comment
AndreaNY, (#119. At 3:31pm on 23 Oct 2010)
"... To equate Nazis with the US or even Bush is to show that one knows little about one or both. But it must bring some satisfaction since it's claimed so often. Thus, my statement about anger, which seems to be the underlying cause of the claims. They're always accompanied by references to the war in Iraq, Bush or Cheney. People are still very angry, which causes them to make some wild claims."
While the above is essentially true, that does not absolve one from repeatedly bringing it to the attention of everyone whenever one sees such nonsense.
In re the anger; pause for a moment, and reflect on how citizens of the UK may quite understandably perceive the Twentieth Century. At its opening, Queen Victoria was the monarch of the British Empire, which spanned the globe. What was its condition in 1999? Review the treatment the UK received at the hands of the U.S. during that period, particularly in light of what the British did for the World over the same time.
Both Presidents Clinton and Bush the Younger were less inclusive than their predecessors are perceived to have been. Perhaps that is because they served as symbols to be raged against by the culture warriors of one cast or another, or perhaps they were as divisive as some claim. For whatever reason, they did elicit some extreme opinions. That being said, it is prudent to always keep in mind that "It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." (Burke, Edmund; Observations on a Late Publication on the Present State of the Nation [1769])
Complain about this comment
125. At 3:58pm on 23 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:
We have shown the terrorists too much mercy,
and that's why we lost.
_________________________________________
We haven't lost, yet, in spite of Harry Reid. This thing is still winnable, but the gov't (both administrations) has done a poor job of informing the American people of what loosing could entail and how long winning might take, because, as you have said, or political leadership (both sides) are woefully lacking in the intestinal fortitude department.
Your other point is spot on (as the Brits say). People of the East have a different culture and our politicians, and pitifully, many of our Generals/Admirals fail to grasp these cultural differences so they keep making gestures that are meant to convey mercy, but the enemy sees them as weaknesses to be exploited.
Complain about this comment
129. At 4:12pm on 23 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:
"An honorable soldier is the one that defends our country."
If the soldier defends our country by being trigger happy, they are not honourable in my book.
There are many honourable [my definition of "honourable"] soldiers in the US/UK armies, but there are far too many dishonourable ones to be ignored.
There will always be civilian casualties in war, the sign of how honourable a force is is how much care they take to minimize those civilian casualties measured by how many they "accidentally" maim/kill.
There's absolutely nothing honourable about not filing cases of abuse & torture in the waste paper basket with the label "not to be investigated".
You ask, "is political correctness or safety/security more important to you?". The safety/security of non-combatants is more important to me than the safety/security of combatants.
Complain about this comment
War is hell. One benefit of this revelation is that America's enemies know we intend to keep it that way.
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#127. At 4:09pm on 23 Oct 2010)
“... Does it need to happen in the US? ... I think the ‘felony [misprision of felony] cognizable by a court of the United States’ part coupled with the precedent set in the Taylor case should be enough to start proceedings.”
This is again similar to the claims made by the right-wing about President Clinton. “Well, if ... , and if ... , and if, ... therefore he should be brought to trial!” We all saw what happened then, and I daresay the same will come to pass in this instance.
Still, if you can persuade the necessary Federal Prosecutor(s) in the U.S. that there is a snowball’s chance in Hertford, Hereford and Hampshire of securing a conviction, then have at it, I say!
Complain about this comment
mabelwhite, (#126. At 4:09pm on 23 Oct 2010)
“Even this debate makes my skin crawl. Men need to evolve beyond this type of consideration.”
Patience, we are taught, is a virtue. And virtue is its own reward.
Complain about this comment
Me, (#127. At 4:09pm on 23 Oct 2010)
“... Does it need to happen in the US? ... I think the ‘felony [misprision of felony] cognizable by a court of the United States’ part coupled with the precedent set in the Taylor case should be enough to start proceedings.”
134. At 4:29pm on 23 Oct 2010, Chryses wrote:
"This is again similar to the claims made by the right-wing about President Clinton. “Well, if ... , and if ... , and if, ... therefore he should be brought to trial!” We all saw what happened then, and I daresay the same will come to pass in this instance."
Could, should and will are very different things and while prosecutions some would say should take place, indeed could take place, I'm with you and don't think they ever will take place, mainly due to the fear of retaliation; a false understanding of what patriotism is; and official deceit.
Complain about this comment
132. At 4:28pm on 23 Oct 2010, Andy wrote:
There's absolutely nothing honourable about not filing cases of abuse & torture in the waste paper basket with the label "not to be investigated".
___________________________________________________
Once again, you are making a lot of assumptions:
1. "Turning a blind eye" implies no abuse or torture was actually witnessed. After June of 2004, the US Occupation was legally over and the country once again belonged to the Iraqis. What often happens in these situations, the local Iraqi commander (probably a Shiite) tells the American Commander, thanks for the help, we’ll take it from here, hope you have a safe trip back to your FOB. The Iraqi commander ten takes control of the prisoner (probably a Sunni) and that’s the last the Americans have to say on the subject. The same is try in Af’stan, just sub tribal name for Muslim Sect.
2. What is your definition of torture? That has been a moving target since these wars began. Have you ever been to the Middle East and see how the local populace interacts in “peaceful” surroundings. Do you want American commanders to put their own troops at risk by interfering with an Iraqi slapping another Iraqi around?
The problem with a lot of you pious, morally superior, arm-chair quarterbacks is, you have never been to the Middle East and you have no idea what passes for normal between two locals, so how can you judge Americans for not interfering in situations that are beyond their control. BTW, if they did see the torture/abuse conducted by Iraqis on Iraqis (as has been reported as part of the Wikileaks), who were they supposed to report it to? Al Maliki?
As someone else has alluded to, the biggest mistake George II made was to try to stop combat as soon as possible and start the “Liberation theme.” We should have bombed Afghanistan into oblivion before a single soldier even sit foot there and then set up an occupation gov’t for at least 5 years (ala Germany) and then see if they could govern themselves. In Iraq’s case, the US should have just obliterated all of Saddam’s restricted sites and then see if he would play nice with others. But hind sight is 20/20 and we did what we did and we got what we got, but that is still no excuse to accept defeat from the Islamists.
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#124. At 3:54pm on 23 Oct 2010)
"... My own personal feeling is that it would be disrespectful for me not to point out the similarities between the actions of an actor (US/Israel/Al Q'/Taleban/etc) and the Nazi's where I felt I saw it, especially considering my own Jewish ethnic heritage ..."
Ah, so you do perceive the Holocaust, the genocide of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, a program of systematic state-sponsored extermination of about two thirds of the Jews living in Europe by Nazi Germany to be sufficiently similar to the policies of the U.S. or Israel that you feel comfortable in comparing them in the same way.
That is a very interesting position to adopt.
Where are the American and Israeli gas chambers?
Please list the American Federal laws that have stripped hundreds of thousands of Americans of their citizenship, as Nazi Germany did in the 1930s? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_laws#The_Laws )
While you are so occupied, why not include the U.S. laws enforcing racial segregation? This may be a bit of a challenge, as the exact reverse has, in fact, occurred. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_American_Civil_Rights_Movement#20th_century)
Oh yes, before I forget, anyone can claim a privileged point of view, so I am claiming to be more Jewish than you are to remove that unjustified claim.
"... I am reminded of Pastor Martin Niemöller and feel the "Muslims"/"Arabs" are being treated similarly to the "Jews" & others labelled untermensch in history ..."
Please provide links to the U.S. and Israeli concentration camps, gas chambers, and crematoria.
"... The dehumanization by elements of the Allies is quite frightening ..."
Do please elaborate. Be specific, particularly in the similarities between Germany in the period 1930 - 1945, and contemporary events.
"... and while we are not yet at the level of equality between the two ..."
I am pleased that we do agree about something.
"... there's no doubt in my mind to the similarities are there."
I am sure that in your heart of hearts, you believe that you are very right.
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#136. At 4:46pm on 23 Oct 2010)
"... Could, should and will are very different things and while prosecutions some would say should take place, indeed could take place, I'm with you and don't think they ever will take place, mainly due to the fear of retaliation; a false understanding of what patriotism is; and official deceit."
In re anticipating the trial: again, we agree. The only outstanding details relate to philosophical considerations of causality. Mere trifles.
Complain about this comment
137. At 5:00pm on 23 Oct 2010, Oldloadr wrote:
"1. "Turning a blind eye" implies no abuse or torture was actually witnessed."
The wiki definition is the one I use and think is standard:
"The idiom turning a blind eye is used to describe the process of ignoring unpopular orders or inconvenient facts or activities."
IOW, it implies the exact opposite of your stated understanding.
"After June of 2004, the US Occupation was legally over and the country once again belonged to the Iraqis. What often happens in these situations, the local Iraqi commander (probably a Shiite) tells the American Commander, thanks for the help, we’ll take it from here, hope you have a safe trip back to your FOB. The Iraqi commander ten takes control of the prisoner (probably a Sunni) and that’s the last the Americans have to say on the subject."
That had me laughing out loud for it's absurdity. So, you think that after June 2004, the Iraqi security forces were in reality in charge of the Americans on Iraqi soil?
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII, (#133. At 4:28pm on 23 Oct 2010)
“War is hell. One benefit of this revelation is that America's enemies know we intend to keep it that way.”
Spoken as a true Stoic should! This was articulated in its modern form as “Mutually Assured Destruction”, referred to often by the all too apropos acronym MAD.
The Americans and Soviets, who had competent intelligence services, were sufficiently aware of that to successfully avoid a war. If only Saddam Hussein and the Taliban had been so fortunate.
Ah, well ...
Complain about this comment
Andy 132 wrote: You ask, "is political correctness or safety/security more important to you?". The safety/security of non-combatants is more important to me than the safety/security of combatants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am asking you if the safety/security of your country and my country (both non-combatants) is more important than being politically correct and saving lives of innocents and terrorists?
Your answer implies that being politically correct is more important- well that's your right to believe that.
My belief is that I would rather be not politically correct and defeat the terrorists rather than be politically correct and lose the war...in this day and age, I don't think its possible to be politically correct in wars, because there's too much media, too many reporters, all want attention, all want controversy, all want the latest story.
Media today is mostly focused on the negative, which is why we get negative. Media does not seem to find fascination with happy or good stories, they want the dirt, they want the 'payday', they want to be famous. Sometimes even making up stories where there is no story...
Complain about this comment
@103. SaintDominick wrote:
Hi Saint Dom,
You wrote
"...I believe I must reiterate the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers and the damage caused to the Pentagon was caused not only by fire but by the damage caused to the structure of those buildings when large planes crashed into them. The subsequent loss in strength of materials caused the buildings to collapse and, when that happened, the structure of adjacent building was also compromised."
Well first you need to get your facts right:
I said THREE Skyscrapers. Yes, Three skyscrapers fell in New York on 9/11. The third one being WTC7 that fell at 5.20pm.
There are over 1300 professional, accredited Architects and Engineers that have signed a petition that says that these buildings could not have fallen the way described by the politicians and NIST have stated.
Three skyscrapers (and the Pentagon hit in the finance department just one day after being unable to balance the books and having $2.2trillions going astray). And yet no-one is coming up with an explanation why these three buildings Imploded. The aircraft crash does not explain the plumes of debris flying out of the side of the twin towers or controlled demolition of WTC7, or the "amazing" coincidence the pentagon being hit in its finance department due to USAF being stood down!
You may have no reason to doubt the hijackers identities but the BBC does! They ran an article ....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/1559151.stm
Which has never been cleared up. The FBI have issued a statement that says "The FBI have got the right men" - er how?!!
Pardon me, if I'd like some wikileaks truth and not official secrecy to generate false flag attacks and illegal wars of aggression.
Complain about this comment
107. Chryses
Hi Chryses,
You never responded to my claim that the CIA has outsourced their torture via extraordinary rendition to Uzbekistan or to my point that the CIA are beyond the law - they can destroy evidence and no is prosecuted.
Both of these actions seem pretty substantial points which you don't want to answer.
Complain about this comment
Andy wrote: If the soldier defends our country by being trigger happy, they are not honourable in my book.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my book, any soldier who dismantles a terrorist is honorable. Things are not always what they seem. Some terrorists try to hide behind/dress up as civilians- they are very smart and know how to play the politically correct crowd. This wikipedia leak falls into their ploy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy wrote: There are many honourable [my definition of "honourable"] soldiers in the US/UK armies, but there are far too many dishonourable ones to be ignored.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
So why won't you say anything nice about the honorable soldiers?
Are the majority of the military to be discredited for a few?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy wrote: There will always be civilian casualties in war, the sign of how honourable a force is is how much care they take to minimize those civilian casualties measured by how many they "accidentally" maim/kill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Our military is doing everything in its power to minimize civilian casualties, as we speak. As I said, I am against killing innocents, but in war, you don't always know who is innocent and who is terrorist...no one's wearing Nazi uniforms...and the enemy is very sly, I do not think you are giving them enough credit for how they conceal themselves...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's absolutely nothing honourable about not filing cases of abuse & torture in the waste paper basket with the label "not to be investigated".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I don't feel that bad for what happens to the terrorists after they are caught, especially if they have valuable information that could lead to helping our effort in the war and/or that could lead to saving innocent soldiers and civilians...
Complain about this comment
140. At 5:23pm on 23 Oct 2010, Andy wrote:
That had me laughing out loud for it's absurdity. So, you think that after June 2004, the Iraqi security forces were in reality in charge of the Americans on Iraqi soil?
_________________________________________________
Actually, yes, since I was there at the time. If there was an Iraqi authority on the scene, he took precedence since it was their country. There were places we could go before that date that we could no longer go. You must remember that the US gov’t is IMHO overly sensitive to shouts of colonialism whenever we operate in a 3rd world country.
Complain about this comment
ref #98
"Obama must investigate torture claims, says UN envoy"
____________
Let the U.N investigated rapes by their workers in africa and thier support of Hamas and Hezbollah before they presume to lecture the U.S
Complain about this comment
SaintDominick,
At 5:24pm on 23 Oct 2010, ynda20 wrote:
“... Pardon me, if I'd like some wikileaks truth and not official secrecy to generate false flag attacks and illegal wars of aggression.”
Some people find solace in conspiracy theories. Let it be. There is no collection of facts that will dissuade a true believer. Someone who prefers to believe that 9/11 was not as many, oh so many tedious investigations have concluded is hardly likely to see the light in a blog on the Beeb.
Still, as Pope reminds us, “Hope springs eternal in the human breast ...”
Complain about this comment
Me, (#124. At 3:54pm on 23 Oct 2010)
"... My own personal feeling is that it would be disrespectful for me not to point out the similarities between the actions of an actor (US/Israel/Al Q'/Taleban/etc) and the Nazi's where I felt I saw it, especially considering my own Jewish ethnic heritage ..."
138. At 5:06pm on 23 Oct 2010, Chryses wrote:
"Ah, so you do perceive the Holocaust, the genocide of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, a program of systematic state-sponsored extermination of about two thirds of the Jews living in Europe by Nazi Germany to be sufficiently similar to the policies of the U.S. or Israel that you feel comfortable in comparing them in the same way.
That is a very interesting position to adopt."
It may be your position, or someone else's, but it's not mine. The US and/or Israel have not exterminated millions of people so it would be pretty daft of me to say they were similar or equitable on that point, which is why I've not said it, you have.
I point out similarities where I see them, you point out the differences to bury any similarities.
"Where are the American and Israeli gas chambers?"
I don't know, where are the American and Israeli gas chambers? It's the first I've heard about them.
"Please list the American Federal laws that have stripped hundreds of thousands of Americans of their citizenship, as Nazi Germany did in the 1930s?"
I don't think there was any laws that stripped hundreds of thousands of Americans of their citizenship, again, that's your point not one I have made.
"While you are so occupied, why not include the U.S. laws enforcing racial segregation?"
I don't think there are currently any laws enforcing racial segregation, again, that's your point not one I have made. [Are you trying to bore me to death with this misdirection?]
"Oh yes, before I forget, anyone can claim a privileged point of view, so I am claiming to be more Jewish than you are to remove that unjustified claim."
I'm not claiming a privileged point of view, you are.
Me: "... I am reminded of Pastor Martin Niemöller and feel the "Muslims"/"Arabs" are being treated similarly to the "Jews" & others labelled untermensch in history ..."
Chryses: "Please provide links to the U.S. and Israeli concentration camps, gas chambers, and crematoria."
This is the crux of the problem with right-wing neo-cons. Unless and until the US and/or Israel perpetrates exactly the same or worse actions than the worst of the actions committed by other actors (Nazi's, Stalin, etc, etc), then the US and/or Israel should not be criticized nor compared in any way shape or form with historic despotic regimes.
It's patently a false premise.
A murder is still a murder whether they kill 1 person of 1000, scale is the only difference. Pol Pot afaik did not have any gas chambers, so should not be talked about in the same sentence as Hitler eh? [rhetorical question]
Me: "... The dehumanization by elements of the Allies is quite frightening ..."
Chryses: "Do please elaborate. Be specific, particularly in the similarities between Germany in the period 1930 - 1945, and contemporary events."
If there is ever a thread on similarities between Germany in the period 1930 - 1945, and contemporary events - discuss, I will of course go into more detail. For now, you will have to make do with the similarities I have posted thus far, lest we get side tracked.
Complain about this comment
@148. Chryses wrote:
"There is no collection of facts ... (re 9/11)... hardly likely to see the light in a blog on the Beeb."
This is true. The argument will not be won or lost in a BBC blog. I've tried that... 5500 comments later - still not resolved.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/10/caught_up_in_a_conspiracy_theo.html?page=12#comments
My point is, that there are glaring and gaping holes in the official story. And it is not going to be solved by secrecy - only but getting at the facts.
...Or are you content to allow our government to invade and murder for no rational point whatsoever?
Complain about this comment
Andy 132 wrote:
"You ask, "is political correctness or safety/security more important to you?". The safety/security of non-combatants is more important to me than the safety/security of combatants."
142. At 5:24pm on 23 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:
"I am asking you if the safety/security of your country and my country (both non-combatants) is more important than being politically correct and saving lives of innocents and terrorists?"
Human lives, to me, are more important that a states' apparatus. I am more than happy for a state to fail with no human casualties than for a state to survive at the expense of many of it's citizens, you may disagree.
Nation states can be redrawn at the flick of a pen, human lives cannot be created in the same manner.
Defending the state should come a distant second to defending the human beings whom hold a document with whatever states name on it.
"My belief is that I would rather be not politically correct and defeat the terrorists rather than be politically correct and lose the war...in this day and age, I don't think its possible to be politically correct in wars, because there's too much media, too many reporters, all want attention, all want controversy, all want the latest story."
I don't think it is right to defeat the terrorists by becoming terrorist ourselves.
"Media today is mostly focused on the negative, which is why we get negative. Media does not seem to find fascination with happy or good stories, they want the dirt, they want the 'payday', they want to be famous. Sometimes even making up stories where there is no story..."
Dirty pays more, ergo the press will report the dirt before it reports any good.
I expect good from people - good should be normal, it's bad I wish to highlight so that it may be quashed.
Complain about this comment
144. At 5:30pm on 23 Oct 2010, ynda20 wrote:
Both of these actions seem pretty substantial points which you don't want to answer.
___________________________________________________________________
I'll answer your "questions."
1. The CIA is first and foremost a spy agency. They are chartered to spy on other countries; that’s what spy agencies are supposed to do. Aside from the fact that they may not always do it well, that does not take away from that fact. They do not operate inside the US (at least, not with any official sanction). I don’t know if you are aware of this, but all the countries I have ever visited or lived in have laws against foreign espionage. Therefore, everything the CIA does (if it is doing its job) is inherently illegal to somebody, somewhere. So does it bother me that the CIA broke laws? Nope, not as long as it didn’t break US laws.
2. Since they are a spy agency, I would expect them to destroy all data as soon as it was no longer valuable for a current operation. BTW, this is where I had to laugh earlier since you chose this point to liken them to the Gestapo, when, in fact the Gestapo kept very meticulous records which were used extensively at Nuremburg.
3. Does the outsourced interrogations and renditions bother me? Nope. Is it illegal, probably not in the US and as I stated before the CIA is for all practical purposes a criminal organization most of the time, just as are MI6 and the Mossad and the agency(ies) formerly known as the KGB, since countries don’t like to be spied upon.
Complain about this comment
St Dom @1
Horrible crimes and abuses are an integral and inevitable component of war. To pretend that our presence in Iraq has been focused on liberating the indigenous population from themselves is naive.
The problem is not Wikileaks, or the troops that followed orders, the problem rests on the people responsible for the invasion and the policies that followed.
You can't add much more to that other than what information were they trying to ascertain by this torture. The Senate Armed Services Committee report on Cheney-Rumsfeld desperation to find links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, links that were later concocted as justification for the invasion, facts irrelevant.
Former Army psychiatrist Maj. Charles Burney testified that "a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish this link ... there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results"; that is, torture. The McClatchy press reported that a former senior intelligence official familiar with the interrogation issue added that "The Bush administration applied relentless pressure on interrogators to use harsh methods on detainees in part to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's regime ... [Cheney and Rumsfeld] demanded that the interrogators find evidence of al Qaida-Iraq collaboration. ... 'There was constant pressure on the intelligence agencies and the interrogators to do whatever it took to get that information out of the detainees, especially the few high-value ones we had, and when people kept coming up empty, they were told by Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people to push harder'."
http://documents.nytimes.com/report-by-the-senate-armed-services-committee-on-detainee-treatment#p=72
Complain about this comment
ynda wrote: You never responded to my claim that the CIA has outsourced their torture via extraordinary rendition to Uzbekistan or to my point that the CIA are beyond the law - they can destroy evidence and no is prosecuted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is nothing new for any of our countries. Secret services have existed for thousands of years and kept secrets for thousands of years...don't forget your own British agency...
Ever see James Bond, ynda?
Complain about this comment
ynda20, (#144. At 5:30pm on 23 Oct 2010)
“Hi Chryses,
You never responded to my claim that the CIA has outsourced their torture via extraordinary rendition to Uzbekistan or to my point that the CIA are beyond the law - they can destroy evidence and no is prosecuted.
Both of these actions seem pretty substantial points which you don't want to answer.”
Sorry. In which posts of yours were those claims made? Identify them and I’ll respond. Was one of them #83 when you acknowledged that you could not substantiate your claim? I’ll be happy to expand on my refutation if you’d like.
Complain about this comment
Lucy,
"In my book, any soldier who dismantles a terrorist is honorable. Things are not always what they seem. Some terrorists try to hide behind/dress up as civilians- they are very smart and know how to play the politically correct crowd. This wikipedia leak falls into their ploy."
In my book, I base how much honour, if any, a soldier has by how they dismantle a terrorist.
You're correct, some terrorist try to hide/dress up as civilians, it may come as news to you by so do some Allied forces.
"So why won't you say anything nice about the honorable soldiers?
Are the majority of the military to be discredited for a few?"
I think I have when I stated, "[post 132] There are many honourable [my definition of "honourable"] soldiers in the US/UK armies".
Seems pretty unambiguous to me. Calling a soldier "honourable" denotes a fair dollop of "nice" in my book.
"Our military is doing everything in its power to minimize civilian casualties, as we speak. "
We disagree. I would state various Allied militaries are putting varying amounts of effort into minimizing minimizing civilian casualties. No Allied military is doing everything in its power to minimize civilian casualties. These released records show that much more could have been done to protect Iraqi's, but the powers that be in the US decided to turn a blind eye - that's not doing everything in its power by any stretch of the imagination.
Me:
"There's absolutely nothing honourable about not filing cases of abuse & torture in the waste paper basket with the label "not to be investigated".
Lucy:
"Personally, I don't feel that bad for what happens to the terrorists after they are caught, especially if they have valuable information that could lead to helping our effort in the war and/or that could lead to saving innocent soldiers and civilians..."
Personally, I don't think everyone held by the Iraqi security forces then abused and tortured were all "terrorists".
Just to remind you, the invasion created a civil war were there were sectarian reprisals based on nothing more than ethnic and/or religious differences. Having a different ethnicity/religious dogma to someone else does not automatically make that person a "terrorist" and therefore needing a spot of abuse/torture as your implying.
Complain about this comment
Ref 143, Ynda20
"...or the "amazing" coincidence the pentagon being hit in its finance department due to USAF being stood down!"
Ynda, the people that thrive in fantasy or perverse plots would have taken issue if the plane that struck the Pentagon had hit the Men rooms, in which case the allegations may have involved the unlawful disposition of classified human waste.
Buildings adjacent to the Twin Towers were damaged or collapsed as a result of the tremors that emanated from the collapse of two huge buildings in the vicinity.
I am sure there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of people throughout the world that believe 9/11 was an inside job, but the overwhelming majority of Americans - over 300 million strong - do not and, sadly, we were much closer to that tragedy than you all were.
Obviously, you are free to believe whatever you wish, but IMHO most science fiction comics and movies are closer to reality than the theory you put forth. Incidentally, I am not a Bush fan, but on that subject I have no reason to doubt his word or - much less - the findings of dozens of reputable American investigators, engineers, architects, and politicians.
Complain about this comment
154. At 6:07pm on 23 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:
ynda wrote: You never responded to my claim that the CIA has outsourced their torture via extraordinary rendition to Uzbekistan or to my point that the CIA are beyond the law - they can destroy evidence and no is prosecuted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is nothing new for any of our countries. Secret services have existed for thousands of years and kept secrets for thousands of years...don't forget your own British agency...
Ever see James Bond, ynda?
Hmmm, are CIA operatives, "terrorists"? They don't wear uniforms, operate outside the law of the lands they are in (when outside the US). I guess some may see them as our "good terrorists".
As an aside, if existing for thousands of years is some kind of excuse for their actions, I think you could make the point that there are no terrorists, merely combatants whom sometimes obey the laws of war, sometimes don't; sometimes wear uniforms, sometimes don't.
What's to distinguish a "bad" terrorist from a "good" combatant, merely theirs and ours? Seems pretty thin.
Complain about this comment
Ref 143, Ynda20
"...the Pentagon hit in the finance department just one day after being unable to balance the books and having $2.2trillions going astray)."
I neglected to point out in my previous post that appropiation of public funds is a congressional function and that investigations into wrong doing are carried out by the appropiate congressional committees with help from the Inspector General's office and, in cases such as the one you raised, by the CBO and General Accounting Office. Since $2.2 trillion exceeded the Pentagon's annual budget substantially, records for expenses incurred the previous 3 or 4 years would have been analyzed as part of the budget appropiation and expenditures processes that are carried out on a routine basis for all federal government facilities. US government departments and agencies don't get a blank check that they can use without demonstrating need and disposition.
Bear in mind that I am in favor of reducing the Pentagon's budget and that I am convinced there is a lot of waste in the Department of Defense, but suggesting the Pentagon was hit intentionally to destroy accounting records is nothing short of bizarre. Don't forget, their budget was not affected, and was actually increased, even after we learned they were paying $700 for toilet seats a few decades ago, when you and I could buy one at the local hardware store for less than $100.
Complain about this comment
why dose the BBC concentrate on the least important element in the leaked documents ( allegations US soldiers were ordered to turn a blind eye to torture) how strange to ignore more 20 000 civilians killed. Wikileak are the heroes and the pioneers of new honest media, unlike the BBC and their "Moderators", who follows strict policy rules done be politician willing to use any dishonest trick or media to pass the elections.
Complain about this comment
156 Andy wrote: Personally, I don't think everyone held by the Iraqi security forces then abused and tortured were all "terrorists".
Just to remind you, the invasion created a civil war were there were sectarian reprisals based on nothing more than ethnic and/or religious differences. Having a different ethnicity/religious dogma to someone else does not automatically make that person a "terrorist" and therefore needing a spot of abuse/torture as your implying.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, then, just exactly how many do you think held by Iraqi security forces then a and t were "terrorists"?
Andy, how do you know that?
Simple- you don't...
You want to give the benefit of the doubt to save a few, trouble with that is that the terrorists know how to play politically correct people by making it all about political correctness rather than the issue of terrorism. Terrorists will use children, women, anybody, political correctness, too, to advance their causes and they will murder innocents for their causes, because that's what terrorists do: terrorize.
Andy,
You do know that the majority of civilians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan was done by terrorists, right?
And wouldn't the Iraqis know their own people better than anybody?
Complain about this comment
Andy 158 wrote: Hmmm, are CIA operatives, "terrorists"? They don't wear uniforms, operate outside the law of the lands they are in (when outside the US). I guess some may see them as our "good terrorists".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to remind you that CIA are humans, too, they must follow the laws of physics just like we all do. I see CIA as "good defenders." Do I trust CIA to do the right thing? Yes, in most instances, I do.
But are CIA human, which means they are not perfect and might occasionally make humanly errors? Yes...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy wrote: As an aside, if existing for thousands of years is some kind of excuse for their actions, I think you could make the point that there are no terrorists, merely combatants whom sometimes obey the laws of war, sometimes don't; sometimes wear uniforms, sometimes don't.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its not an excuse. Its a fact and it is nothing new. Spies have been around since the dawn of man. Its called life.
It wasn't long ago that USA and Russia just switched/swapped spies...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy wrote: What's to distinguish a "bad" terrorist from a "good" combatant, merely theirs and ours? Seems pretty thin.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, from this Americans' perspective, Americans are pretty much always the good guys, except in rare cases of occasional bad apples. But that's what you get when you ask an American who has USA in her heart and truly believes the best about her, cause' I know whats inside and thats love.
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#149. At 5:47pm on 23 Oct 2010)
"... The US and/or Israel have not exterminated millions of people so it would be pretty daft of me to say they were similar ... "
Ah, but you have quite a bit of effort in your attempt to associate the U.S. Israel and the Nazis, haven't you? Insinuating and suggesting a commonality perhaps? A certain a sharing of features or characteristics in common? Indeed you have!
Let us take a look at what you have posted.
Permit me to quote from your post #124 "My own personal feeling is that it would be disrespectful for me not to point out the similarities between the actions of an actor (US/Israel/Al Q'/Taleban/etc) and the Nazi's where I felt I saw it, especially considering my own Jewish ethnic heritage." (your emphasis, not mine.)
You do indeed point out the similarities between Nazis and Israelis. Indeed, you express a moral obligation to do so, "... it would be disrespectful for me not to point out the similarities ..." implying that those who do not are somehow lesser, eh?
And before that, your post #94, "... Listening in on your own citizens and rescinding the usual human rights your citizens previously previously are also very similar, the CIA does this via the Patriot Act (what an ironic and Nazi-esque act title) ..."
That was immediately followed by "... The jackboot is merely worn by the stars and stripes now, unfortunately." To what, may I ask, were you alluding, if it was not the Third Reich?
You then repeated in your post #115, "... Listening in on your own citizens and rescinding the usual human rights your citizens previously previously are also very similar, the CIA does this via the Patriot Act (what an ironic and Nazi-esque act title) ..." [your emphasis, not mine.]
And again in the same post #115, "... With all due respect, I did not portray an equivalence, I have portrayed a similarity ..." [your emphasis, not mine.]
And again, "... 'There does not have to be an exact match for a similarity to occur.'; post 106 where I stated, '..CIA hides behind similar legislation in the US.. .....'similar' .....'similar'"..." [your emphasis, not mine.]
And again, "... As you can now perhaps comprehend, I am not talking equivalency, I am talking similarity ..."
So, "... with all due respect, please do not distort my views from what I have quite clearly stated." Quite clearly, your position as you have stated repeatedly (and with emphasis), is that the American CIA is like the Gestapo.
"... I point out similarities where I see them, you point out the differences to bury any similarities ..."
Of course I do. The similarities are inessential, the differences are enormous.
"'Where are the American and Israeli gas chambers?'
I don't know, where are the American and Israeli gas chambers? It's the first I've heard about them."
Then do not articulate any meaningful similarities between Nazi Germany and the UK, the U.S. or Israel today
"'Please list the American Federal laws that have stripped hundreds of thousands of Americans of their citizenship, as Nazi Germany did in the 1930s?'
I don't think there was any laws that stripped hundreds of thousands of Americans of their citizenship ..."
Correct. So any purported similarity between Nazi Germany and the U.S. is faint indeed.
"'While you are so occupied, why not include the U.S. laws enforcing racial segregation?'
I don't think there are currently any laws enforcing racial segregation ..."
Correct again. That is because, despite your repeated claims (see refs above) of similarity between Nazi Germany and the U.S., the facts fail to support your intimations and allusions.
"... that's your point not one I have made. [Are you trying to bore me to death with this misdirection?]
No misdirection from this poster, I have established your position that Nazi Germany and contemporary democracies are similar, based upon your posts in this forum. I have also demonstrated how rapidly you have attempted to distance yourself from that position when confronted with the facts.
Complain about this comment
156 Andy wrote:
"Personally, I don't think everyone held by the Iraqi security forces then abused and tortured were all "terrorists"."
161. At 7:50pm on 23 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:
"Well, then, just exactly how many do you think held by Iraqi security forces then a and t were "terrorists"?"
I have no idea. I would have some idea if each report of abuse and/or torture was investigated, alas, the US in these leaked documents don't put much importance on trying to figure out what's what, they just ignored it.
"Andy, how do you know that?
Simple- you don't...
Your answering for me looks rather ridiculous.
"You want to give the benefit of the doubt to save a few"
You seem to be implying you know that only a few where innocent civilians. Where is your proof?
"Terrorists will use children, women, anybody, political correctness, too, to advance their causes and they will murder innocents for their causes, because that's what terrorists do: terrorize."
Sound very much like what you, Bush, and many other neo-cons are espousing - win at all costs regardless of how. You are merely a terrorist who won't admit they're one, will you now admit it?
"You do know that the majority of civilians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan was done by terrorists, right?"
No, I don't know that, there's a distinct lack of reliable data to know anything of the sort. I have some strong feelings one way, but I do not "know".
"And wouldn't the Iraqis know their own people better than anybody?"
What's that got to do with the price of bacon?
Complain about this comment
SaintDominick, (#159. At 6:46pm on 23 Oct 2010)
“... Bear in mind that I am in favor of reducing the Pentagon's budget and that I am convinced there is a lot of waste in the Department of Defense, but suggesting the Pentagon was hit intentionally to destroy accounting records is nothing short of bizarre ...”
... perhaps 9/11 can be best undestood as a multi-mmillion paper shredder?
Complain about this comment
Andy 158 wrote:
"Hmmm, are CIA operatives, "terrorists"? They don't wear uniforms, operate outside the law of the lands they are in (when outside the US). I guess some may see them as our "good terrorists"".
162. At 8:00pm on 23 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote::
"I would like to remind you that CIA are humans, too, they must follow the laws of physics just like we all do. I see CIA as "good defenders." Do I trust CIA to do the right thing? Yes, in most instances, I do.
But are CIA human, which means they are not perfect and might occasionally make humanly errors? Yes..."
So we're back to "one man's terrorist is another wo/man's "good defenders."". The actions are forgotten, who's a "terrorist" and who's a "good defenders." is all about whom committed the action in relation to which side the observer is on. Shameful.
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#149. At 5:47pm on 23 Oct 2010)
"... The US and/or Israel have not exterminated millions of people so it would be pretty daft of me to say they were similar ..."
163. At 8:03pm on 23 Oct 2010, Chryses wrote::
"Ah, but you have quite a bit of effort in your attempt to associate the U.S. Israel and the Nazis, haven't you? Insinuating and suggesting a commonality perhaps? A certain a sharing of features or characteristics in common? Indeed you have!"
I have certainly suggested a similarity and have kept those points to the similarities I have found. After years of indoctrinated Holocaust worship, it's very hard for me to not call a duck a duck when I see one waddling and quacking about.
"You do indeed point out the similarities between Nazis and Israelis. Indeed, you express a moral obligation to do so, "... it would be disrespectful for me not to point out the similarities ..." implying that those who do not are somehow lesser, eh?"
I have a certain knowledge of events on WWII based on my ancestry and upbringing, I would be remiss not to bring that knowledge into a debate. I would think anyone not bringing knowledge they posses into a debate they're having would also be remiss, that could be construed if I screw my mind up a little as "somehow lesser", as in, they're not bringing to the debate all they could bring.
"And before that, your post #94, "... Listening in on your own citizens and rescinding the usual human rights your citizens previously previously are also very similar, the CIA does this via the Patriot Act (what an ironic and Nazi-esque act title) ..."
That was immediately followed by "... The jackboot is merely worn by the stars and stripes now, unfortunately." To what, may I ask, were you alluding, if it was not the Third Reich?"
It was to those oppressive regimes, the Third Reich included, whom have scant regard for the human rights of those humans they do not deem worthy enough of protection, including their own citizens.
"The similarities [between the US/Israel in Nazi Germany] are inessential, the differences are enormous."
They may be inessential to you, for me, the US looks like Germany in the mid 30's, Israel looks like Germany in the late 30's. Again, I'm reminded of Pastor Martin Niemoller's words, why do they not prick your conscience?
""'Where are the American and Israeli gas chambers?'
I don't know, where are the American and Israeli gas chambers? It's the first I've heard about them."
Then do not articulate any meaningful similarities between Nazi Germany and the UK, the U.S. or Israel today
"'Please list the American Federal laws that have stripped hundreds of thousands of Americans of their citizenship, as Nazi Germany did in the 1930s?'
I don't think there was any laws that stripped hundreds of thousands of Americans of their citizenship ..."
Correct. So any purported similarity between Nazi Germany and the U.S. is faint indeed.
"'While you are so occupied, why not include the U.S. laws enforcing racial segregation?'
I don't think there are currently any laws enforcing racial segregation ..."
Correct again. That is because, despite your repeated claims (see refs above) of similarity between Nazi Germany and the U.S., the facts fail to support your intimations and allusions.
"... that's your point not one I have made. [Are you trying to bore me to death with this misdirection?]
No misdirection from this poster, I have established your position that Nazi Germany and contemporary democracies are similar, based upon your posts in this forum. I have also demonstrated how rapidly you have attempted to distance yourself from that position when confronted with the facts."
I will sum up the above as follows. The actions of the US/Israel are not identical to the actions of Nazi Germany. Some actions of the US and/or Israel are similar to those of Nazi Germany. I am quite happy to point out the similarities and differences as I see them, you don't want any similarities to be highlighted and you will try to do this by steadfastly pointing out the differences.
You views are not part of the solution to the belligerent, radicalised, evangelical fundamentalists whom are the free worlds enemy, you views are part of the problem.
We need to root out all actions that can be even remotely similar to those of Nazi Germany and any other despotic regime, not hide those actions under a veneer of falseness created by misrepresentation, misdirection and propaganda.
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#166. At 8:16pm on 23 Oct 2010)
“... So we're back to 'one man's terrorist is another wo/man's 'good defenders.''. The actions are forgotten, who's a 'terrorist' and who's a 'good defenders.' is all about whom committed the action in relation to which side the observer is on. Shameful.”
Is it fair to infer from the above that you would side with the (few remaining) Carthaginians, who watching their city burn and their empire crushed under the hob-nailed sandals of the Legionaries, would have proudly claimed that the Romans only won because they were so nasty and ruthless?
Complain about this comment
164 Andy wrote: I have no idea. I would have some idea if each report of abuse and/or torture was investigated, alas, the US in these leaked documents don't put much importance on trying to figure out what's what, they just ignored it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the Iraqis have taken over control and declared it classified, that is up to the Iraqis...although I know everybody wants to blame everything on us, cause' that's the easiest way out...
I don't believe the wikileaks are telling the full story, only picking out bits for their own "self-truths and half-lies"...(its like showing someone only parts of a movie-leaving out the parts they don't like, even if the story doesn't make sense- there is no reason to think wikileaks is unbiased...)
Neither the USA military, nor USA govt. has said that these things are all accurate, so who knows where or how that wikileaks guy got the info?
If he obtained classified info illegally and is giving it away to the public, isn't that treason to give classified info to the enemy?
What a traitor...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy wrote:
You seem to be implying you know that only a few where innocent civilians. Where is your proof?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where is your proof?
Guess neither of us have proof on that one...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy wrote: Sound very much like what you, Bush, and many other neo-cons are espousing - win at all costs regardless of how. You are merely a terrorist who won't admit they're one, will you now admit it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I am no more of a terrorist than you are...we both firmly believe in doing the right thing- for you, that means saving as many human lives while being politically correct and for me, that means saving as many humans lives regardless of being politically correct...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"You do know that the majority of civilians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan was done by terrorists, right?"
Andy wrote: No, I don't know that, there's a distinct lack of reliable data to know anything of the sort. I have some strong feelings one way, but I do not "know".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a fact that the majority of civilians killed in Iraq or Afghanistan the last ten years has been due to terrorists- especially suicide bombers. We do know this, even if some don't want to admit it, cause' they are politically correct...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And wouldn't the Iraqis know their own people better than anybody?"
Andy wrote: What's that got to do with the price of bacon?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
My point is that these people the Iraqis were interogating were picked out by Iraqi forces, who knows the Iraqis better than the Iraqis?
Complain about this comment
Andy 166 wrote: So we're back to "one man's terrorist is another wo/man's "good defenders."". The actions are forgotten, who's a "terrorist" and who's a "good defenders." is all about whom committed the action in relation to which side the observer is on. Shameful.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, it depends what side you are on.
Who doesn't take a side in a war?
What side are you on, Andy?
The civilians' side- well, does that mean you want us to help the civilians fight off the terrorists or does this mean you want us to leave the civilians alone and let the terrorists terrorize them?
The civilians that live there can't do much, because they are scared of the terrorists hurting and harming them.
(Its like a gang network mentality and what do gangs use to corral their members- violence and intimidation)
Which means the only people we can trust in that desertland is ourselves.
And we all know that our enemies will use anything they can to discredit us...
including wikileaks...
You are very passionate about your beliefs, Andy, as am I.
What do you think about the terrorists harming civilians in Somalia?
Should we help the civilians in Somalia who are pleading with us to help them or just let the terrorists do what they want?
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#166. At 8:16pm on 23 Oct 2010)
“... So we're back to 'one man's terrorist is another wo/man's 'good defenders.''. The actions are forgotten, who's a 'terrorist' and who's a 'good defenders.' is all about whom committed the action in relation to which side the observer is on. Shameful.”
168. At 8:42pm on 23 Oct 2010, Chryses wrote:
"Is it fair to infer from the above that you would side with the (few remaining) Carthaginians, who watching their city burn and their empire crushed under the hob-nailed sandals of the Legionaries, would have proudly claimed that the Romans only won because they were so nasty and ruthless? "
I have no view on the Carthaginians and probably won't get a good view even if I researched as the Romans seem to have done a CIA with Carthaginian primary historical sources, very few survive as the Romans destroyed them :-)
Complain about this comment
164 Andy wrote:
"I have no idea. I would have some idea if each report of abuse and/or torture was investigated, alas, the US in these leaked documents don't put much importance on trying to figure out what's what, they just ignored it."
169. At 8:45pm on 23 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:
"Since the Iraqis have taken over control and declared it classified, that is up to the Iraqis...although I know everybody wants to blame everything on us, cause' that's the easiest way out..."
I don't think anyone, let alone me, is blaming everything on the US. I am blaming the US in this thread for not investigating further the allegations of abuse & torture they came across. If it makes you feel any better, there is also much shame to go around on any other actor who failed to investigate and help stop abuse & torture they came across (UK, Iraqi, etc, etc, etc). If you can't take criticism of the US, don't get into a debate on a thread which is about the US.
"I don't believe the wikileaks are telling the full story, only picking out bits for their own "self-truths and half-lies"...(its like showing someone only parts of a movie-leaving out the parts they don't like, even if the story doesn't make sense- there is no reason to think wikileaks is unbiased...)
Neither the USA military, nor USA govt. has said that these things are all accurate, so who knows where or how that wikileaks guy got the info?
No actor, Wikileaks, the US government, the UK government, etc, etc, is to be believed. My favourite quote from Reagan, "trust, but verify" is hugely apt. The US is combing the Wikileaks records, surely they could "verify" if they wanted to, but I doubt they will although they have inferred the veracity of the leaked data - it's kosher.
"If he obtained classified info illegally and is giving it away to the public, isn't that treason to give classified info to the enemy?"
I don't follow your reasoning.
...
"My point is that these people the Iraqis were interogating were picked out by Iraqi forces, who knows the Iraqis better than the Iraqis?"
Saddam was Iraqi. Are you implying we should have left him to it because he was Iraqi? Seems a pretty thin argument to me, I'd rather base who is good by their actions rather than by their nationality :-)
Complain about this comment
"Who doesn't take a side in a war?"
I've not met anyone who has not taken a side in a war.
"What side are you on, Andy?"
You answer it in you next comment.
"The civilians' side- well, does that mean you want us to help the civilians fight off the terrorists or does this mean you want us to leave the civilians alone and let the terrorists terrorize them?
The civilians that live there can't do much, because they are scared of the terrorists hurting and harming them.
(Its like a gang network mentality and what do gangs use to corral their members- violence and intimidation)"
Obviously I would like the innocent civilians to have our help in fighting against the belligerent, radicalised, evangelical fundamentalists. Civilians can do a lot to help, they can for instance volunteer and defend their values on their home soil, which is what eventually turned the tide in Iraq (my enemies enemy is my friend).
"Which means the only people we can trust in that desertland is ourselves."
We obviously have belligerent, radicalised, evangelical fundamentalists in our midst, we need to locate them and take them out of our forces/society as well.
"And we all know that our enemies will use anything they can to discredit us...
including wikileaks..."
States will use and have used anything they can to discredit their enemies as well. It's much of a muchness.
"You are very passionate about your beliefs, Andy, as am I."
Indeed :-)
"What do you think about the terrorists harming civilians in Somalia?
Should we help the civilians in Somalia who are pleading with us to help them or just let the terrorists do what they want?"
I'm pretty pissed of wherever I see innocent civilians being attacked by belligerent, radicalised, evangelical fundamentalists, Somalia is one of those places. We should help them help themselves just like any morally correct person should help anyone in distress.
Complain about this comment
Andy wrote: No actor, Wikileaks, the US government, the UK government, etc, etc, is to be believed. My favourite quote from Reagan, "trust, but verify" is hugely apt. The US is combing the Wikileaks records, surely they could "verify" if they wanted to, but I doubt they will although they have inferred the veracity of the leaked data - it's kosher.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
So how does anyone know what to believe>?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"If he obtained classified info illegally and is giving it away to the public, isn't that treason to give classified info to the enemy?"
Andy wrote: I don't follow your reasoning.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
My reasoning is that if wikileaks is releasing illegally taken classified info, that is against the law and should be considered as treason...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"My point is that these people the Iraqis were interogating were picked out by Iraqi forces, who knows the Iraqis better than the Iraqis?"
Saddam was Iraqi. Are you implying we should have left him to it because he was Iraqi? Seems a pretty thin argument to me, I'd rather base who is good by their actions rather than by their nationality :-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was talking about interrogations- who better to interrogate Iraqis than Iraqis was my point...
Complain about this comment
Andy 171. At 9:00pm on 23 Oct 2010, wrote:
"Andy, (#166. At 8:16pm on 23 Oct 2010)
'... So we're back to 'one man's terrorist is another wo/man's 'good defenders ... Shameful.'
...
I have no view on the Carthaginians ..."
Convenient, that.
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#172. At 9:12pm on 23 Oct 2010)
"164 Andy wrote:
'I have no idea. I would have some idea if each report of abuse and/or torture was investigated, alas, the US in these leaked documents don't put much importance on trying to figure out what's what, they just ignored it.' ..."
Now that you can, is it fair to expect that you will, if only to be able to substantiate certain 'similarity' claims?
I presume that you have at least LOOKED at some of the documents, no?
Complain about this comment
Andy wrote:
"No actor, Wikileaks, the US government, the UK government, etc, etc, is to be believed. My favourite quote from Reagan, "trust, but verify" is hugely apt. The US is combing the Wikileaks records, surely they could "verify" if they wanted to, but I doubt they will although they have inferred the veracity of the leaked data - it's kosher."
174. At 9:35pm on 23 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:
"So how does anyone know what to believe?
Good question and I don't have the answer. I believe what makes logical sense based on the information available to me. I'm quite prepared, based on new evidence, to change my view completely.
LucyJ wrote:
"If he obtained classified info illegally and is giving it away to the public, isn't that treason to give classified info to the enemy?"
[Apols, I read "treason" as reason, hence my not understanding your reasoning]. To answer, he's not American therefore cannot be committing treason releasing US intelligence afaik. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason
LucyJ wrote:
"My point is that these people the Iraqis were interogating were picked out by Iraqi forces, who knows the Iraqis better than the Iraqis?"
Andy wrote:
"Saddam was Iraqi. Are you implying we should have left him to it because he was Iraqi? Seems a pretty thin argument to me, I'd rather base who is good by their actions rather than by their nationality :-)"
LucyJ wrote:
"I was talking about interrogations- who better to interrogate Iraqis than Iraqis was my point..."
And my point remains, would you trust Saddam to interrogate Iraqis merely because he is Iraqi?
The people I trust to interrogate are honest interrogators, interrogators with integrity and a strong sense of the rules of war/engagement (international and national) regardless of their nationality, ethnicity, religion, whatever. Basically, the best interrogators may not be the same nationality, ethnicity, religion, or whatever, as their subjects are.
Complain about this comment
"What side are you on, Andy?"
Andy wrote: You answer it in you next comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are on the innocent civilians side, but it is hard for you to accept that even though we are against killing innocents, it is difficult to distinguish who is innocent and who is terrorist, when some terrorists conceal themselves as civilians...
I am on USA's side and also innocent civilians side, I certainly do not want to harm any innocents. However, I have no way to know who is actually innocent or not...
Children are innocent, yet a terrorist can strap a child with bombs, with the child being innocent and not even knowing that it could blow up, and there is no mercy from the terrorists toward their own civilians when they send children or women to be suicide bombers, blowing up their own people to make a point...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy wrote: I'm pretty pissed of wherever I see innocent civilians being attacked by belligerent, radicalised, evangelical fundamentalists, Somalia is one of those places. We should help them help themselves just like any morally correct person should help anyone in distress.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree. Somalia is crying out for help.
Complain about this comment
164 Andy wrote:
'I have no idea[how many of those abused/tortured in the leaked reports are "terrorists" or innocent civilians]. I would have some idea if each report of abuse and/or torture was investigated, alas, the US in these leaked documents don't put much importance on trying to figure out what's what, they just ignored it.' ..."
176 Chryses wrote:
"Now that you can, is it fair to expect that you will, if only to be able to substantiate certain 'similarity' claims?
I presume that you have at least LOOKED at some of the documents, no?"
I've looked at some of the documents, yes. I will study them further as time permits.
Regarding the similarities I have already mentioned in my posts on this thread, I think they stand up now by themselves.
Which similarities that I have mentioned do you think I would be able to substantiate further/you require further substantiation by researching in detail these recently released documents? (all of them is not an acceptable answer ;-) )
Complain about this comment
@152. Oldloadr wrote:
"So does it bother me that the CIA broke laws? Nope, not as long as it didn’t break US laws."
Yep. They broke US Laws.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22139312/
- They tortured - illegal
- They destroyed interrogation tapes - illegal
You wrote "2. Gestapo kept very meticulous records which were used extensively at Nuremburg."
I didn't know that. I guess the CIA have learnt from their mistakes.
Youu wrote "3. Does the outsourced interrogations and renditions bother me? Nope. Is it illegal, probably not in the US and as I stated before the CIA is for all practical purposes a criminal organization most of the time, just as are MI6 and the Mossad and the agency(ies) formerly known as the KGB, since countries don’t like to be spied upon. "
So you are not only condoning torture, you do realise that it is also illegal.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/23/united-nations-call-obama-investigation-abuses-iraq
And besides torture there are also their "executive assassination ring"...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/09/was-the-cia-hiding-cheney_n_228864.html
And you're all ok with that?
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#172. At 9:12pm on 23 Oct 2010)
“... Saddam was Iraqi. Are you implying we should have left him to it because he was Iraqi? Seems a pretty thin argument to me, I'd rather base who is good by their actions rather than by their nationality :-)”
Did Iraq’s armed forces, at the direction of Saddam Hussein, invade for the purpose of conquest both Iran and Kuwait?
Yes.
Did Iraq’s armed forces, at the direction of Saddam Hussein, deploy poison gas against not only Iranian military, but also Iraqi civilians?
Yes.
Are these crimes by the standards held by the International Criminal Court, with which I can only presume you agree?
Yes.
If you believe what you posted in #172, you would approve of the decisions made to remove him.
As you have, to my knowledge, not done so, and based upon your posts suggesting that those who did make the decision to remove him face trial, I believe that there is no reason to expect that you will do so.
As, by post #172 you would “rather base who is good by their actions”, and given your previous posts where you adopt a position critical of those who decided remove that individual from a position of influence, it is clear that you have some entertaining explanations in store for your reading public.
Of course, if you do NOT agreee with positions of the International Criminal Court, the permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes ir their published poisitions, then I will look forward to different, but equally entertaining explanations as to why you do not.
Complain about this comment
LucyJ wrote:
"What side are you on, Andy?"
Andy wrote:
"You answer it in your next comment.
LucyJ wrote:
"You are on the innocent civilians side, but it is hard for you to accept that even though we are against killing innocents, it is difficult to distinguish who is innocent and who is terrorist, when some terrorists conceal themselves as civilians..."
I agree that it is difficult to distinguish who is innocent and who is terrorist when some terrorists conceal themselves as civilians and our under cover forces also conceal themselves as civilians, war is not easy, that does not mean we should park our international and moral obligations in the gutter though and head towards the level of a terrorist - that would make us no better than them.
LucyJ wrote:
"I am on USA's side and also innocent civilians side, I certainly do not want to harm any innocents. However, I have no way to know who is actually innocent or not...
Children are innocent, yet a terrorist can strap a child with bombs, with the child being innocent and not even knowing that it could blow up, and there is no mercy from the terrorists toward their own civilians when they send children or women to be suicide bombers, blowing up their own people to make a point..."
As I said above, it is very difficult, but I think much more could be done to protect innocent civilians from harm inflicted by us and by the terrorists, the cost however would be more of our soldiers and security forces lives and I think this is were our main disagreement lies - the number of our military's lives we are prepared to sacrifice on behalf of innocent civilians.
Andy wrote:
"I'm pretty pissed of wherever I see innocent civilians being attacked by belligerent, radicalised, evangelical fundamentalists, Somalia is one of those places. We should help them help themselves just like any morally correct person should help anyone in distress.
LucyJ wrote:
"I agree. Somalia is crying out for help."
Complain about this comment
Andy (#38. At 09:17am on 23 Oct 2010)
“... Will lives be put at risk from this leak? Possibly. Giving an American a gun and let them out of the house increases 'lives being put at risk' by several orders of magnitude more.”
I just noticed this additional unwarranted claim. Will you support this one with evidence, or will it also remain unsubstantiated?
Complain about this comment
"157. SaintDominick wrote:
"Ynda, the people that thrive in fantasy or perverse plots would have taken issue if the plane that struck the Pentagon had hit the Men rooms, in which case the allegations may have involved the unlawful disposition of classified human waste."
Hmm. I'm talking about 1300+ named architects and engineers and 9/11 Family members that have taken issue with the official story. Sorry but these are people that do not thrive "in fantasy or perverse plots".
You wrote "Buildings adjacent to the Twin Towers were damaged or collapsed as a result of the tremors that emanated from the collapse of two huge buildings in the vicinity."
That's interesting viewpoint - different from the official story - are you a conspiracy theorist or prone to fantasy? WTC7 was an earthquake-proof building (designed to withstand an earthquake of 6.9 with an epicentre 5 miles from NY) so that does not compute. And as I said there 1300+ named architects and engineers that say something else. If you don't mind I will go with them rather a saint such as yourself.
You wrote "hundreds, maybe thousands, of people throughout the world that believe 9/11 was an inside job"
Hmm try "millions".
"...dozens of reputable American investigators, engineers, architects, and politicians. "
We're having a hard time finding any reputable architect or engineer to take on Richard Gage. NIST's Syham Sunder can't even explain gravity and John Gross doesn't even want to look at the evidence (google it). The other science associated with the NIST study is widely disputed even in publications that do broadly support the official story.
Try again. Rather than slur me, my point is that valid questions have not been answered...
Complain about this comment
Andy wrote: Apols, I read "treason" as reason, hence my not understanding your reasoning]. To answer, he's not American therefore cannot be committing treason releasing US intelligence afaik. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason
------------------------------------------------------------------------
How did he get the info?
Was someone bribed?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy wrote: And my point remains, would you trust Saddam to interrogate Iraqis merely because he is Iraqi?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
No. But there is only one Saddam.
We are trying to turn over forces back to the Iraqi people...why is that so wrong?
We are there to help them if they need it, but are trying purposefully not to intervene. And as I said previously, how do we know that these people they interrogated were or were not innocent?
We don't know. As I don't know, I can't say it was right or wrong.
If they were innocent, it was wrong.
If they weren't innocent, it was right, cause' they may be able to save civilian lives, those lives you care so deeply about...
Complain about this comment
Andy wrote:
"... Saddam was Iraqi. Are you implying we should have left him to it because he was Iraqi? Seems a pretty thin argument to me, I'd rather base who is good by their actions rather than by their nationality :-)”
Chryses wrote:
"Did Iraq’s armed forces, at the direction of Saddam Hussein, invade for the purpose of conquest both Iran and Kuwait?
Yes.
Did Iraq’s armed forces, at the direction of Saddam Hussein, deploy poison gas against not only Iranian military, but also Iraqi civilians?
Yes.
Are these crimes by the standards held by the International Criminal Court, with which I can only presume you agree?
Yes.
If you believe what you posted in #172, you would approve of the decisions made to remove him."
I'm certainly for regime change from dictators to democracy, my issue is with the "how" the regime is changed.
Chryses wrote:
"As you have, to my knowledge, not done so, and based upon your posts suggesting that those who did make the decision to remove him face trial, I believe that there is no reason to expect that you will do so.
As, by post #172 you would “rather base who is good by their actions”, and given your previous posts where you adopt a position critical of those who decided remove that individual from a position of influence, it is clear that you have some entertaining explanations in store for your reading public."
I'm not one of those who think our powers that be should be prosecuted for wanting to remove a dictator, Saddam, from power. I am one of those who thinks they should be prosecuted for HOW they went about removing a dictator, Saddam, from power. I hope I have made that clear.
Chryses wrote:
"Of course, if you do NOT agreee with positions of the International Criminal Court, the permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes ir their published poisitions, then I will look forward to different, but equally entertaining explanations as to why you do not."
I agree with the positions of the International Criminal Court and as such, I look at their rulings on international law and judge that some of our leaders [as well as the leaders of our enemies] are guilty of crimes against humanity and war crimes.
Complain about this comment
This blog is a real celebration of the CIA fan club.
Isn't the point here that the US government has and continues to condone torture, outsources torture, exports torture and yet still claims it is squeaky clean. Indeed, can do wrong because anything it does must be right because of presidential decree (and besides, it's the world's only superpower?)
Only Fox News aficionados could support the US government's actions in this respect. I don't understand why everyone doesn't just say: this is wrong; it must stop; and it must not ever happen again.
Full stop
Complain about this comment
Andy wrote:
“... Will lives be put at risk from this leak? Possibly. Giving an American a gun and let them out of the house increases 'lives being put at risk' by several orders of magnitude more.”
Chryses wrote:
"I just noticed this additional unwarranted claim. Will you support this one with evidence, or will it also remain unsubstantiated?"
:-), I'm quite prepared to acknowledge that little bit of hyperbole :-))
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#186. At 10:27pm on 23 Oct 2010)
“... Chryses wrote:
‘Did Iraq’s armed forces, at the direction of Saddam Hussein, invade for the purpose of conquest both Iran and Kuwait?
Yes.
Did Iraq’s armed forces, at the direction of Saddam Hussein, deploy poison gas against not only Iranian military, but also Iraqi civilians?
Yes.
Are these crimes by the standards held by the International Criminal Court, with which I can only presume you agree?
Yes.
If you believe what you posted in #172, you would approve of the decisions made to remove him."
I'm certainly for regime change from dictators to democracy, my issue is with the ‘how’ the regime is changed.”
Ah, one of those who feel comfortable about the idea of “regime change”, but when action is needed to achieve the goal they laud, are so very hard to find.
Isn’t there a noun used to describe one a person whose actions belie stated beliefs?
Complain about this comment
Andy wrote:
"Apols, I read "treason" as reason, hence my not understanding your reasoning]. To answer, he's not American therefore cannot be committing treason releasing US intelligence afaik. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason "
LucyJ wrote:
"How did he get the info? Was someone bribed?"
I don't know and I don't think they have stated how they got the raw intel.
Andy wrote:
"And my point remains, would you trust Saddam to interrogate Iraqis merely because he is Iraqi?"
LucyJ wrote:
"No. But there is only one Saddam."
Indeed, yet much of Saddam's command were similarly brutal as Saddam, and they were also Iraqis. My point, again, is that being Iraqi does not automatically make one the right person to interrogate Iraqi prisoners. Many Iraqis could fill in that function, many should not and the US and other Allied powers new and/or had large dollops of reason suspicion whom should not be allowed to interrogate prisoners.
LucyJ wrote:
"We are trying to turn over forces back to the Iraqi people...why is that so wrong?"
It's not wrong, it's ultimately the right thing to do. It's who you hand power too and how you do it that's important. There's not much point in freeing Iraq from the tyranny of Saddam only to hand Iraq over to a similar tyrannical regime.
LucyJ wrote:
"We are there to help them if they need it, but are trying purposefully not to intervene."
For large chunks of time since we invaded, we have not been purposefully trying to intervene - that's what regime change means. Regime change does not just mean changing Saddam and his close cronies, it's the whole shibang that needed analysing and changing from the ground up, as we found out when "major combat operations" allegedly finished.
LucyJ wrote:
"And as I said previously, how do we know that these people they interrogated were or were not innocent?"
I refer you to my previous answer.
LucyJ wrote:
"We don't know. As I don't know, I can't say it was right or wrong.
If they were innocent, it was wrong.
If they weren't innocent, it was right, cause' they may be able to save civilian lives, those lives you care so deeply about..."
If we don't investigate, we will never know - that is the coalitions error. As I have repeatedly said, we needed and still need to try harder to uphold the principles we say we stand for, only that way can we differentiate them from us.
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#186. At 10:27pm on 23 Oct 2010)
"'... If you believe what you posted in #172, you would approve of the decisions made to remove him. As you have, to my knowledge, not done so, and based upon your posts suggesting that those who did make the decision to remove him face trial, I believe that there is no reason to expect that you will do so.
As, by post #172 you would "rather base who is good by their actions", and given your previous posts where you adopt a position critical of those who decided remove that individual from a position of influence, it is clear that you have some entertaining explanations in store for your reading public.'
I'm not one of those who think our powers that be should be prosecuted for wanting to remove a dictator, Saddam, from power. I am one of those who thinks they should be prosecuted for HOW they went about removing a dictator, Saddam, from power. I hope I have made that clear."
So you CLAIM to believe in removing a dictator, but you approve of prosecuting those who DO what you claim to approve. The more evidence I am presented with, the more confident I become that there is a noun describing a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
"... I hope I have made that clear."
Oh yes, you certainly have.
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#188. At 10:46pm on 23 Oct 2010)
“... :-), I'm quite prepared to acknowledge that little bit of hyperbole :-))"
I shall accept that as an acknowledgement that you are unable to substantiate what you previously claimed to be true.
Complain about this comment
ynda20, (#187. At 10:34pm on 23 Oct 2010)
"This blog is a real celebration of the CIA fan club ..."
Evidence please. Other, of course, than there are those whom you have failed to persuade.
"... Isn't the point here that the US government has and continues to condone torture, outsources torture, exports torture and yet still claims it is squeaky clean ..."
I am unaware of those "squeaky clean" claims, could you perhaps provide a link to them?
Are you suggesting that the U.S. government claims to be morally superior to Saddam Hussein (he of War Crimes, Genocide, and Crimes Against Humanity), or to the Taliban, you remember, they're the ones who destroyed the Buddhas of Bamyan, and reduced the women of Afghanistan to virtual slavery, and provided a base for Osama bin Laden and his ilk? In that case, I suspect that not only would the U.S. government make the claim, but most people would agree with it.
"... Indeed, can do wrong because anything it does must be right because of presidential decree (and besides, it's the world's only superpower?) ..."
I believe you are mistaken. As I understand it, the American Congress approved the use of force prior to its use in Iraq. Do you claim otherwise?
"... Only Fox News aficionados could support the US government's actions in this respect. I don't understand why everyone doesn't just say: this is wrong; it must stop; and it must not ever happen again ..."
So what are these U.S. government actions to which you take such grave exception? What exactly are you so up in arms about? Failure to condemn the actions of others?
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#186. At 10:27pm on 23 Oct 2010)
“... I agree with the positions of the International Criminal Court and as such, I look at their rulings on international law and judge that some of our leaders [as well as the leaders of our enemies] are guilty of crimes against humanity and war crimes.”
Please present whatever it is that has made you a believer, and perhaps you may persuade others. Show us why you are so certain you are right. Of course, if you do present what you find convincing, you should be prepared to be challenged.
Good luck
Complain about this comment
Chryses wrote:
‘Did Iraq’s armed forces, at the direction of Saddam Hussein, invade for the purpose of conquest both Iran and Kuwait?
Yes.
Did Iraq’s armed forces, at the direction of Saddam Hussein, deploy poison gas against not only Iranian military, but also Iraqi civilians?
Yes.
Are these crimes by the standards held by the International Criminal Court, with which I can only presume you agree?
Yes.
If you believe what you posted in #172, you would approve of the decisions made to remove him."
Andy wrote:
"I'm certainly for regime change from dictators to democracy, my issue is with the ‘how’ the regime is changed.”
Chryses wrote:
‘Ah, one of those who feel comfortable about the idea of “regime change”, but when action is needed to achieve the goal they laud, are so very hard to find."
I assume you like having sex your choosen partner, but I doubt you would rape said choosen partner just because you fancied a bit of slap and tickle. Similarly my issue is with the ‘how’ the regime is changed, not regime change itself per se.
Chryses wrote:
‘Isn’t there a noun used to describe one a person whose actions belie stated beliefs?"
Yes, having humaneness. Check it out sometime.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Chryses wrote:
"... If you believe what you posted in #172, you would approve of the decisions made to remove him. As you have, to my knowledge, not done so, and based upon your posts suggesting that those who did make the decision to remove him face trial, I believe that there is no reason to expect that you will do so.
As, by post #172 you would "rather base who is good by their actions", and given your previous posts where you adopt a position critical of those who decided remove that individual from a position of influence, it is clear that you have some entertaining explanations in store for your reading public.'
Andy wrote:
"I'm not one of those who think our powers that be should be prosecuted for wanting to remove a dictator, Saddam, from power. I am one of those who thinks they should be prosecuted for HOW they went about removing a dictator, Saddam, from power. I hope I have made that clear."
Chryses wrote:
"So you CLAIM to believe in removing a dictator, but you approve of prosecuting those who DO what you claim to approve. The more evidence I am presented with, the more confident I become that there is a noun describing a person whose actions belie stated beliefs."
The impression I'm getting is that you're views are that of a belligerent radicalised evangelical fundamentalist. You imply that any means justify a hoped for end. You may wish to rape and pillage, murder and maim your way to success, I don't.
Complain about this comment
I wrote:
"... The comparison between the CIA and the Gestapo is clear. The Gestapo labelled their enemies 'untermensch', the CIA labels them 'unlawful combatants'
Chryses wrote:
"The former is not a human, the latter is."
You agree with the Nazi Germans that their labelled untermensch; Jews, Gypsies, Poles along with other Slavic people like the Russians, Ukrainians, so-called Mischlinge and anyone else who was not an "Aryan", were not human, I would strongly disagree. You true colours are coming out to play I see.
Chryses wrote:
"Further, I believe that a prior court order is required by the CIA to eavesdrop on an American citizen in the USA. "
Care to substantiate that claim?
I believe that a prior court order is required to allow the NSA to eavesdrop on an American citizen in the USA, and there are substantiated claims that such court orders were not always in place when eavesdropping on an American citizen in the USA was actually actioned. Google the front page of the New York Times on December 16th, 2005, or this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy
Complain about this comment
Andy #197.
forget it, it's sophism, it's a game to some (even though you'd think the issues are too important for that).
Complain about this comment
LucyJ,
Andy wrote, among many other things, "... As I have repeatedly said, we needed and still need to try harder to uphold the principles we say we stand for, only that way can we differentiate them from us."
Up to a point, Andy is quite correct. The reason this debate is occurring at all is because we - you, Andy, and I - believe that there is a difference between our ideals and those of Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, and those cut from the same cloth. Those ideals are realised in behavior, and each time “our boys and girls” are caught behaving poorly, it becomes more difficult to retain that distinction.
It is when those ideals become more important than life (usually that of someone else) that Andy, and others like him, move from the real world to one or another Utopia. If I recall my history correctly, wasn’t America, or at least a bit of it, colonized as a utopia?
Andy is a vital participant in the Great Debate, as are you and I.
I remain persuaded that the position you espouse is to be preferred to that of Andy. I share your prejudice for reality. That said, without him to remind us that Natural Law does frown on the type of behaviour the good Mr Assange has put on display, it is all too easy to slip down a slippery slope.
Not everyone trusts common sense.
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#195. At 11:57pm on 23 Oct 2010)
“... Chryses wrote:
‘Isn’t there a noun used to describe one a person whose actions belie stated beliefs?’
Yes, having humaneness. Check it out sometime.”
Well Andy, I took your advice and Googled “a person whose actions belie stated beliefs”.
Look what I found: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrite
Perhaps you march to the beat of a different drummer? [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
Ref 187, ynda20
"I don't understand why everyone doesn't just say: this is wrong; it must stop; and it must not ever happen again.
Full stop"
Because many Americans - and apparently some Brits - do not see a difference between a terrorist group, Al Qaeda, and the Muslim world in general. As a result, any punishment inflicted on Muslims is seen as payback for what AQ did to us and is accepted without giving it a second thought.
Obviously, what has been happening in Iraq is horrible regardless of who did it and who ordered it or condoned it. Hopefully, it will never happen again, but I would not bet on that.
Complain about this comment
I wrote:
"... I agree with the positions of the International Criminal Court and as such, I look at their rulings on international law and judge that some of our leaders [as well as the leaders of our enemies] are guilty of crimes against humanity and war crimes.”
Chryses wrote:
"Please present whatever it is that has made you a believer, and perhaps you may persuade others. Show us why you are so certain you are right. Of course, if you do present what you find convincing, you should be prepared to be challenged."
Do you want me to Google that for you?
This blog is too small a place for me to present all the evidence I've collated and it's probabily only a very small part of what has been collated by more professional researchers. In summary though, there's the condoning of abuse & torture [Abu Ghraib, "Copper Green Special Access Plan", the deaths and mistreatment of prisoners in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistanand the like; approving the use of torture techniques banned by international law]; extra judicial killings, rendition, ignoring the Geneva Conventions and other international laws including the use of chemical weapons. The list goes on.
Complain about this comment
Ref 184, ynda20
"Try again. Rather than slur me, my point is that valid questions have not been answered..."
I apologize for the tone of my response to the claim you made.
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#197. At 00:05am on 24 Oct 2010)
"... The impression I'm getting is that you're views are that of a belligerent radicalised evangelical fundamentalist ..."
Please provide evidence to support your claims. Is it because I have taken the time to identify the contradictions in your posts? Is it because I took the time to show that, yes, you really did say that the CIA is similar to the Gestapo?
"... You imply that any means justify a hoped for end ..."
You are mistaken. What I have suggested is that ideals, and yes, even those you are convinced are ideal, have limits, or bounds. Further, I have serious doubts there is any formal process that you or anyone can use to derive a 'correct' ideal independent of the context within which the ideal is expressed.
Plato was probably incorrect, and with him those who are convinced that there is but one solution - theirs.
"... You may wish to rape and pillage, murder and maim your way to success, I don't."
Evidence please. Upon what do you base this claim?
Complain about this comment
Chryses wrote:
"LucyJ,
Andy wrote, among many other things, "... As I have repeatedly said, we needed and still need to try harder to uphold the principles we say we stand for, only that way can we differentiate them from us."
Up to a point, Andy is quite correct. The reason this debate is occurring at all is because we - you, Andy, and I - believe that there is a difference between our ideals and those of Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, and those cut from the same cloth. Those ideals are realised in behavior, and each time “our boys and girls” are caught behaving poorly, it becomes more difficult to retain that distinction."
Getting my ideals lumped in with yours Chryses makes me feel dirty, could you please resist such inaccurate comparisons in future. Your ideals are cut from a similar cloth as Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, etc - whatever it takes to get to your hoped for end. You can't even bring yourself to say our troops have committed abuses & torture, you sanitize it with the phrase "behaving poorly".
Chryses wrote:
"It is when those ideals become more important than life (usually that of someone else) that Andy, and others like him, move from the real world to one or another Utopia."
I am realistic enough to believe that to defeat terrorism, the last thing one should do is become a terrorist, you obviously disagree.
"I remain persuaded that the position you espouse is to be preferred to that of Andy. I share your prejudice for reality. That said, without him to remind us that Natural Law does frown on the type of behaviour the good Mr Assange has put on display, it is all too easy to slip down a slippery slope.
Not everyone trusts common sense."
Not everyone has a working moral compass and you hold the views which are unfortunately held by my enemies - belligerent, radicalised, evangelical fundamentalists. No good will come of such views. You should change and be persuaded humanity is better than tyranny.
Complain about this comment
115. At 3:11pm on 23 Oct 2010, Andy wrote:
“As you can now perhaps comprehend, I am not talking equivalency, I am talking similarity.
Again, with all due respect, please do not distort my views from what I have quite clearly stated.”
I did not intentionally distort your views. If I did so, I apologize. We can agree that equivalent is not the same as similar. A man wearing a Halloween costume may look the same as [similar to] Adolph Hitler, but there is no equivalency.
The problem is, if you will pardon my saying so, that while a chimp is similar to an ape and a rock may in color, shape and composition be similar to the moon the relative similarities are not at all similar.
Finally, when you use highly charged words you generate highly charged reaction. In other words, a factual news clip and a propagandistic sound bite may be similar, but they are not equivalent. In addition, a highly charged and contentious atmosphere promotes neither clarity nor agreement.
Peace
Complain about this comment
Wikileaks surely checked with their lawyers to make sure noone would be put in any danger before leaking the information, so that they were covered legally.
the 'lives at risk' story is just spin, govt are trying to move the public gaze away from the leaked contents.
Wikileaks is a natural consequence when the govt will not disclose the truth.
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#198. At 00:25am on 24 Oct 2010)
"... You agree with the Nazi Germans that their labelled untermensch; Jews, Gypsies, Poles along with other Slavic people like the Russians, Ukrainians, so-called Mischlinge and anyone else who was not an "Aryan", were not human, I would strongly disagree ..."
Goodness me! What a cheap shot! That is completely false. Permit me to demonstrate just how false a claim that is.
Here, for those who may be tempted to mistake your claim as true, it the correct excerpt from my post #113. As you will recall I was distinguishing between 'untermensch', and 'unlawful combatants', two distinctly different categories of people who you attempted to conflate.
I first quoted from your post #94
" '... The comparison between the CIA and the Gestapo is clear. The Gestapo labelled their enemies 'untermensch', the CIA labels them 'unlawful combatants', in each case they're targets are afforded lesser rights than another human and in each case they're subject to abuse that another human would not have to endure ...' "
I then demonstrated that you were mistaken, as the two terms define different collections of people.
"... Untermensch is German for under man, sub-man, sub-human. The German word Mensch literally means human. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untermensch)
An unlawful combatant is a civilian who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action. (http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/terrorism-ihl-210705)
The former is not a human, the latter is. While some may disagree, many people believe that there is a qualitative difference between humans and non-humans ... "
You, and anyone reading this discourse will now realize that my meaning is the opposite to what you claim.
That this inversion of my quite obvious meaning was accidental is incredible.
Or was this another of your attempts at hyperbole?
Complain about this comment
Andy wrote:
"... The impression I'm getting is that you're views are that of a belligerent radicalised evangelical fundamentalist ..."
Chryses wrote:
"Please provide evidence to support your claims.
No need for me to provide it, you can simply re-read what you have written in your posts on this thread, attach a moral compass to yourself, and then mull it over.
Chryses wrote:
"Is it because I have taken the time to identify the contradictions in your posts?"
Please provide evidence to support your claim.
Chryses wrote:
"Is it because I took the time to show that, yes, you really did say that the CIA is similar to the Gestapo?"
I have always stated that the the CIA has some similarities to the Gestapo, it is you who have tried to change what I have stated on this subject and again you're at your misdirection.
Andy wrote:
"... You imply that any means justify a hoped for end ..."
Chryses wrote:
"You are mistaken. What I have suggested is that ideals, and yes, even those you are convinced are ideal, have limits, or bounds. Further, I have serious doubts there is any formal process that you or anyone can use to derive a 'correct' ideal independent of the context within which the ideal is expressed.
Plato was probably incorrect, and with him those who are convinced that there is but one solution - theirs."
There are many paths that could be taken to reach a final goal. Some paths are rougher than others and you seem to wish to tread a very rough path to your choosen end compared to me.
Andy wrote:
"... You may wish to rape and pillage, murder and maim your way to success, I don't."
Chryses wrote:
"Evidence please. Upon what do you base this claim?"
I repeat what I said in my first reply in this post.
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#198. At 00:25am on 24 Oct 2010)
“... Chryses wrote:
‘Further, I believe that a prior court order is required by the CIA to eavesdrop on an American citizen in the USA.’
Care to substantiate that claim? . . .”
Easily done. Here are the essentials: “The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("FISA" Pub.L. 95-511, 92 Stat. 1783, enacted October 25, 1978, 50 U.S.C. ch.36, S. 1566) is an Act of Congress which prescribes procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between "foreign powers" and "agents of foreign powers" (which may include American citizens and permanent residents suspected of being engaged in espionage and violating U.S. law on territory under United States control).”
Here are the details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act
“... I believe that a prior court order is required to allow the NSA to eavesdrop on an American citizen in the USA, and there are substantiated claims that such court orders were not always in place when eavesdropping on an American citizen in the USA was actually actioned. Google the front page of the New York Times on December 16th, 2005, or this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy”
I note with amusement that you failed to provide an inconvenient truth (with apologies to Mr. Gore) fond at the bottom of the link you provided.
“In August 2008, the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISCR) affirmed the constitutionality of the Protect America Act of 2007” (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123206893587088395.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)
Better luck next time.
Complain about this comment
To Chryses #205
quoting Andy describing you:
"your views are that of a belligerent radicalised evangelical fundamentalist"
You ask for evidence to support this claim.
Why don't you just accept this statement as common sense, someone else's version of practical reality, seeing you as cut from the cloth of fundamentalism?
In this case you seem to be requesting evidence based on universal definitions, standards of behaviour and laws that apply to all people, things you're happy to ignore at random.
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#203. At 00:58am on 24 Oct 2010)
"... This blog is too small a place for me to present all the evidence I've collated and it's probabily only a very small part of what has been collated by more professional researchers ..."
I take it from the above that you will, in fact, be providing no evidence to persuade anyone. I expected little, and you delivered. Thank you.
"... In summary though, there's the condoning of abuse & torture [Abu Ghraib, "Copper Green Special Access Plan", the deaths and mistreatment of prisoners in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistanand the like; ..."
"... and the like ..." Excuse me? Just what is that supposed to mean? Is this the type of clear thinking, incisive, penetrating criticism you believe will persuade a Federal court, or any court for that matter (other than perhaps a Kangaroo Court), to convict?
"... approving the use of torture techniques banned by international law]; ..."
Which are the techniques you claim are torture, and which are the ones "banned by international law"? Vague generalities will never get a conviction in a REAL court.
"... extra judicial killings ..."
Specifics please.
"... rendition ..."
You are mistaken. Again. Rendition is routine law. What you probably mean is 'extraordinary rendition', which is much more controversial.
"... ignoring the Geneva Conventions and other international laws ..."
Specifics please.
"... including the use of chemical weapons ..."
You appear to be unfamiliar with the subject material. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/cbw/cw.htm
"... The list goes on."
I am confident that your list of unsubstantiated claims is a lengthy one, and grows longer each time you revisit it.
Complain about this comment
146. At 5:36pm on 23 Oct 2010, Oldloadr wrote:
140. At 5:23pm on 23 Oct 2010, Andy wrote:
"That had me laughing out loud for it's absurdity. So, you think that after June 2004, the Iraqi security forces were in reality in charge of the Americans on Iraqi soil?
_______________________________________
Actually, yes, since I was there at the time. If there was an Iraqi authority on the scene, he took precedence since it was their country. There were places we could go before that date that we could no longer go. You must remember that the US gov’t is IMHO overly sensitive to shouts of colonialism whenever we operate in a 3rd world country."
As far as it goes, OL's statement is perfectly plausible. It is not so plausible to suggest that if the US government really wanted something the Iraqui regime would have been ready willing and able to defy Washington.
OL's contention that the US pussyfoots around for reasons of political correctness or other reasons is conditionally correct. One condition being that US is also capable of arrogant "You are with us or against us" action as well as verbosity. Other conditions are where, when, who what and why [especially which GOP contributing company is to get the no-bid contract and other matters of high monetary policy].
Complain about this comment
Andy wrote:
“As you can now perhaps comprehend, I am not talking equivalency, I am talking similarity.
Again, with all due respect, please do not distort my views from what I have quite clearly stated.”
JMM wrote:
"I did not intentionally distort your views. If I did so, I apologize."
OK, no worries :-)
"We can agree that equivalent is not the same as similar. A man wearing a Halloween costume may look the same as [similar to] Adolph Hitler, but there is no equivalency.
The problem is, if you will pardon my saying so, that while a chimp is similar to an ape and a rock may in color, shape and composition be similar to the moon the relative similarities are not at all similar.
Finally, when you use highly charged words you generate highly charged reaction. In other words, a factual news clip and a propagandistic sound bite may be similar, but they are not equivalent. In addition, a highly charged and contentious atmosphere promotes neither clarity nor agreement."
I take on board what you are saying however I look at the actions of a certain actor and I'm reminded of similar actors from history I know. I will have a mull.
"Peace"
And to you too.
Complain about this comment
Chryses wrote:
"....the two terms ['untermensch' & 'unlawful combatants'] define different collections of people....
..
The former is not a human, the latter is.
There you go again. So, in your book, some people are not human, which is exactly the view of Nazi Germany in regards to Jews, Gypsies, Poles along with other Slavic people like the Russians, Ukrainians, so-called Mischlinge and anyone else who was not an "Aryan".
Complain about this comment
Chryses wrote:
‘Further, I believe that a prior court order is required by the CIA to eavesdrop on an American citizen in the USA.’
Andy wrote:
‘Care to substantiate that claim? . . .”
Chryses wrote:
‘Easily done. Here are the essentials: “The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("FISA" Pub.L. 95-511, 92 Stat. 1783, enacted October 25, 1978, 50 U.S.C. ch.36, S. 1566) is an Act of Congress which prescribes procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between "foreign powers" and "agents of foreign powers" (which may include American citizens and permanent residents suspected of being engaged in espionage and violating U.S. law on territory under United States control).”
Here are the details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act "
OK, read that yet there's nothing in there that I can find that requires the CIA to get a prior court order to eavesdrop on an American citizen in the USA. Perhaps you could be a bit more specific (a bit of cutting & pasting) and will have better luck at searching for "CIA" in the notes you have passed to me that I scanned, than I have.
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#149. At 5:47pm on 23 Oct 2010)
"Me: '... I am reminded of Pastor Martin Niemöller and feel the 'Muslims'/'Arabs' are being treated similarly to the 'Jews' & others labelled untermensch in history ...'
Chryses: 'Please provide links to the U.S. and Israeli concentration camps, gas chambers, and crematoria.'"
An interesting juxtaposition for your open. Let us examine how you set the stage. I note how you associate a German anti-Nazi, Jews & others labelled untermensch, and Muslims/Arabs.
Most Muslims are not Arabs. (http://islam.about.com/od/muslimcountries/a/population.htm)
Unless you are suggesting that the "'Muslims'/'Arabs'" to which you refer are being treated now [you verb tense, not mine] as "the 'Jews' & others labelled untermensch" were treated then [your use of the term 'untermensch' is applicable during the period of Nazi rule of Germany], then your claim that they are being treated similarly is false.
Care to revisit your opening?
"... This is the crux of the problem with right-wing neo-cons. Unless and until the US and/or Israel perpetrates exactly the same or worse actions than the worst of the actions committed by other actors (Nazi's, Stalin, etc, etc), then the US and/or Israel should not be criticized nor compared in any way shape or form with historic despotic regimes.
Let us examine this claim. You assert that the position of "right-wing neo-cons" is that some entities "should not" be "compared in any way" with "despotic regimes" "unless and until" those entities "perpetrates exactly the same or worse actions than the worst of the actions committed" by aforesaid despotic regimes.
As this claim was made in your post #149 in rebuttal to me, and as it was immediately preceded by contrasting quotes from the two of us, it is reasonable to infer that you include me in the group described as "right-wing neo-cons".
This is inconsistent with his post #197 "... The impression I'm getting is that you're views are that of a belligerent radicalised evangelical fundamentalist ..."
Again, those internal inconsistencies (unless, of course 'right-wing neo-cons' are at the same time 'belligerent radicalised evangelical fundamentalist').
Your claim begs the question; is it true? Is it true that right-wing neo-cons assert that unless and until the US and/or Israel perpetrates exactly the same or worse actions than the worst of the actions committed by other actors (Nazi's, Stalin, etc, etc), then the US and/or Israel should not be criticized nor compared in any way shape or form with historic despotic regimes. Unfortunately, you offer nothing to lead us to think you are correct.
"... It's patently a false premise. "
If your claim were true, then anyone would agree, however, you make no attempt to substantiate this claim. It is assumed to be true.
"... A murder is still a murder whether they kill 1 person of 1000, scale is the only difference. Pol Pot afaik did not have any gas chambers, so should not be talked about in the same sentence as Hitler eh? [rhetorical question] ..."
The achievements Pol Pot et al. , numbering in the single millions, are in one sense insignificant to the bigger numbers of Adolf and Co., but their campaign still stands up as almost 20% of the population was killed. No mean feat that.
"...Me: '... The dehumanization by elements of the Allies is quite frightening ...'
Chryses: 'Do please elaborate. Be specific, particularly in the similarities between Germany in the period 1930 - 1945, and contemporary events.'
If there is ever a thread on similarities between Germany in the period 1930 - 1945, and contemporary events - discuss, I will of course go into more detail. For now, you will have to make do with the similarities I have posted thus far, lest we get side tracked."
That is a convoluted way to admit that you will not provide a coherent explanation or provide evidence about why you made this claim.
Yet another unsubstantiated claim.
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#173. At 9:27pm on 23 Oct 2010)
“... I'm pretty pissed of wherever I see innocent civilians being attacked by belligerent, radicalised, evangelical fundamentalists, Somalia is one of those places. We should help them help themselves just like any morally correct person should help anyone in distress.”
So why do you suggest that those who did decide to remove Saddam Hussein from a position of influence stand trial for doing so?
Oh, yes. I forgot. While you profess to desire regime change, “... We should help them help themselves just like any morally correct person should help anyone in distress.” when it comes down to actually doing something, you prefer to prosecute those who do the deed.
Permit me to refer you again to what Google returned when I entered “a person whose actions belie stated beliefs”.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrite
Complain about this comment
#198
Andy, minor nit pick but before anyone sees dark things in your post.
The CIA conducts foreign surveillance. Within the US the FBI is resposnible for counter intelligence and should the CIA want information to be collected domestically thaey must go through the FBI. This rule has not always been observed but it is law and is laid out in the charters of each organization.
The NSA is a hazier area. Primarily a cryptological organization they may be asked to gather information on pretty much anyone by the relevant authority.
In the case of anyone on US soil (regardless of being a Citizen or not) then there must be 'probable cause' for the search / intelligence gathering. Generally this means haveing a warrant issued by a relevant court (there is a special court for intelligence matters that does not have it's proceedings made public).
Failure to comply is a violation of the fourth Amendment. These rules have been stretched and in some instances folks aregue, broken. But this is how it is supposed to work.
Craven
Complain about this comment
Andy wrote:
"... This blog is too small a place for me to present all the evidence I've collated and it's probably only a very small part of what has been collated by more professional researchers ..."
Chryses wrote:
"I take it from the above that you will, in fact, be providing no evidence to persuade anyone. I expected little, and you delivered. Thank you."
You're welcome, little is what you shall receive. I am not here to persuade, only one person can persuade and that person is oneself. I can only hope to point someone in a direction that they may not have thought to look, in some small way.
Andy wrote:
"... In summary though, there's the condoning of abuse & torture [Abu Ghraib, "Copper Green Special Access Plan", the deaths and mistreatment of prisoners in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistanand the like; ..."
"... and the like ..." Excuse me? Just what is that supposed to mean? "
"and the like" means and also other places that the US is accused of abuse & torture of prisoners in their custody in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, namely Guantanamo and other US sites. Seemed pretty clear to me.
"Is this the type of clear thinking, incisive, penetrating criticism you believe will persuade a Federal court, or any court for that matter (other than perhaps a Kangaroo Court), to convict?"
Of course I don't think this brief summary I have provided would persuade a Federal court, or any court for that matter, to convict - what a daft question.
As I said, this blog is too small a place for me to present all the evidence I've collated and it's probably only a very small part of what has been collated by more professional researchers and as much information as possible should be presented to any court in the hope of conviction and the need for full disclosure.
Andy wrote:
"... approving the use of torture techniques banned by international law]; ..."
Chryses wrote:
"Which are the techniques you claim are torture, and which are the ones "banned by international law"? Vague generalities will never get a conviction in a REAL court."
This is not a REAL court and I am not presenting evidence to a "REAL court". As you expect little, I will give you an example - waterboarding.
Andy wrote:
"... extra judicial killings ..."
Chryses wrote:
"Specifics please.
Please read my comment at the top of this post.
Andy wrote:
"... rendition ..."
Chryses wrote:
"You are mistaken. Again. Rendition is routine law. What you probably mean is 'extraordinary rendition', which is much more controversial.
Indeed.
Andy wrote:
"... ignoring the Geneva Conventions and other international laws ..."
Chryses wrote:
"Specifics please.
Please read my comment at the top of this post.
Andy wrote:
"... including the use of chemical weapons ..."
Chryses wrote:
"You appear to be unfamiliar with the subject material. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/cbw/cw.htm
You seem to have thrown in a link with no reason as to why. You are aware of the alleged use of white phosphorous and modified napalm by Us forces in such places as Fallujah?
Andy wrote:
"... The list goes on."
Chryses wrote:
"I am confident that your list of unsubstantiated claims is a lengthy one, and grows longer each time you revisit it."
It gets longer as time passes and more US, how would you perhaps put it, perhaps high jinx, comes out.
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#217. At 03:37am on 24 Oct 2010)
“. . . OK, read that yet there's nothing in there that I can find that requires the CIA to get a prior court order to eavesdrop on an American citizen in the USA. Perhaps you could be a bit more specific (a bit of cutting & pasting) and will have better luck at searching for "CIA" in the notes you have passed to me that I scanned, than I have.”
OK.
The CIA is an organization formed by an act of Congress. As such, it is bound by Federal law. A plurality opinion in Zweibon v. Mitchell, 516 F.2d 594 (D.C. Cir. 1975), held that a warrant was required for the domestic surveillance of a domestic organization.
The government may seek a court order permitting the surveillance using the FISA court. Approval of a FISA application requires the court find probable cause that the target of the surveillance be a "foreign power" or an "agent of a foreign power", and that the places at which surveillance is requested is used or will be used by that foreign power or its agent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act#Electronic_surveillance
Complain about this comment
Andy, (# 221. At 04:09am on 24 Oct 2010)
"... Chryses wrote:
'I am confident that your list of unsubstantiated claims is a lengthy one, and grows longer each time you revisit it.'
It gets longer as time passes and more US, how would you perhaps put it, perhaps high jinx, comes out."
I am gratified that you acknowledge that your claims are unsubstantiated.
Complain about this comment
Andy wrote:
"That had me laughing out loud for it's absurdity. So, you think that after June 2004, the Iraqi security forces were in reality in charge of the Americans on Iraqi soil?"
JMM wrote:
"Actually, yes, since I was there at the time. If there was an Iraqi authority on the scene, he took precedence since it was their country. There were places we could go before that date that we could no longer go. You must remember that the US gov’t is IMHO overly sensitive to shouts of colonialism whenever we operate in a 3rd world country.
As far as it goes, OL's statement is perfectly plausible. It is not so plausible to suggest that if the US government really wanted something the Iraqui regime would have been ready willing and able to defy Washington."
While I agree it is plausable, ie, it has an appearance of truth or reason and is seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance, I do not think that the reality on the ground showed that Iraqi security forces were in charge of Americans on Iraqi soil. You seem to confirm this above with your allusion to the US being able to bend the Iraqi's to the US's desires. Further, as is reported by the BBC on 30 June 2009, "US troops have withdrawn from towns and cities in Iraq, six years after the invasion, having formally handed over security duties to new Iraqi forces. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8125547.stm . Can you explain official handover in 2009?
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#221. At 04:09am on 24 Oct 2010)
“... little is what you shall receive. I am not here to persuade, ...”
Your unsubstantiated claims bear that out. Anyone can make claims. It requires effort to substantiate valid claims.
“... only one person can persuade and that person is oneself ...“
Pure nonsense. People persuade others all the time. You don’t really expect anyone to believe that claim, do you?
“... I can only hope to point someone in a direction that they may not have thought to look, in some small way.”
It might help if you made fewer false claims.
Complain about this comment
Andy wrote:
"... I am reminded of Pastor Martin Niemöller and feel the 'Muslims'/'Arabs' are being treated similarly to the 'Jews' & others labelled untermensch in history ..."
Chryses wrote:
"An interesting juxtaposition for your open. Let us examine how you set the stage. I note how you associate a German anti-Nazi, Jews & others labelled untermensch, and Muslims/Arabs.""
I've not mentioned a "German anti-Nazi", you have.
"Most Muslims are not Arabs."
I know, which is why I put them in separate quotes. They are terms often used by people in everyday usage and are often used incorrectly.
".. Unless you are suggesting that the "'Muslims'/'Arabs'" to which you refer are being treated now [you verb tense, not mine] as "the 'Jews' & others labelled untermensch" were treated then [your use of the term 'untermensch' is applicable during the period of Nazi rule of Germany], then your claim that they are being treated similarly is false, "
The similarity between the two point in time is that both the former and the latter groups are looked upon with increasing general suspicion, hated, and many bigots looking at them as somehow sub-human, ie, they dehumanizing them.
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#221. At 04:09am on 24 Oct 2010)
"... Chryses wrote:
'You appear to be unfamiliar with the subject material. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/cbw/cw.htm'
You seem to have thrown in a link with no reason as to why. You are aware of the alleged use of white phosphorous and modified napalm by Us forces in such places as Fallujah? ..."
First, you are mistaken again. The link is what is referred to as substantiation, in this instance that the U.S. deactivated its chemical weapon stocks pursuant to a treaty. So the link was reasonable.
Second neither white phosphorous nor napalm are chemical weapons.(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4442988.stm)
Have you been reduced to making claims you know to be false when you make them?
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#221. At 04:09am on 24 Oct 2010)
"... extra judicial killings ...
Chryses wrote:
‘Specifics please.’
Please read my comment at the top of this post.”
Translation: I cannot, or I will not provide evidence to warrant my claim.
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#221. At 04:09am on 24 Oct 2010)
"... rendition ...
Chryses wrote:
‘You are mistaken. Again. Rendition is routine law. What you probably mean is 'extraordinary rendition', which is much more controversial.’
Indeed.”
Well, at least you acknowledged THAT mistake. Thank you.
Complain about this comment
Andy wrote:
"... This is the crux of the problem with right-wing neo-cons. Unless and until the US and/or Israel perpetrates exactly the same or worse actions than the worst of the actions committed by other actors (Nazi's, Stalin, etc, etc), then the US and/or Israel should not be criticized nor compared in any way shape or form with historic despotic regimes.
Chryses wrote::
"Let us examine this claim. You assert that the position of "right-wing neo-cons" is that some entities "should not" be "compared in any way" with "despotic regimes" "unless and until" those entities "perpetrates exactly the same or worse actions than the worst of the actions committed" by aforesaid despotic regimes.
As this claim was made in your post #149 in rebuttal to me, and as it was immediately preceded by contrasting quotes from the two of us, it is reasonable to infer that you include me in the group described as "right-wing neo-cons".
This is inconsistent with his post #197 "... The impression I'm getting is that you're views are that of a belligerent radicalised evangelical fundamentalist ..."
Again, those internal inconsistencies (unless, of course 'right-wing neo-cons' are at the same time 'belligerent radicalised evangelical fundamentalist')."
'Right-wing neo-cons' are a sub-set of 'belligerent radicalised evangelical fundamentalist'.
Chryses wrote::
"Your claim begs the question; is it true? Is it true that right-wing neo-cons assert that unless and until the US and/or Israel perpetrates exactly the same or worse actions than the worst of the actions committed by other actors (Nazi's, Stalin, etc, etc), then the US and/or Israel should not be criticized nor compared in any way shape or form with historic despotic regimes. Unfortunately, you offer nothing to lead us to think you are correct."
Andy wrote:
"... It's patently a false premise. "
Chryses wrote::
"If your claim were true, then anyone would agree, however, you make no attempt to substantiate this claim. It is assumed to be true."
In my opinion and experience, it is true. I have oft come across self confessed right-wing neo-cons though debate, and in each case their arguments are basically as I have stated. Also, who is this "us" you seem to speak for?
It is late, I must retire.
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#221. At 04:09am on 24 Oct 2010)
"... extra judicial killings ..."
Chryses wrote:
‘Specifics please.’
Please read my comment at the top of this post.”
Translation: I cannot, or I will not provide evidence to warrant my claim.
Complain about this comment
Chryses wrote:
"... I'm pretty pissed of wherever I see innocent civilians being attacked by belligerent, radicalised, evangelical fundamentalists, Somalia is one of those places. We should help them help themselves just like any morally correct person should help anyone in distress.”
Chryses wrote:
"So why do you suggest that those who did decide to remove Saddam Hussein from a position of influence stand trial for doing so?
Oh, yes. I forgot. While you profess to desire regime change, “... We should help them help themselves just like any morally correct person should help anyone in distress.” when it comes down to actually doing something, you prefer to prosecute those who do the deed."
You are mistaken, again. As I stated in post 186, "I'm not one of those who think our powers that be should be prosecuted for wanting to remove a dictator, Saddam, from power. I am one of those who thinks they should be prosecuted for HOW they went about removing a dictator, Saddam, from power. I hope I have made that clear.
And to repeat yet again, "I assume you like having sex your choosen partner, but I doubt you would rape said choosen partner just because you fancied a bit of slap and tickle. Similarly my issue is with the ‘how’ the regime is changed, not regime change itself per se."
"Permit me to refer you again to what Google returned when I entered “a person whose actions belie stated beliefs”.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrite "
You confuse me with a bear. Goodbye
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#221. At 04:09am on 24 Oct 2010)
"... approving the use of torture techniques banned by international law]; ...
Chryses wrote:
‘Which are the techniques you claim are torture, and which are the ones "banned by international law"? Vague generalities will never get a conviction in a REAL court.’
This is not a REAL court and I am not presenting evidence to a ‘REAL court’ ...”
Ah, but you would need to present your arguments before a REAL court if you were to get a prosecution, wouldn’t you? Of course you would, so you must really try to do better.
“... As you expect little, I will give you an example - waterboarding.”
Yet another mistake, I believe. Please identify the international law under which it is banned. You will fail here also, as no such law bans waterboarding. Still, perhaps you will try to persuade (there’s that oh so inconvenient word again) youself and others that there is such a law. Which international law will you select?
Please be specific. Provide links. Remember now, no vague generalities. Go for that prosecution!
Complain about this comment
Ron Craven wrote:
"Andy, minor nit pick but before anyone sees dark things in your post.
The CIA conducts foreign surveillance. Within the US the FBI is resposnible for counter intelligence and should the CIA want information to be collected domestically thaey must go through the FBI. This rule has not always been observed but it is law and is laid out in the charters of each organization.
The NSA is a hazier area. Primarily a cryptological organization they may be asked to gather information on pretty much anyone by the relevant authority.
In the case of anyone on US soil (regardless of being a Citizen or not) then there must be 'probable cause' for the search / intelligence gathering. Generally this means haveing a warrant issued by a relevant court (there is a special court for intelligence matters that does not have it's proceedings made public).
Failure to comply is a violation of the fourth Amendment. These rules have been stretched and in some instances folks aregue, broken. But this is how it is supposed to work.
Craven"
Thanks. I had realised much of and, regarding agencies, that is why in post 198 I stated (my bold for emphasis), "I believe that a prior court order is required to allow the NSA to eavesdrop on an American citizen in the USA,...".
Chryses is still running the believe that a prior court order is required by the CIA to eavesdrop on an American citizen in the USA. I've asked for substantiation but expect a retraction & acronym change, yet, after repeated links from Chryses to dictionary.reference.com, I'm not that inclinded any more to care much what that poster posts.
Complain about this comment
Andy wrote:
". . . OK, read that yet there's nothing in there that I can find that requires the CIA to get a prior court order to eavesdrop on an American citizen in the USA. Perhaps you could be a bit more specific (a bit of cutting & pasting) and will have better luck at searching for "CIA" in the notes you have passed to me that I scanned, than I have.”
Andy wrote:
"OK.
The CIA is an organization formed by an act of Congress. As such, it is bound by Federal law. A plurality opinion in Zweibon v. Mitchell, 516 F.2d 594 (D.C. Cir. 1975), held that a warrant was required for the domestic surveillance of a domestic organization."
Zweibon v. Mitchell, 516 F.2d 594 (D.C. Cir. 1975) covers domestic surveillance of a domestic organization, you've yet to substantial your point that the CIA needs to get a prior court order to eavesdrop on an American citizen in the USA (my bold to help you keep your focus, here's hoping).
http://openjurist.org/720/f2d/162/zweibon-v-n-mitchell
Complain about this comment
Andy, (# 216. At 03:16am on 24 Oct 2010)
“Chryses wrote:
‘....the two terms ['untermensch' & 'unlawful combatants'] define different collections of people....
..
The former is not a human, the latter is.’
There you go again. So, in your book, some people are not human, which is exactly the view of Nazi Germany in regards to Jews, Gypsies, Poles along with other Slavic people like the Russians, Ukrainians, so-called Mischlinge and anyone else who was not an ‘Aryan’.”
You do seem to enjoy attempting to misrepresent my posts, don’t you?
“There you go again. . . “
You are mistaken. As I did not ‘go’ the first time, I can hardly ‘go’ again, now can I? That which you are falsely claiming as my first ‘go’ was merely your grotesque misrepresentation in post #198 of an observation that 'untermensch' and 'unlawful combatants' define different collections of people. I showed that your post #198 was a misrepresentation in post #209.
“. . .So, in your book, some people are not human, . . .”
You are again mistaken. At no time did I post anything of the sort. I defy you to find what you claim is there. Prove me wrong. You will fail again.
“. . .which is exactly the view of Nazi Germany in regards to Jews, Gypsies, Poles along with other Slavic people like the Russians, Ukrainians, so-called Mischlinge and anyone else who was not an ‘Aryan’.”
As I have not espoused such views, and as your allusion is an attemt to falsely attribute evil to me, it is nothing more than an ad hominem argument.
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant, in this instance false, claim about the author, in this instance me.
It is a pity you have elected to stoop this low.
Complain about this comment
Chryses wrote:
"You appear to be unfamiliar with the subject material. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/cbw/cw.htm'"
Andy wrote:
"You seem to have thrown in a link with no reason as to why. You are aware of the alleged use of white phosphorous and modified napalm by Us forces in such places as Fallujah? ..."
Chryses wrote:
"First, you are mistaken again. The link is what is referred to as substantiation, in this instance that the U.S. deactivated its chemical weapon stocks pursuant to a treaty. So the link was reasonable.
Second neither white phosphorous nor napalm are chemical weapons.(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4442988.stm)
Have you been reduced to making claims you know to be false when you make them?"
I make the allegation in good faith and will, if you don't mind, take a courts view on whether the allegation is baseless or not rather than yours.
I allege that the US used WP contravention of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), ie, US forces used the toxic properties of white phosphorus in their "Shake and Bake" operations, ie, they used it as a weapon.
Further, from your linked article, "a reported US army document from 1991 which refers to WP as a chemical weapon".
Obviously there is doubt about it was used as a weapon and whether it's a chemical weapon or not, a court rather than your bald statements are what are required.
Complain about this comment
Andy wrote:
"... little is what you shall receive. I am not here to persuade, ...”
Chryses wrote:
"Your unsubstantiated claims bear that out. Anyone can make claims. It requires effort to substantiate valid claims."
I'm tempted to throw your dictionary link back at you, I will resist.
Andy wrote:
"... only one person can persuade and that person is oneself ...“
Chryses wrote:
"Pure nonsense. People persuade others all the time. You don’t really expect anyone to believe that claim, do you?"
As a drone, you may be programmed by others, I however make up my own mind based on information others point me to to tell me.
Andy wrote:
"... I can only hope to point someone in a direction that they may not have thought to look, in some small way.”
Chryses wrote:
"It might help if you made fewer false claims."
Can you substantiate that in a coherent and reasonable manner for a change?
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#230. At 04:43am on 24 Oct 2010)
"...Right-wing neo-cons' are a sub-set of 'belligerent radicalised evangelical fundamentalist ..."
Ah, yet another unsubstantiated claim. They are beginning to get a bit wild, don't you think?
"... In my opinion and experience, it is true...."
I see. So the plural of anecdote is, what, 'data'? No, I fear you'll need to do better that "because I said so".
"... I have oft come across self confessed right-wing neo-cons though debate..."
I am debating you, here, now. Does that make me a "self confessed right-wing neo-con"? I think not, but we do not always use logic the same way.
"..., and in each case their arguments are basically as I have stated ..."
And how have you so stated? Or will this be yet another unsubstantiated claim we are all to accept on faith?
"...Also, who is this "us" you seem to speak for?"
Why it is everyone who is reading our posts of course! Each time I refute your arguments, or point out that you have provided no evidence to support your claims, or that you really, truly did claim that the CIA and the Gestapo were similar - that would be my post #163.
Although I do in no way speak for them, I let them read what I have shown you to have written.
Complain about this comment
Andy wrote:
“. . .So, in your book, some people are not human, . . .”
Chryses wrote:
“You are again mistaken. At no time did I post anything of the sort. I defy you to find what you claim is there. Prove me wrong. You will fail again.
Here's the proof:
“Chryses wrote:
‘....the two terms ['untermensch' & 'unlawful combatants'] define different collections of people....
..
The former is not a human, the latter is.’
You contend that 'untermensch' & 'unlawful combatants' define a collection of "people" yet you then go on to say the former, 'untermensch', are not "human" even though contradict that by saying they're also "people".
I am unaware of any people who are not human and any humans who are not people.
You keep on saying that the former, 'untermensch', are not "human" which is exactly the same position of the German Nazi's who regarded to Jews, Gypsies, Poles along with other Slavic people like the Russians, Ukrainians, so-called Mischlinge and anyone else who was not an ‘Aryan’.” as 'untermensch', or in your stated view "not a human".
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#234. At 05:05am on 24 Oct 2010)
"... Chryses is still running the believe that a prior court order is required by the CIA to eavesdrop on an American citizen in the USA ..."
Excuse me? Would you think it rude of me to ask you to identify the post where I claimed that, "a prior court order is required by the CIA to eavesdrop on an American citizen in the USA". You are setting yourself up for failure again.
"... I've asked for substantiation but expect a retraction & acronym change, yet, after repeated links from Chryses to dictionary.reference.com, I'm not that inclinded any more to care much what that poster posts."
But you DO seem to be more than happy to misrepresent my posts, now don't you? Surely you recall your posts #198 and #216? The ones where you suggest that I am similar to Nazi thinking on race?
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#237. At 05:32am on 24 Oct 2010)
“... ‘Have you been reduced to making claims you know to be false when you make them?’
I make the allegation in good faith and will, if you don't mind, take a courts view on whether the allegation is baseless or not rather than yours ...”
The fact that you made the allegation in good faith does not change the fact that neither White phosphorous nor napalm are chemical weapons.
You were wrong.
Again.
“... I allege that the US used WP contravention of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), ie, US forces used the toxic properties of white phosphorus in their "Shake and Bake" operations, ie, they used it as a weapon ...“
Allege away! Accusations, like talk, are cheap! As neither White phosphorous nor napalm are chemical weapons.
You were wrong.
Again.
Further, from your linked article, "a reported US army document from 1991 which refers to WP as a chemical weapon".
Here is a quote from the linked article
“... The CWC is monitored by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, based in The Hague. Its spokesman Peter Kaiser was asked if WP was banned by the CWC and he had this to say:
‘No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement.
If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the Convention legitimate use.’ “
Nice try at misrepresenting my post’s link.
“... Obviously there is doubt about it was used as a weapon and whether it's a chemical weapon or not, a court rather than your bald statements are what are required.”
Yes, obviously there is doubt about it. At least the CWC’s Peter Kaiser thinks so, even if you don’t.
Here is the link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4442988.stm
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Andy, (#226. At 04:32am on 24 Oct 2010)
"... I am reminded of Pastor Martin Niemöller and feel the 'Muslims'/'Arabs' are being treated similarly to the 'Jews' & others labelled untermensch in history ..."
"... I've not mentioned a "German anti-Nazi", you have ..."
You must be making some type of jest, yes? Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller was a German anti-Nazi theologian and Lutheran pastor.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller)
Wrong again.
He was also a bit of a poet. I have enjoyed some of his work, so you may feel dirty reading it, but give him a try anyway.
"... Unless you are suggesting that the "'Muslims'/'Arabs'" to which you refer are being treated now [you verb tense, not mine] as "the 'Jews' & others labelled untermensch" were treated then [your use of the term 'untermensch' is applicable during the period of Nazi rule of Germany], then your claim that they are being treated similarly is false, "
The similarity between the two point in time is that both the former and the latter groups are looked upon with increasing general suspicion, hated, and many bigots looking at them as somehow sub-human, ie, they dehumanizing them.
THAT is what you call SIMILAR? Hitler's Nazis gassed several million Jews. None of the "'Muslims'/'Arabs'" to which you refer have been gassed, other than perhaps by Saddam Hussein (of whose removal you SAY you approve, but simultaneously want to prosecute those who would do your will). There are no pogroms against your "'Muslims'/'Arabs'". And you say these two groups of people have received SIMILAR treatment? Do you really expect anyone to take such claims seriously?
Complain about this comment
Reading all these posts from Andy and Chryses is a bit liking watching a 19th century bare Knuckles prize fight, lots of jabs and hooks but no haymakers. You leave for lunch after round 26 and when you come back they're in round 72 and both still standing.
IMHO you are both making some valid points but you are both swinging wild at times.
Andy your comparison of the CIA to the Gestapo is totally off the mark. Firstly the Gestapo was primarily a political police organization and responsible for internal security and domestic surveillance under the Sicherheistdienst, the SS. The closest US equivalent would be the FBI in the heyday of Hoover when he was bugging and keeping files on "radicals" such as MLK. He wasn't however shipping them off to extermination camps.
The (CIA) role of foreign and military intelligence gathering, counter espionage, etc was the responsibility of the Abwehr which was under the military, the Wehrmacht.
There is no doubt that the CIA play dirty (along with MI6, Mossad and whatever the KGB is called these days). You can get into a semantic fight over whether Predator strikes are extra judicial killings or acts of war but they are not being carried out by guys in uniform and they are killing innocent civilians along with terrorists. It seems to Chryses and Lucy among others this is acceptable "collateral damage". I'm not sure on that one. They do seem to be having a short term impact on the leadership of Al Quaida and the Taliban but I do wonder about the counter productive affect they have on the "hearts and minds" battle long term.
I'm still of the opinion that the battle with Muslim extremism ultimately is a civil war within Islam. We can keep hitting them and keep them off balance and should pursue that vigorously but in the end they will only be truly defeated when they lose the support of the people around them.
As to the more specific argument of the leaks, they hurt us a little but I don't think they change most of the world's opinion of us or most American's view on the war. The torture arguments and Gitmo and Abu Graib have been well debated for years and nothing much as changed.
In the big picture we are what every other great nation has always been....out for our own interests. We are most certainly not in the category of Hitler and Stalin, but neither are we very influenced by Ghandi and attempting to take a holier than though attitude isn't fooling anyone. We get morally outraged at Iran for stoning an adulteress and then sell 60 F15s to a country that beheads them. We support Saddam when it suits us and invade him when he leaves the reservation. I guess this is where I part company to an extent with Chryses and lean towards Andy a little. If we truly believe, as Lucy obviously does, that we are morally good and better than anybody else we still have a long way to go.
Complain about this comment
Chryses wrote:
"... Chryses is still running the believe that a prior court order is required by the CIA to eavesdrop on an American citizen in the USA ..."
Andy wrote:
"Excuse me? Would you think it rude of me to ask you to identify the post where I claimed that, "a prior court order is required by the CIA to eavesdrop on an American citizen in the USA". You are setting yourself up for failure again."
It would not be rude, just extremely lazy. Search the thread for your own words. Self-substantiate.
Complain about this comment
Chryses wrote:
"Have you been reduced to making claims you know to be false when you make them?’
I am not you.
Andy wrote:
"I make the allegation in good faith and will, if you don't mind, take a courts view on whether the allegation is baseless or not rather than yours ...”
Chryses wrote:
"The fact that you made the allegation in good faith does not change the fact that neither White phosphorous nor napalm are chemical weapons.
You were wrong."
You have substantiated my allegation with the link you provide that in certain circumstances, the use can contravene the CWC. Please keep up, your own links or substantiate what I am alleging. How am I wrong - substantiate how I am wrong.
Andy wrote:
"Further, from your linked article, "a reported US army document from 1991 which refers to WP as a chemical weapon"."
Chryses wrote:
"Here is a quote from the linked article
“... The CWC is monitored by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, based in The Hague. Its spokesman Peter Kaiser was asked if WP was banned by the CWC and he had this to say:
‘No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement.
If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the Convention legitimate use.’ “
Nice try at misrepresenting my post’s link."
You're in denial as well as being wilfully misleading. Here is my statement from that same post which you have choose to ignore and not copy&paste:
"I allege that the US used WP contravention of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), ie, US forces used the toxic properties of white phosphorus in their "Shake and Bake" operations, ie, they used it as a weapon."
Am I wrong? Only a court can really decide - you are not a court and so your view of whether I am right or wrong is inessential as well as unsubstantiated.
Complain about this comment
240. At 05:47am on 24 Oct 2010, Andy wrote:
"...Chryses wrote:
'....the two terms ['untermensch' & 'unlawful combatants'] define different collections of people....
..
The former is not a human, the latter is.' ..."
Untermensch is German for under man, sub-man, sub-human.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untermensch)
An unlawful combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is a civilian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant)
The first definition is of something less than human. The second definition is of a human. Nothing remarkable there, merely two different definitions.
"...You contend that 'untermensch' & 'unlawful combatants' define a collection of 'people' ..."
Yes, the plural of Untermensch is Untermenschen, and the plural of unlawful combatant is unlawful combatants. More than one of each represents a collection. As I do not consider any humans to be Untermensch as the Nazis used the term, then a group of Untermensch would necessarily be a collection of people.
"...yet you then go on to say the former, 'untermensch', are not 'human' ..."
The term as the Nazis used it refers to a sub-human. They did indeed believe that there existed a class of bipedal hominids who were not human. Odd, but that is the historical record.
"... even though contradict that by saying they're also 'people' ..."
I certainly do contradict the Nazi claim that the Untermensch were not quite human. Don't you?
"... I am unaware of any people who are not human and any humans who are not people ..."
I am pleased to learn that we have at least THAT much in common.
"...You keep on saying that the former, 'untermensch', are not 'human' ..."
No I do not, and you know very well that I do not. The fact that I refer to the definition of untermensch, as something not human, in no way implies that I consider anyone not human. To claim otherwise is silly, to say the least.
"... which is exactly the same position of the German Nazi's who regarded to Jews, Gypsies, Poles along with other Slavic people like the Russians, Ukrainians, so-called Mischlinge and anyone else who was not an 'Aryan'..."
If it were true that I agreed with the Nazis that there are bipedal hominids who were not human, then you would be correct. As I do not, and never have posted so in this forum ...
You are wrong.
Again
"...as 'untermensch', or in your stated view 'not a human'."
One more reminder, at no time have I ever stated that there are bipedal hominids who were not human. Referring to a definition is rather different that expressing a belief in a claim - at least some people, and I include myself in that group, think they are quite different. In other circumstances, I fancy you would agree with me.
Nice try at misrepresenting my position, but your 'proof' is null and void.
Complain about this comment
Andy , (#246. At 06:54am on 24 Oct 2010)
"’Would you think it rude of me to ask you to identify the post where I claimed that, ‘a prior court order is required by the CIA to eavesdrop on an American citizen in the USA’ ...
It would not be rude, just extremely lazy. Search the thread for your own words. Self-substantiate.”
Translation: You cannot identify the post.
Yet another unsubstantiated claim.
Complain about this comment
Chryses wrote:
"... Unless you are suggesting that the "'Muslims'/'Arabs'" to which you refer are being treated now [you verb tense, not mine] as "the 'Jews' & others labelled untermensch" were treated then [your use of the term 'untermensch' is applicable during the period of Nazi rule of Germany], then your claim that they are being treated similarly is false,"
Chryses wrote:
"The similarity between the two point in time is that both the former and the latter groups are looked upon with increasing general suspicion, hated, and many bigots looking at them as somehow sub-human, ie, they dehumanizing them.
Chryses wrote:
"THAT is what you call SIMILAR? Hitler's Nazis gassed several million Jews. None of the "'Muslims'/'Arabs'" to which you refer have been gassed, other than perhaps by Saddam Hussein (of whose removal you SAY you approve, but simultaneously want to prosecute those who would do your will). There are no pogroms against your "'Muslims'/'Arabs'". And you say these two groups of people have received SIMILAR treatment? Do you really expect anyone to take such claims seriously?"
You are clearly decietful.
The similarity is clear and you should try to comprehend the meaning of Niemöller I mentioned.
I have stated several times that I do not think US authorities should be prosecuted for regime change alone, but for HOW they enacted regime change.
You are clearly wasting my time and have much to learn about rational debate.
I will leave you with Niemöller words:
They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#247. At 07:10am on 24 Oct 2010)
"... You have substantiated my allegation with the link you provide that in certain circumstances, the use can contravene the CWC... ."
Unless you can prove the claim that the weapons were used in the circumstances which contravene the CWC ...
You are mistaken.
Again.
"... How am I wrong - substantiate how I am wrong.
OK. I'll let the CWC spokesman do so (again from the link http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4442988.stm)
"... The CWC is monitored by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, based in The Hague. Its spokesman Peter Kaiser was asked if WP was banned by the CWC and he had this to say:
'No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement.
If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the Convention legitimate use.' "
Peter does not seem to agree with you.
"...You're in denial as well as being wilfully misleading. Here is my statement from that same post which you have choose to ignore and not copy&paste: ..."
Ah, so if I fail to include in my posts what you deem apropos, then I am "in denial as well as being wilfully misleading". Well, you are entitled to that opinion.
"...Am I wrong? Only a court can really decide ..."
Don't be silly. Most errors are identified outside a courtroom.
"... - you are not a court and so your view of whether I am right or wrong is inessential as well as unsubstantiated."
Let me see if I understand what you wrote. Because I am not a court, my view is inessential as well as unsubstantiated, is that what you meant?
I don't think so.
Complain about this comment
qmrfc67 wrote:
"Reading all these posts from Andy and Chryses is a bit liking watching a 19th century bare Knuckles prize fight, lots of jabs and hooks but no haymakers. You leave for lunch after round 26 and when you come back they're in round 72 and both still standing."
My patience has ended due to the manner of the opponent. Shame.
"IMHO you are both making some valid points but you are both swinging wild at times.
Andy your comparison of the CIA to the Gestapo is totally off the mark. Firstly the Gestapo was primarily a political police organization and responsible for internal security and domestic surveillance under the Sicherheistdienst, the SS. The closest US equivalent would be the FBI in the heyday of Hoover when he was bugging and keeping files on "radicals" such as MLK. He wasn't however shipping them off to extermination camps.
The (CIA) role of foreign and military intelligence gathering, counter espionage, etc was the responsibility of the Abwehr which was under the military, the Wehrmacht."
I agree that the CIA is not as bad as the Gestapo was but I do not agree my chosen similarities are totally off the mark, for the reasons I have stated. OK, we can agree to disagree.
qmrfc67 wrote:
"There is no doubt that the CIA play dirty (along with MI6, Mossad and whatever the KGB is called these days). You can get into a semantic fight over whether Predator strikes are extra judicial killings or acts of war but they are not being carried out by guys in uniform and they are killing innocent civilians along with terrorists."
As the CIA are killing, via drones, people in outside the US and the fact their civilians and not wearing uniforms, I think they could be classed (as "terrorists" are) as illegal combatants. Their actions are suspect and they should be investigated by an international court to determine if their are legal actions and by extension, whether their masters are guilty of infringing some international law(s)/convention(s) by ordering them and allowing them to kill.
qmrfc67 wrote:
"It seems to Chryses and Lucy among others this is acceptable "collateral damage". I'm not sure on that one. They do seem to be having a short term impact on the leadership of Al Quaida and the Taliban but I do wonder about the counter productive affect they have on the "hearts and minds" battle long term."
Agreed. With each day that passes and with each civilian death and violations of other states sovereignty, they radicalise more people in my view.
qmrfc67 wrote:
"I'm still of the opinion that the battle with Muslim extremism ultimately is a civil war within Islam. We can keep hitting them and keep them off balance and should pursue that vigorously but in the end they will only be truly defeated when they lose the support of the people around them."
Agreed.
qmrfc67 wrote:
"As to the more specific argument of the leaks, they hurt us a little but I don't think they change most of the world's opinion of us or most American's view on the war. The torture arguments and Gitmo and Abu Graib have been well debated for years and nothing much as changed."
The recently released reports show the US administration to have lied. I also think they show they breach international law by not doing more to halt abuse & torture when they came across it/reasonably believe it was happening.
qmrfc67 wrote:
"In the big picture we are what every other great nation has always been....out for our own interests. We are most certainly not in the category of Hitler and Stalin, but neither are we very influenced by Ghandi and attempting to take a holier than though attitude isn't fooling anyone. We get morally outraged at Iran for stoning an adulteress and then sell 60 F15s to a country that beheads them. We support Saddam when it suits us and invade him when he leaves the reservation. I guess this is where I part company to an extent with Chryses and lean towards Andy a little. If we truly believe, as Lucy obviously does, that we are morally good and better than anybody else we still have a long way to go."
I had hoped that with a change of Administration, the big broom would come out and there would be a sea change. That has unfortunately not happened and I am extremely disappointed. It's the same ol' same old and should not be tolerated.
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#238. At 05:38am on 24 Oct 2010)
“’’… little is what you shall receive. I am not here to persuade, ...’
Chryses wrote:
‘Your unsubstantiated claims bear that out. Anyone can make claims. It requires effort to substantiate valid claims.’
I'm tempted to throw your dictionary link back at you, I will resist.”
While I congratulate you on your restraint, I shall point out that your comment immediately above is a non sequitur. Poor form.
Complain about this comment
Chryses wrote:
"Would you think it rude of me to ask you to identify the post where I claimed that, ‘a prior court order is required by the CIA to eavesdrop on an American citizen in the USA’ ..."
Chryses wrote:
"It would not be rude, just extremely lazy. Search the thread for your own words. Self-substantiate.”
Translation: You cannot identify the post.
Yet another unsubstantiated claim.
Post 113.
Chryses, you are an annoying, lying, deceitful poster, goodbye.
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#250. At 07:23am on 24 Oct 2010)
“... You are clearly decietful.
The similarity is clear and you should try to comprehend the meaning of Niemöller I mentioned.
I have stated several times that I do not think US authorities should be prosecuted for regime change alone, but for HOW they enacted regime change.
You are clearly wasting my time and have much to learn about rational debate ...”
Ah, more of the trenchant, penetrating insights of yours I have come to expect and enjoy.
“... I will leave you with Niemöller words ...“
Yes, but you don’t go, do you? Post #232 “It is late, I must retire.” Post #232 “Goodbye”
I am minded of the General’s admonitions to the Police from “Pirates of Penzance”!
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#252. At 07:41am on 24 Oct 2010)
"...My patience has ended due to the manner of the opponent. Shame..."
Patience, we are taught, is a virtue. And virtue is its own reward.
"...I agree that the CIA is not as bad as the Gestapo was ..."
Well, well. The age of reason is not over!
"... but I do not agree my chosen similarities are totally off the mark, for the reasons I have stated. OK, we can agree to disagree."
Hmmmm. Perhaps I spoke too soon.
Complain about this comment
@204. SaintDominick:
I wrote "Try again. Rather than slur me, my point is that valid questions have not been answered..."
you wrote "I apologize for the tone of my response to the claim you made."
Thanks! :-)
I hope you'll be able to check out those unanswered questions some time...
Complain about this comment
@245. qmrfc67 wrote:
"Reading all these posts from Andy and Chryses is a bit liking watching a 19th century bare Knuckles prize fight..."
I agree! I can't believe that either of these two exist in my time zone. They've been crossing swords (sorry, mixed metaphor) all night. It's good to see people with less of a social life than my own! ;-) I think I'll sit on the side lines and cheer them on.
I'm with Andy too. While Chryses is obviously a clever and cunning blog boxer (lottery-money sponsored perhaps), he is attempting to defend the indefensible: secrecy for secrecy's sake, CIA's activities and appearing to side with the torturers.
I'd say Andy will win the argument with a knock-out punch in the fourth round. ;-)
Complain about this comment
180. At 10:03pm on 23 Oct 2010, ynda20 wrote:
Yep. They broke US Laws.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22139312/
______________________________________________________________
According to your citation, “Critics” say what they did was illegal. Of course, “Critics” say every time a member of the Bush Administration got out of bed, they broke the law.
_________________________________________________
And besides torture there are also their "executive assassination ring"...
____________________________________________________________
Like that’s something new. Jimmy Carter was the only C-n-C that didn’t have the stomach for that sort of thing.
______________________________________________________________
And you're all ok with that?
_______________________________________________________
Yep, whatever it takes to win because the cost of loosing is too high. I really don’t give a tinker’s damn what the rest of the world thinks of the US. Except, that I want the rest of the world to be certain that if they are in any way implicated in flying planes into US buildings, or hiding WMD after signing surrender documents to the contrary, that they will see fire and brimstone falling from heaven on their cities.
Complain about this comment
CIA are killing random people deep into Pakistan (not just the border area) using drones. That's state-sponsored terrorism!
AQ was set up by the CIA according to Robin Cook MP
CIA was conducting extraordinary rendition via UK airports according to Police Chief Michael Todd
CIA said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq which wasn't true, said David Kelly
WTC7 had explosions within it before the WTC towers fell said Barry Jennings
9/11 was inside job said campaigner and 9/11 Family member, Beverly Eckert
CIA outsourced torture to Uzbekistan said Craig Murray
CIA Executive Assassination Ring set up by US government, said Seymour Hersh
Osama Bin Laden was a CIA agent said FBI whistleblower Sybil Edmonds in a legal deposition
CIA knew the 9/11 Terrorists before the event and stopped information getting to the FBI said FBI agent Coleen Rowley
The fact that CIA used torture to extract confessions for the 9/11 Commission (and then destroyed the interrogation tapes) shocked Philip Zelikow - (9/11 Commission was "set up to fail" according to some of the commissioners themselves!)
The 9/11 terrorists "planned 9/11" in a motel across the road from CIA headquarters according to reporter, James Bamford.
CIA did not share information with the Army's Able Danger project, which had identified some of the 9/11 hijackers prior to 9/11
The CIA organised drug running between S. America and USA according to Gary Webb.
And the wikileaks story ummm...
Complain about this comment
@259. Oldloadr
You wrote "whatever it takes to win because the cost of loosing is too high. I really don’t give a tinker’s damn what the rest of the world thinks of the US. Except, that I want the rest of the world to be certain that if they are in any way implicated in flying planes into US buildings, or hiding WMD after signing surrender documents to the contrary, that they will see fire and brimstone falling from heaven on their cities."
So if there was evidence that 9/11 was an "inside job" and merely a false flag attack to start wars of aggression then you would not be so happy?
So how's that investigation into 9/11 going? What do you say to the 9/11 Families and 1300+ named, professional and certified architects and engineers that say the official story doesn't stack up?
Complain about this comment
53. At 10:53am on 23 Oct 2010, jr4412 wrote:
well, one thing's changed since the sixties -- the CIA is now worse than the Gestapo.
-------
Saying that CIA is worse than the Gestapo immediately calls in to question the debaters view of a balanced exchange.May be some in the CIA have over stepped their remit or chosen to turn a blind eye to unlawful practices of others.But to compare that,with systematic genocide by all means possible,by a state controlled apparatus of murder, to countless millions of innocents,brings to question is it worth talking to those with such ignorance.
I so-pose some one must try to explain fact from fiction,but its bloody
well not going to be me.
Complain about this comment
259. , Oldloadr wrote:
"Yep, whatever it takes to win because the cost of loosing is too high. I really don’t give a tinker’s damn what the rest of the world thinks of the US. Except, that I want the rest of the world to be certain that if they are in any way implicated in flying planes into US buildings, or hiding WMD after signing surrender documents to the contrary, that they will see fire and brimstone falling from heaven on their cities."
How would you know if you have won, or for that matter, lost?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
ukwales #262.
"..calls in to question the debaters view of a balanced exchange.May be some in the CIA have over stepped their remit.."
you sound like yet one more of the perpetual apologists. question away all you will, but remember, truth will out (destroying tapes and files won't change that, nor pointing fingers at Mr Assange).
Complain about this comment
263. At 09:29am on 24 Oct 2010, Andy wrote:
How would you know if you have won, or for that matter, lost?
_______________________________________________________-
That is an excellent question. The sad part is I know the answer and I don’t like it. I know that Al Qaida and their fellow travelers are patient. Some leaders amongst them have even talked of a 100 year plan to subjugate the West to sharia law. So, I guess winning means every year no American is forced to kneel towards Mecca 5 times a day is a tactical victory. When they give up and accept Western Secular democracy, or when there are no Muslims left who really need 72 virgins all that bad, then we will have won. It’ll be much easier to see when we have lost:
1. When there are one-sided laws against proselytizing.
2. When women can’t tank tops to shopping malls.
3. When only one in 10 grocery stores sale pork (if at all) and it costs more than high quality beef.
Keep in mind, these are just the obvious outward signs that we’ve lost, along with the guy wailing from that skinny tower 5 times a day. That’s what it’s like in the most westernized Arabian Gulf Country.
Complain about this comment
Oldloadr #265.
and another 9/11 fact that you'll be happy (I'm sure) to rationalise away:
"The most damning FBI report reads: "ON 9/19/01, A 727 PLANE LEFT LAX, RYAN FLT#441 TO ORLANDO, FL W/ETA (estimated time of arrival) OF 4-5PM. THE PLANE WAS CHARTERED EITHER BY THE SAUDI ARABIAN ROYAL FAMILY OR OSAMA BIN LADEN."
also, I'm sure that you know the old saying: "None are so blind as those that will not see"
Complain about this comment
The scale of this leak by Wikileaks is truly astounding; whoever provided information to wiki-leaks has committed an act that comes very close to treason in my humble opinion. The response has been typical and this blog has been filled with breathtaking accusations; some are preposterous and outrageous, others disturbingly probable. The fact that the head of wikileaks has released this information in the manner that he has is ample evidence for me that he does not desire to improve America's foreign policy and image rather, he seeks to completely discredit both. To what horrifying end does this lead us? I'm at a loss for words...
To posters and readers alike who hold the opinion that 9/11 was an inside job to propel us into wars in the Middle-East, you are wrong. The idea that some people have such deeply cynical opinions is highly disturbing to me.
How can any human being accept that their elected government conspired to intentionally allow planes loaded with men, women, and children to fly into the World Trade Center Towers, the Pentagon, and that field in Pennsylvania? Witnessing such terrible things happen in your own country live on TV is disturbing enough. As far as I am concerned, a person that implicates the Federal government in such acts is either professing a lie for truly insidious reasons, or is ignorant and willing to believe the unfathomable.
Complain about this comment
266. At 10:19am on 24 Oct 2010, jr4412 wrote:
you sound like yet one more of the perpetual apologists.
___________________________________________________________________
You must be new here. ukwales is anything but an apologist for any gov't and especially not the US gov't. We have argued more than once. The fact that your extreme hyperbolae diminish your argument is the point ukwales is trying to make.
Complain about this comment
268. At 10:41am on 24 Oct 2010, jr4412 wrote:
Oldloadr #265.
and another 9/11 fact that you'll be happy (I'm sure) to rationalise away:
"The most damning FBI report reads: "ON 9/19/01, A 727 PLANE LEFT LAX, RYAN FLT#441 TO ORLANDO, FL W/ETA (estimated time of arrival) OF 4-5PM. THE PLANE WAS CHARTERED EITHER BY THE SAUDI ARABIAN ROYAL FAMILY OR OSAMA BIN LADEN."
also, I'm sure that you know the old saying: "None are so blind as those that will not see"
___________________________________________________________
I checked the article you cited. It refers to a Boeing 727 operated Ryan Air. The only Ryan Air I know (and have flown on) owns no 727s and never operates in US air space. However I think BienvenueEnLouisiana’s answer sums up your position the best and I’ll leave it at that. As far as you last statement: Rigth back at ya'. Or, as we said during the Clinton Era: sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Complain about this comment
Oldloadr #270.
"ukwales is anything but an apologist.."
there is a deep, decades old, systemic corruption in the US of A's intelligence services, and ukwales writing "may be some in the CIA have over stepped their remit.."(emphasis added) causes me to think so; as it happens, I think you are another of those who will defend the indefensible, but hey, we don't have to share food (or anything else).
Complain about this comment
Oldloadr #271.
"I checked the article you cited."
and you're right to be unhappy with it, so am I, but it was the best of a bad lot I could find quickly; fwiw, I have memories of reading about it in one of the UK broadsheets at the time but searching the interweb now only throws up crackpot sites -- go figure!!. the Wikipedia reference below is one of the less contentious sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Laden_family#The_Bin_Laden_flights
refers to RyanAir as well, and has (working) link to a Washington Post news item re the published passenger manifest.
Complain about this comment
@265. Oldloadr wrote:
"I have 3 questions for you since you can’t seem to get past that 9/11 “might” be an inside job.:
1. How many of those 9/11 families have ever investigated an aircraft crash? (I have) How many of those particular families are pacifists by ideology?
2. How many of your structural experts know anything about the physics of aircraft crashes, including the possible temperatures reached by a lot of burning jet fuel? (I have seen metal catch fire when it wasn’t confined inside a giant tower which would create its own blast furnace effect, how hot do you think it got in the towers?)
3. How many of your structural experts have no political opinion? (I can find experts on every side of every social debate with an equal number of letters after their name and most of them do have a political opinion/leaning. I would be willing to bet any “experts” that signed a petition have a political motive for signing said petition)"
1. The families are still waiting for air crash report. None has been undertaken. You can go see at the NSTB website. There is none. Not one serially numbered aircraft part. Nothing. Not even the suppose flight data can be traced against the aircraft in question.
2. The 1300+ named architects and engineers would not have signed the petition if they weren't sure of their facts. You, on the other hand, are an unnamed blogger. Who should I believe? I'll take the people who have put their reputation on the line. Richard Gage can't find anybody to defend the official story or the science behind the NIST reports.
3. Science has no political opinion. Show me the science (and the scientists).
So there you go. You have nothing except the Politicians story announced as the attacks happened, ignoring the firefighters reporting secondary explosions, ignoring your own eyes of huge plumes of debris, symmetrical collapses, all the other things that don't make any sense at all and obediently walking into the next war without engaging any critical faculties.
You wrote "Threat ...as Al Qaida are today."
Except that Robin Cook MP said that AQ was a creation of the CIA and FBI whistleblower, Sybil Edmonds (under oath) says that OBL was a CIA agent...
So this could all be part of a Big Lie?
You wrote "1. I fully support both wars for the stated reasons."
Even though both are illegal?
You wrote "2. I think your “experts” should take off their foil caps and stop drinking the Kool-aid"
So named, professional architects and engineers and the 9/11 Families, are drinking kool-aid? Sorry I don't see where they get to be cool? That just doesn't make any sense.
You wrote "3. Even if, in the farfetched world of an alternative reality, 9/11 did turn out to be an inside job; I wouldn’t have done anything differently (as far as the attack, the management of the Afghan campaign is for another debate), but I would just hang the perpetrators and go on killing Islamists."
I'm really surprised this got past the moderators!
Talk about hate-speech!!!
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#263. At 09:29am on 24 Oct 2010)
“. . . How would you know if you have won, or for that matter, lost?”
The Romans knew they won, and the Carthaginians knew they lost. You and I know the Romans won, and you and I know the Carthaginians lost.
Complain about this comment
@269.BienvenueEnLouisiana wrote:
"How can any human being accept that their elected government conspired to intentionally allow planes loaded with men, women, and children to fly into the World Trade Center Towers, the Pentagon, and that field in Pennsylvania?"
Well, firstly you have to believe that Bush was actually fairly elected! Both 2000 and 2004 elections have huge question marks over them.
Secondly, if we just had a decent independent investigation into the air crashes or autopsies, we wouldn't be having this discussion. (Hasn't been done).
And thirdly have you heard about WTC7? Building What? www.buildingwhat.com
If you have and still have no questions about 9/11 then you're a better man than me.
You wrote "Witnessing such terrible things happen in your own country live on TV is disturbing enough. As far as I am concerned, a person that implicates the Federal government in such acts is either professing a lie for truly insidious reasons, or is ignorant and willing to believe the unfathomable."
I know what you are saying. However, "false flag attacks" are as old as warfare to justify wars of aggression. Not "everybody" in US government is involved... but just following the science of building collapses, a CSI view of "Motive Means and Opportunity" and building a legal case for the attacks (or even just basic investigations!!!)and you'll see a lot is missing. Just ask the 9/11 Families themselves!
How come most of the bodies at WTC were blown up in hundreds of bits and flung hundreds of metres from the towers? How come a third of people killed at 9/11 have no remains at all? How does a fire and collapsing building do this?!
Complain about this comment
ynda20, (#260. At 09:03am on 24 Oct 2010)
“CIA are killing random people deep into Pakistan (not just the border area) using drones.”
Random is an adjective, meaning proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern:
What is the basis for your claim that “CIA are killing random people”? Why do you believe that is true?
Complain about this comment
274. At 11:29am on 24 Oct 2010, ynda20 wrote:
Talk about hate-speech!!!
________________________________________________
Suggesting military doctrine is not hate speech (personally, I think the term hate-speech is well over used as a straw dog to stifle free expression). It's all about survival. Of course, you don't know anything about me or who my friends and business associates are. It might surprise you, but that's for another day.
Complain about this comment
274. At 11:29am on 24 Oct 2010, ynda20 wrote:
3. Science has no political opinion. Show me the science (and the scientists).
_____________________________________________________
Sorry, but I jsut have to throw the Naive card on this one. do you really believe that scientists have never, ever fudged numbhers for an ideological motive? Didnt' you see the leaked emails from East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (commonly called Hadley CRU)?
Complain about this comment
Oldloadr and BienvenueEnLouisiana,
As I suggested to SaintDominic yesterday in post #124, some people find solace in conspiracy theories. Let it be. There is no collection of facts that will dissuade a true believer. Someone who prefers to believe that 9/11 was not as many, oh so many tedious investigations have concluded is hardly likely to see the light in a blog on the Beeb.
ynda20 is one of that group. He acknowledged as much in his post #150. Permit me to quote from it.
“@148. Chryses wrote:
"There is no collection of facts ... (re 9/11)... hardly likely to see the light in a blog on the Beeb."
This is true. The argument will not be won or lost in a BBC blog ...”
That being said, feel free to engage him on the topic, but be aware that he has already stated that he will not change his position.
Complain about this comment
280. At 12:08pm on 24 Oct 2010, Chryses wrote:
Oldloadr and BienvenueEnLouisiana,
Roger, copy. Bravo Sierra session terminated.
Complain about this comment
jr4412, (#273. At 11:18am on 24 Oct 2010)
"... the Wikipedia reference below is one of the less contentious sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Laden_family#The_Bin_Laden_flights
refers to RyanAir as well, and has (working) link to a Washington Post news item re the published passenger manifest."
Permit me to quote from the article you referenced above.
"At least 13 relatives of Osama bin Laden, accompanied by bodyguards and associates, left the United States on a chartered flight with Ryan International Airlines (Ryan International Flight 441) eight days after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, according to a passenger manifest released on July 21, 2004 ... None of the flights, domestic or international, took place before the reopening of national airspace on the morning of Sept. 13 and the 9/11 Commission found 'no evidence of a political intervention'."
Perhaps it is just me, but had my surname been "bin Laden" and had I resided in the U.S. on 11-SEP-01, and I had had the opportunity to depart, I must admit that I would have been, at the very least, sorely tempted to do so. Innocent as wind driven snow I might have been, but one need not have a graduate degree in psychology to anticipate difficult, if not dangerous (or even lethal) times ahead.
There are rather more plausible explanations for those departures, the above being but one, than that the departures were part of some overarching conspiracy theory.
Complain about this comment
Chryses #282.
"None of the flights, domestic or international, took place before the reopening of national airspace.."
nine years after the events and none of us have more than our memories to rely on. (except for those who kept copies of the printed materials at the time (sadly, that excludes me))
"..the 9/11 Commission found 'no evidence of a political intervention'."
unsurprising, given the world we live in, and what's at stake.
Complain about this comment
ukwales, (#262. At 09:29am on 24 Oct 2010)
"... Saying that CIA is worse than the Gestapo immediately calls in to question the debaters view of a balanced exchange... ."
A reasonable criticism. Even Andy will only go so far as to claim that they are similar. jr4412's position is extreme and unsupportable.
"...May be some in the CIA have over stepped their remit or chosen to turn a blind eye to unlawful practices of others ..."
That is a polite way of putting it. How about some more from G&S's "The Pirates of Penzance"?
"But many a king on a first-class throne,
If he wants to call his crown his own,
Must manage somehow to get through
More dirty work than ever I do"
"... But to compare that,with systematic genocide by all means possible,by a state controlled apparatus of murder, to countless millions of innocents,brings to question is it worth talking to those with such ignorance ..."
Again, a reasonable criticism. jr4412's position is extreme and unsupportable.
"...I so-pose some one must try to explain fact from fiction,but its bloody well not going to be me."
Well, jr4412 has certainly been provided with an opportunity to move beyond his orinal thesis. Let us see if he takes advantage of the opportunity.
Complain about this comment
@277
This is from Telegraph on Friday...
"At the same time, there is growing anger at the rising death toll from the CIA's covert drone programme, which uses unmanned planes to fire missiles at suspected Taliban and al-Qaeda targets – but are often accused of killing civilians in tribal areas. "
And another article here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8052704/Rockets-destroy-more-Pakistan-petrol-tankers-bound-for-Nato-troops-in-Afghanistan.html
The latter attack was at a Pakistan Port - a long way away from the border. The target was fuel destined for NATO troops...
Complain about this comment
@278. Oldloadr wrote:
"Suggesting military doctrine is not hate speech"
At message 265, you suggested killing all islamists regardless of whether they were involved or not in 9/11! Perhaps you mis-spoke...
Complain about this comment
jr4412, (#283. At 12:43pm on 24 Oct 2010)
"… ‘None of the flights, domestic or international, took place before the reopening of national airspace.’
nine years after the events and none of us have more than our memories to rely on. (except for those who kept copies of the printed materials at the time (sadly, that excludes me)) . . .”
My post #282 may have been misleading. The portion which you quoted above was taken from the Wikipedia article you referenced. I did not mean to challenge your recollections of the event. I do believe that the departure date of the referenced flight followed, and not precede the date of the resumption of civilian aviation following 9/11.
"... ‘the 9/11 Commission found 'no evidence of a political intervention'.
unsurprising, given the world we live in, and what's at stake.”
The above suggests to me that you still posit a conspiracy, and that the 9/11 Commission were participants. If this is so, why?
Complain about this comment
@279. Oldloadr wrote:
you wrote "do you really believe that scientists have never, ever fudged numbhers for an ideological motive? Didnt' you see the leaked emails from East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (commonly called Hadley CRU)?"
Quite! You can't trust scientists - you have to SEE the science. The science of 9/11 is very mysterious! Show me a simple explanation of how buildings could collapse with plumes of debris that could fly out of an office fire? How molten steel can be seen dripping from the side of buildings from an office fire? How earthquake proof buildings (eg WTC7) crumple to the ground in freefall? All in the same day - all apparently by natural causes which have not occured before or since? How official reports question the fire temperatures? With Iron Spheres found in the GZ dust and indeed evidence of hi-tech military explosive?
So how does that all happen?
Complain about this comment
Chryses #284.
"A reasonable criticism."
is it? I did re-phrase this as 'the CIA is the new Gestapo' already (#86).
"..move beyond his orinal thesis."
seems you misspelt 'urinal', happens, eh?
"Let us see if he takes advantage of the opportunity."
given that there are a good couple of dozen or so quality comments on this blog already which provide ample evidence of the CIA's pernicious and malign role in the post-WWII world, I do not see the need to either defend my views or to add further evidence.
too many people make a good living out of deceiving others, are you one of them, Chryses?
Complain about this comment
@280/281
Ho-ho! You can't explain the facts so you run away.
So much for the budding Shelock Holmes investigators... just believe what the rich people tell you, eh?
Which country are we going to invade today?
Complain about this comment
Chryses #287.
""... ‘the 9/11 Commission found 'no evidence of a political intervention'.
unsurprising, given the world we live in, and what's at stake.”
The above suggests to me that you still posit a conspiracy, and that the 9/11 Commission were participants. If this is so, why?"
if a commission/inquiry is not given all of the pertinent facts to consider, they can come to the wrong conclusion without having to be part of a conspiracy. you imply causal relations needlessly.
Complain about this comment
ynda20, (#286. At 12:56pm on 24 Oct 2010)
"...At message 265, you suggested killing all islamists regardless of whether they were involved or not in 9/11! Perhaps you mis-spoke..."
There is no test at post #265. Do you expect us to take your claim on faith? But tosh enough of such trifles. Let us accept your post #274 to have an accurate quote, "3. Even if, in the farfetched world of an alternative reality, 9/11 did turn out to be an inside job; I wouldn't have done anything differently (as far as the attack, the management of the Afghan campaign is for another debate), but I would just hang the perpetrators and go on killing Islamists."
I note that Oldloadr did NOT suggest "suggested killing all islamists regardless of whether they were involved or not in 9/11", did he?
Perhaps you misspoke.
Complain about this comment
jr4412, (#289. At 1:04pm on 24 Oct 2010)
"... given that there are a good couple of dozen or so quality comments on this blog already which provide ample evidence of the CIA's pernicious and malign role in the post-WWII world, I do not see the need to either defend my views or to add further evidence ..."
Fair enough. As you see fit to not defend your views or to add further evidence, I can only presume that you are satisfied with the status quo.
"... too many people make a good living out of deceiving others, are you one of them, Chryses?"
And with the allusion to me earning my crust by deceiving others, we descend to the ad hominem argument. If you are unable to use argument or provide evidence to achieve your goal, attack those who disagree with you, eh? You are aware that ad hominem arguments are logical fallacies, aren't you?
There. I do believe I spelled everything to your satisfaction. I trust that you are pleased that I have tended to that irrelevant complaint.
Complain about this comment
Chryses #293.
"I trust that you are pleased that I have tended to that irrelevant complaint."
without having addressed the evidence of CIA's pernicious and malign role in the post-WWII world too, I see. ah well, you pays your money...
Complain about this comment
jr4412, (#291. At 1:09pm on 24 Oct 2010)
“... if a commission/inquiry is not given all of the pertinent facts to consider, they can come to the wrong conclusion without having to be part of a conspiracy. you imply causal relations needlessly.”
And who, pray tell, will decide what are and what are not “pertinent facts”? You? LOL!
Your assertion above is valid only if not all the pertinent facts were presented ("if a commission/inquiry is not given all of the pertinent facts ..."). It follows then that a conspiracy must have existed to sufficiently bias the data so that an incorrect conclusion was inevitably drawn.
You too seem to be a conspiracy theorist.
Believe whatever you wish!
Indulge yourself!
Enjoy!
Complain about this comment
Chryses #293.
""too many people make a good living out of deceiving others, are you one of them, Chryses?"
And with the allusion to me earning my crust by deceiving others, we descend to the ad hominem argument."
no, we don't though you might want to. I asked a simple question which you could have chosen to answer with a simple 'yes' or 'no', but you didn't.
Complain about this comment
ynda20, (#290. At 1:08pm on 24 Oct 2010)
"...Ho-ho! You can't explain the facts so you run away ..."
As you have already posted (#150) that you will not change your position, you have removed any reason to debate the subject with you.
"...So much for the budding Shelock Holmes investigators... just believe what the rich people tell you, eh? ..."
Perhaps you believe that the Engineering professors who disagree with you are "rich people". So be it.
"...Which country are we going to invade today?"
Why none, of course. Don't be silly!
Complain about this comment
jr4412, (#296. At 1:42pm on 24 Oct 2010)
"...'And with the allusion to me earning my crust by deceiving others, we descend to the ad hominem argument.'
no, we don't though you might want to. I asked a simple question which you could have chosen to answer with a simple 'yes' or 'no', but you didn't."
You are mistaken. By advancing the proposition that I have a vested, paid interest in deceiving others, you have attempted to shift the focus of the debate from the topic under consideration to one about the debater - me. This is, as you have no basis for such a claim, irrelevant. This is how an ad hominem argument is prepared. Such arguments remain logical fallacies.
For those interested in the subject of ad hominem fallacies: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
Complain about this comment
Chryses #298.
sure, whatever. :-)
good thing is, it's all public and on record (for now) and people smarter than me (and, perhaps, smarter even than you) can read and analyse the comments for themselves.
end of.
Complain about this comment
jr4412, (#294. At 1:32pm on 24 Oct 2010)
“. . .’I trust that you are pleased that I have tended to that irrelevant complaint.’
without having addressed the evidence of CIA's pernicious and malign role in the post-WWII world too, I see . . .
Had you not introduced the spelling irrelevancy, I would not have had to respond, would I?
Let us now return to relevant topics. So you would assert that the espionage which helped vanquish the Soviet Union was “pernicious and malign”? Or perhaps the CIA’s over flights of Cuba that identified the preparations for Soviet IRBMs? Were they also “pernicious and malign” in that they provided information that helped the President avoid a nuclear exchange? If you think so, well, you are entitled to your opinion.
Complain about this comment
Mark Mardell.
more calls for an investigation today, while some of the media seem to prefer to concentrate on Mr Assange rather than considering the implications of the facts revealed by the leaked material. unsurprising, really.
"Nick Clegg calls for investigation of abuse claims"
"The 39-year-old [Mr Assange] ended the interview with CNN's Atika Shubert after she brought up the issue of the charges brought against him - who himself publicised the charges as a 'dirty tricks campaign' by the U.S. government."
loads of interesting stuff happening, just google 'wikileaks in the news'.
Complain about this comment
286. At 12:56pm on 24 Oct 2010, ynda20 wrote:
At message 265, you suggested killing all islamists regardless of whether they were involved or not in 9/11! Perhaps you mis-spoke...
______________________________________________
At the risk of being censored again, I will answer your question. I used the term Islamist, not Muslim. Islamists are bent on world domination (by definition). I suppose I could have said Jihadist and maybe the moderators would have understood. Maybe there is a difference in definition on opposite sides of the Atlantic of the term Islamist. But, if you consider that I am referring to all extremists who are more than willing to kill for their religio-ideology, then I stand by my statement in this added context. You see, it's not just 9/11; that's just when they got around to killing lots of American civilians. Before that, we had:
1. Violation of US Embassy in Tehran, 1979
2. Beirut US Marine barracks bombing, 1983
3. Lockerby Bombing, 1988
4. Berlin disco bombing, 1985
5. 1st WTC bombing, 1993
6. Khobar Towers Bombing, 1996 (knew one of the dead and several of the wounded in that one)
7. USS Cole, 2000
I have probably missed a few but we here have 7 major attacks before 9/11 with only one retaliation (against Tripoli after the Berlin Disco bombing). So you see, my comrades and I have seen the Islamists at their worse and felt their sting long before 9/11 and so yes, I have no problem with terminating Jihadists with extreme prejudice (maybe that will pass muster) since they have no problem with terminating any one of us (remember Daniel Pearle).
Complain about this comment
Chryses #300.
“pernicious and malign”
"'Cause I've got cocaine
A whole lot, whole lot of cocaine, man"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_and_Contras_cocaine_trafficking_in_the_US#Reagan_Administration_admits_Contra-cocaine_connections
"But it ain't dope they're turning you
They're selling dope for guns, that's the truth"
"Most companies that work for the CIA are 'paper' companies, shells set up for a quick arms trade or an untraceable money transfer."
however, perhaps you do not agree that drug dealing and gun running are 'pernicious and malign' activities?
LOL, indeed.
really 'end of' now though Chryses, life's too short, have a good day.
Complain about this comment
jr4412, (#301. At 2:23pm on 24 Oct 2010)
“... more calls for an investigation today, while some of the media seem to prefer to concentrate on Mr Assange rather than considering the implications of the facts revealed by the leaked material. unsurprising, really.”
Would that be because “the media” are in on “the conspiracy”, or is it because they do not cover what you have decided should be reported?
Complain about this comment
jr4412, (#299. At 2:08pm on 24 Oct 2010)
“... sure, whatever. :-) ...”
I am encouraged to read your acknowledgement of the facts of the case.
“... good thing is, it's all public and on record (for now) and people smarter than me (and, perhaps, smarter even than you) can read and analyse the comments for themselves ...”
I share your opinion. As your posts are there for all to read until the Beeb takes this blog down, your attack on my character (post #289, “too many people make a good living out of deceiving others, are you one of them, Chryses?") will not go unmissed. Nor will my posts pointing out that such arguments are ad hominem fallacies.
“... end of.”
I am uncertain to what end you added this.
Complain about this comment
ref 3264
It seems that any criticsm of Assange is being removed by the moderators. Mark did you import people from NPR?
Complain about this comment
jr4412, (#303. At 2:38pm on 24 Oct 2010)
“... really 'end of' now though Chryses, life's too short, have a good day.
If what you imply comes to pass, then you will have predicted correctly.
Complain about this comment
Mark Mardell.
there's a 'lot of milage' in this story.
from the sublime (Robert Fisk asking pertinent questions):
"We still haven't got to the bottom of the WikiLeaks story, and I rather suspect that there are more than just a few US soldiers involved in this latest revelation. Who knows if it doesn't go close to the top?"
to the plainly ridiculous:
"Nouri Maliki's office accused it [Wikileaks] of trying to sabotage his bid to form a new government by making allegations he was linked to Shia death squads."
how can Wikileaks' revelations from the end of October 2010 be preventing Mr Maliki from forming a government, given that the elections were held on 7 March 2010?
Complain about this comment
ynda20 wrote:
"At message 265, you suggested killing all islamists regardless of whether they were involved or not in 9/11! Perhaps you mis-spoke...
Oldloadr wrote:
"At the risk of being censored again, I will answer your question. I used the term Islamist, not Muslim. Islamists are bent on world domination (by definition). I suppose I could have said Jihadist and maybe the moderators would have understood. Maybe there is a difference in definition on opposite sides of the Atlantic of the term Islamist. But, if you consider that I am referring to all extremists who are more than willing to kill for their religio-ideology, then I stand by my statement in this added context.
Instead of "Islamist" or even "Jihadist", how about the all encompasing "belligerent radicalised evangelical fundimentalist" (BREF)?
Islamists are not necesserily belligerent you see, Jihadists specifies the Muslim religion, I think our "enemy" crosses religious, national and political boundaries, hence my analysis years ago which I eventually came up with BREF's.
Belligerent - using force to get your message across
radicalised - being somewhat extreme/fringe
evangelical - wanting to go out and spread your message/views & convert others to it
fundimentalist - believing in a set dogma without the possibility of compromise.
Oldloadr wrote:
"You see, it's not just 9/11; that's just when they got around to killing lots of American civilians. Before that, we had:
1. Violation of US Embassy in Tehran, 1979
2. Beirut US Marine barracks bombing, 1983
3. Lockerby Bombing, 1988
4. Berlin disco bombing, 1985
5. 1st WTC bombing, 1993
6. Khobar Towers Bombing, 1996 (knew one of the dead and several of the wounded in that one)
7. USS Cole, 2000
I have probably missed a few but we here have 7 major attacks before 9/11 with only one retaliation (against Tripoli after the Berlin Disco bombing). So you see, my comrades and I have seen the Islamists at their worse and felt their sting long before 9/11 and so yes, I have no problem with terminating Jihadists with extreme prejudice (maybe that will pass muster) since they have no problem with terminating any one of us (remember Daniel Pearle).
You've clearly focuses on Muslims. Are your enemies merely a subset if "Muslims", or do you perhaps see that a broarder definition (BREF's for instance) could be a more accurate description of the "enemy"?
Complain about this comment
jr4412 wrote:
"to the plainly ridiculous:
"Nouri Maliki's office accused it [Wikileaks] of trying to sabotage his bid to form a new government by making allegations he was linked to Shia death squads."
how can Wikileaks' revelations from the end of October 2010 be preventing Mr Maliki from forming a government, given that the elections were held on 7 March 2010?"
Mr Malaki is trying to form a coalition between the rival factions in Iraq. If he is seen to have, or worse, proved to have had Shia death squads under his command killing Sunni's, then creating a broad coalition with the Sunni's is going to be a bit more difficult I would have thought.
That being said, if Mr Malaki did indeed have death squads under his command killing Sunni, then he deserves what he gets but that would mean deadlock in forming an Iraqi government and new elections needed.
I doubt very much Wikileaks had Mr Malaki's political career in mind when they released the doc's though and it's more a case of Mr Malaki has skeletons in his closet he does not want outed.
Complain about this comment
309. At 3:46pm on 24 Oct 2010, Andy wrote:
You've clearly focuses on Muslims. Are your enemies merely a subset if "Muslims", or do you perhaps see that a broarder definition (BREF's for instance) could be a more accurate description of the "enemy"?
_______________________________________________________________________
Uhhhhh, nope. Since 1984, (last attack I remember of the Bader Meinhof/Red Brigade organization) I have only been threatened/attacked by Jihadists. That is today’s enemy. Do you think we need some more enemies? I’m quite happy with just one group, especially when I have seen estimates that 10% of Muslims are radicalized and there are 1 billion Muslims. That means there are 100,000,000 Jihadists in the world who want to destroy our way of life. They me be those other things you say, although evangelical is a reach, and an insult to Muslims, since that is a term from the Greek Version of the New Testament. In modern Christianity, it means denominations that emphasize the Great Commission, which Christ pronounced right before his ascension into Heaven. It is purely non-violent in practice and connotation. Only someone who has an ax to grind with “religion” would think of such a usage of the term.
Complain about this comment
Andy #310.
"..but that would mean deadlock in forming an Iraqi government.."
seven months since the elections, from previous reporting from Iraq it would seem that a 'deadlock' already exits. I agree that Iraq's internal affairs are unlikely to have had a bearing on Wikileaks' decision, and Mr Maliki's political future should depend on his actions in the past. my post was meant to show the contrast between the BBC's lacklustre reporting of 'the story' with that of other organisations.
kudos for BREF's, excellent reasoning ("I think our "enemy" crosses religious, national and political boundaries"), I intend to use this acronym from now on.
Complain about this comment
Oldloadr #311.
"Only someone who has an ax to grind with “religion” would think of such a usage of the term."
that would include all of the editors of the Merriam-Webster dictionary then:
"5. marked by militant or crusading zeal"
Complain about this comment
jr4412 wrote: 'without having addressed the evidence of CIA's pernicious and malign role in the post-WWII world too'
Or understanding just how inept most intelligence services really are and believing the rather entertaining though ridiculous belief that the CIA have had an effect on the post war world.
He/she also wrote: 'perhaps you do not agree that drug dealing and gun running are 'pernicious and malign' activities?'
Depends on context does't it? I think in general murder is a bad thing but for dictators I'm not too sure. The same applies to drug dealing and gun running.
Complain about this comment
Andy wrote:
"You've clearly focuses on Muslims. Are your enemies merely a subset if "Muslims", or do you perhaps see that a broarder definition (BREF's for instance) could be a more accurate description of the "enemy"?"
Oldloadr wrote:
"Uhhhhh, nope. Since 1984, (last attack I remember of the Bader Meinhof/Red Brigade organization) I have only been threatened/attacked by Jihadists. That is today’s enemy."
So, you don't feel threatened by the Eric Robert Rudolph's of this world, for instance?
Oldloadr wrote:
"Do you think we need some more enemies?"
It's not a case of me wanting more enemies, it's a case of me not wanting to put my head in the sand and miss a bunch of people out there who are out to get me.
Oldloadr wrote:
"I’m quite happy with just one group, especially when I have seen estimates that 10% of Muslims are radicalized and there are 1 billion Muslims. That means there are 100,000,000 Jihadists in the world who want to destroy our way of life."
There are more than just a subset of Muslims whom could destroy your way of life.
Oldloadr wrote:
"They me be those other things you say, although evangelical is a reach, and an insult to Muslims, since that is a term from the Greek Version of the New Testament. In modern Christianity, it means denominations that emphasize the Great Commission, which Christ pronounced right before his ascension into Heaven. It is purely non-violent in practice and connotation. Only someone who has an ax to grind with “religion” would think of such a usage of the term. "
I use "evangelical " to describe the process of spreading your dogma to the wider world, the move from internal belief to external preaching/conversion. If you can think of a better word, speak up :)
Complain about this comment
Ralphy #314.
"Or understanding just how inept most intelligence services really are and believing the rather entertaining though ridiculous belief that the CIA have had an effect on the post war world."
LOL. suit yourself, it's your world too.
Complain about this comment
313. At 4:28pm on 24 Oct 2010, jr4412 wrote:
"5. marked by militant or crusading zeal"
________________________________________________________
1. That is the 5th definition, the first 4 match exactly what I said.
2. Of course, the argument only matter depending on which definition of Militant you prefer: 2. aggressively active (as in a cause)
All that said, do you really think the editors of Webster would refer to Jihadists as evangelical? Even so, there is a connotation of secular arrogance in using evangelical in this context.
Complain about this comment
Andy wrote:
"..but that would mean deadlock in forming an Iraqi government.."
jr4412 wrote:
"seven months since the elections, from previous reporting from Iraq it would seem that a 'deadlock' already exits."
Agreed, my point being that these allegations regarding Mr Malaki do not really help him in forming a coalition/from breaking the deadlock.
jr4412 wrote:
"I agree that Iraq's internal affairs are unlikely to have had a bearing on Wikileaks' decision, and Mr Maliki's political future should depend on his actions in the past. my post was meant to show the contrast between the BBC's lacklustre reporting of 'the story' with that of other organisations."
I like the BBC's reporting of the story. It's not how I would write it, it does not contain all it could, but as part of my digest of news sources, it's up there in the top 2. As an aside, Fisk is one of my favourite commentators, thanks for the link, I'd not read him for a while.
jr4412 wrote:
"kudos for BREF's, excellent reasoning ("I think our "enemy" crosses religious, national and political boundaries"), I intend to use this acronym from now on."
:-). Some people have a problem with the evangelical part. I do not mean it to specify the Christian religion though, as I have mentioned in my post 315, although I can understand the first instance confusion.
Complain about this comment
"Perhaps you believe that the Engineering professors who disagree with you are "rich people". So be it."
Perhaps you need to enlightened me on who these Engineering Professors are because I have yet to see a description of the collapse of the Three Skyscrapers in New York. You will sometimes find a short description of the twin towers but not WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 (which is a 47 story skyscraper) or any description of these collapses that account for the molten steel seen pouring from the side of WTC1 or the chemical composition of the Ground Zero dust.
I can point to you a whole crowd of named professors, scientists, architects, engineers and other professionals that find these three building collapses to be very strange.
Complain about this comment
...."Don't be silly"
http://www.indystar.com/article/20101024/OPINION03/10240365/Be-vigilant-strengthen-alliances
"Iran poses a direct threat to the United States ... I have been a strong supporter of implementing crippling economic sanctions against Iran until it fully complies with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty."
Or interestingly, this article appears to claim that the computer virus attack on Iran, was, in fact a false flag cyber-war attack!!!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/haggai-carmon/a-cyber-war-against-iran-_1_b_759939.html
"...The answer probably lies in the bigger picture. Iran seems to be seeking revenge against the U.S and its allies for imposing painful sanctions. Since the Iranians cannot retaliate directly against the U.S., without risking severe consequences, then why not accuse Israel of waging the cyber war, rightly or wrongly? That could give the Iranians a pretext, albeit transparent, to retaliate by directing their conflict-hungry satellite terrorist organization Hezbollah to shell Israeli civilian centers from Southern Lebanon."
Let's bear in mind that even the wikileaks papers may have been leaked deliberately!
So sorry if I think all the recent statements from Obama and Clinton appear to me as war mungering!
Complain about this comment
315. At 4:38pm on 24 Oct 2010, Andy wrote:
So, you don't feel threatened by the Eric Robert Rudolph's of this world, for instance?
________________________________________________________
Uh, no, I'm heterosexual and pro life, so why should I fear Eric Rudolph? BTW, I missed the name of his extra-national organization. Do you have it? Oh, that's right, he was a lone wolf and he's in jail. That would imply that all others of his ilk are lone wolves and you know what? There's not a damn thing you can do about a lone wolf before they strike, so they are not worth wasting brain-bites on.
________________________________________________________________
There are more than just a subset of Muslims whom could destroy your way of life.
______________________________________________________
Right this minute, in this world, could you name one extra-national group that is committed to destruction of Western Liberal Democracy that is not a subset of Islam?
___________________________________________________________
I use "evangelical " to describe the process of spreading your dogma to the wider world, the move from internal belief to external preaching/conversion. If you can think of a better word, speak up :)
___________________________________________________________
Considering the enemy, Jihadist is a better word. You are technically correct, but the connotation that has developed in many circles around the word evangelical make it the poorer of the two choices in describing a group that will try to convert you and then kill you if you don't convert in accordance with the Prophet Mohammad.
Complain about this comment
Oldloadr #317.
"All that said, do you really think the editors of Webster would refer to Jihadists as evangelical?"
unlikely. still, I do agree with Andy that 'Jihadi', being derived from Jihad, constrains our view unnecessarily to a specific cultural group. of course, that helps when 'pointing fingers'. ;)
Complain about this comment
Bienvenue @269
I don't think that 9/11 was an inside job either. Incompetence definitely, but deliberate act of the Fed? I just can't see it. The third building that fell down that was occupied by the secret services could have been demolished by the Fed, but this still does not suggest the Fed allowed 9/11 to happen.
I suppose people still can't comprehend such murder to happen so they delve into fantasy and conspiracy.
Back to the wikileaks leak; I would prefer such things to be brought out into the open than hidden - that's how conspiracy theories start!
Complain about this comment
I am thinking whether they plug this leak or outlet that with worldwide internet communications secrecy becomes more difficult. Ultimately over time I am thinking the debate falls narrowly on the side that this would elevate honesty and transparent and open government. Is the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008 stalled in Congress - special interests and those who require secrecy for profit do not like this bill
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-215
Complain about this comment
Andy wrote:
"So, you don't feel threatened by the Eric Robert Rudolph's of this world, for instance?"
Oldloadr wrote:
"Uh, no, I'm heterosexual and pro life, so why should I fear Eric Rudolph?"
Should you walk past an anti-abortion clinic at the the wrong time, you may be caught up in a bomb blast perpetrated my an anti-abortionist, for instance.
OK, let me give you another example; do you feel threatened by the Timothy McVeigh's of this world, for instance?
Oldloadr wrote:
"BTW, I missed the name of his extra-national organization. Do you have it? Oh, that's right, he was a lone wolf and he's in jail. That would imply that all others of his ilk are lone wolves and you know what? There's not a damn thing you can do about a lone wolf before they strike, so they are not worth wasting brain-bites on."
He fits within my label, BREF and he and his ilk are a subset of my enemy, but seemingly not yours. You're either with us, or against us :)
Andy wrote:
"There are more than just a subset of Muslims whom could destroy your way of life."
Oldloadr wrote:
"Right this minute, in this world, could you name one extra-national group that is committed to destruction of Western Liberal Democracy that is not a subset of Islam?"
I can't, but then, I'm not solely focused on being anti-Muslim like you, by your words increasingly come across as being.
Andy wrote:
"I use "evangelical " to describe the process of spreading your dogma to the wider world, the move from internal belief to external preaching/conversion. If you can think of a better word, speak up :)"
Oldloadr wrote:
"Considering the enemy, Jihadist is a better word. You are technically correct, but the connotation that has developed in many circles around the word evangelical make it the poorer of the two choices in describing a group that will try to convert you and then kill you if you don't convert in accordance with the Prophet Mohammad."
Considering your enemy, soley a subset of "Muslims", I can understand why you would not want a non-Muslim actor(s) fingered as "enemy". I do think that smacks of closed-mindedness though, unfortunately.
Complain about this comment
Oldloadr wrote:
"All that said, do you really think the editors of Webster would refer to Jihadists as evangelical?"
jr4412 wrote:
"unlikely. still, I do agree with Andy that 'Jihadi', being derived from Jihad, constrains our view unnecessarily to a specific cultural group. of course, that helps when 'pointing fingers'. ;)"
There are two forms of "jihad", "greater" and "lesser" jihad.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad
As can be seen from the link and additional research, the lesser form is an internalised battle, the greater form is the evangelical sort.
It is similar with all dogmas. There is an internal battle to believe the dogma, this can then move to the desire to externalizing ones beliefs and make others also believe.
My BREF does not touch those who believe their dogma's internally, and quite rightly in my view - it's they're own business what they want to believe. My BREF can encompass the greater portion though, the "E" can do that and perhaps the "F". When said "EF" goes over the top and forceful, voila, "BREF" and my enemy is marked.
Complain about this comment
dceilar wrote:
"I suppose people still can't comprehend such murder to happen so they delve into fantasy and conspiracy."
The attacks were not much different from the kamakazi attacks of WWII which are quite easy to understand hence the attacks are quite easy to understand, to me anyway.
Granted, the attacks were with larger planes and involved more than one person in each plane, but the method of attack exeptionally simple. It's still the largest shock-and-awe incident ever, mainly due to it's simplicity.
Complain about this comment
325. At 5:16pm on 24 Oct 2010, Andy wrote:
Should you walk past an anti-abortion clinic at the the wrong time, you may be caught up in a bomb blast perpetrated my an anti-abortionist, for instance.
_______________________________________________________________________
Well, I have never walked by an anti-abortion clinic ( I know that was just a brain fart, but I couldn’t resist the dig). However, I have never walked by an abortion clinic either, but if I did and a bomb went off well, the Muslims call that Insha'Allah... That also goes back to my lone wolf point. What are you going to do?
______________________________________________________________
OK, let me give you another example; do you feel threatened by the Timothy McVeigh's of this world, for instance?
____________________________________________________________
And again, what extra-national organization was he and his partners a part of? He struck. He killed. He was caught and he was executed.
__________________________________________________________________
I can't, but then, I'm not solely focused on being anti-Muslim like you, by your words increasingly come across as being.
______________________________________________________________
2 problems with this statement:
1. If we do have other enemies and you are not focused on Muslims, then you should instantly be able to tell me who else to worry about.
2. I am not anti-Muslim, I am anti Jihadist. I’m sure this will surprise you but on my cell phone memory I have the names: Khalid, Hakeem, Omar and, of course, Mohammad (even my Muslim friends joke about how many are named after the prophet). These are all friends of mine who are also anti-Jihadist.
Now what I don’t understand is why you are trying so hard to deflect attention from the Jihadists when there is really no other credible threat to our entire way of life in the world? If there were a hundred Eric Rudolph’s, that would not be a drop in the bucket to the number of Jihadists that want to kill you and me. Do you think that because you seem to be an apologist for the Jihadist, that they would give you a pass if they got their hands on you?
Complain about this comment
ynda20, (#319. At 4:48pm on 24 Oct 2010)
"...Perhaps you need to enlightened me on who these Engineering Professors are because I have yet to see a description of the collapse of the Three Skyscrapers in New York ..."
To provide what you have explicitly requested:
1) Should you prefer your refutation on paper permit me to refer you to Irfanoglu, Ayhan; Hoffmann, Christoph M. (2008). "An Engineering Perspective of the Collapse of WTC-I". Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 22 (62).
Ayhan Irfanoglu is an Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering at Purdue University.
2) for a more immediate refutation, follow this link now: http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/070612HoffmannWTC.html
Christoph M. Hoffmann is a Professor of Computer Science at Purdue University
"... I can point to you a whole crowd of named professors, scientists, architects, engineers and other professionals that find these three building collapses to be very strange."
Congratulations! I shall not indulge your fancy for conspiracy theories. You sought refutation, and I provided such. Read and learn, if you dare.
Complain about this comment
mabelwhite wrote:
"I am thinking whether they plug this leak or outlet that with worldwide internet communications secrecy becomes more difficult. Ultimately over time I am thinking the debate falls narrowly on the side that this would elevate honesty and transparent and open government. Is the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008 stalled in Congress - special interests and those who require secrecy for profit do not like this bill
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-215 "
In the US at least, the are plans to be able to legally intercept all internet traffic and have it scanned by law inforcement:
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Uncle-Sam-Looks-To-Expand-Wiretap-Authority-Again-110977
This will complement the phone tapping US telco's are already involved in.
It's getting pretty close to 100% servalance in the US of A which to me is strange considering 'the land of the free" mantra.
Complain about this comment
dceilar #323.
"The third building that fell down that was occupied by the secret services could have been demolished by the Fed.."
if you allow for that, then you would have to allow for the 9/11 conspiracy too; there's no way that 'they' could have placed all the required explosives between the main towers collapsing and that -- just not enough time.
and then there's: "BBC Reported Building 7 Collapse 20 Minutes Before It Fell"
a real 'puzzle'. :-)
Complain about this comment
@329. Chryses wrote:
Thanks, Chryses, for attempting to take up my challenge. I'm very familiirar with Perdue University's work and the computer sim of the air crash is about the best around.
This does demonstrate that the WTC towers performed extremely well to aircraft impact.
It does not explain the "jolt" required to initiate the collapse of WTC2 (and WTC1) and does not even mention WTC7 or the molten steel or dust analysis.
Menawhile I'll point you to patriotsquestion911.com - which is subtitled "responsible criticism of the 9/11 report" - read that if you dare!
Complain about this comment
ynda20, (#320. At 5:00pm on 24 Oct 2010)
Your post #290, timestamped 1:08pm on 24 Oct 2010, contains your question "Which country are we going to invade today?"
To which I responded "Why none, of course. Don't be silly!"
I can only presume that you believe your link had some relevance.
At 00:001 on 25 Oct 2010, you will have been shown to be mistaken, and I will have been shown to be correct. The clock is ticking! Better get your excuses ready!
Complain about this comment
Andy wrote:
"Should you walk past an anti-abortion clinic at the the wrong time, you may be caught up in a bomb blast perpetrated my an anti-abortionist, for instance."
Oldloadr wrote:
"Well, I have never walked by an anti-abortion clinic ( I know that was just a brain fart, but I couldn’t resist the dig). However, I have never walked by an abortion clinic either, but if I did and a bomb went off well, the Muslims call that Insha'Allah... That also goes back to my lone wolf point. What are you going to do?
[chuckle re. my brain fart]. I will keep my senses trained on the enemy as I see then, BREF's. Hopefully by keeping alert to them rather than the Muslim subset of them, I will keep myself safer than if I had closed my mind to non-Muslim BREF threats.
Andy wrote:
"OK, let me give you another example; do you feel threatened by the Timothy McVeigh's of this world, for instance?"
Oldloadr wrote:
"And again, what extra-national organization was he and his partners a part of? He struck. He killed. He was caught and he was executed."
I don't understand your preoccupation with only fingering extra-national organizations and "enemy". He was a militia movement sympathizer. There are many militia movements in the US yet you don't seem concerned about them or their sympathisers at all, I find this a strange rational.
Andy wrote:
"I can't, but then, I'm not solely focused on being anti-Muslim like you, by your words increasingly come across as being."
Oldloadr wrote:
"2 problems with this statement:
1. If we do have other enemies and you are not focused on Muslims, then you should instantly be able to tell me who else to worry about."
I have told you - BREF's. You have simply not understood :).
Oldloadr wrote:
"2. I am not anti-Muslim, I am anti Jihadist. I’m sure this will surprise you but on my cell phone memory I have the names: Khalid, Hakeem, Omar and, of course, Mohammad (even my Muslim friends joke about how many are named after the prophet). These are all friends of mine who are also anti-Jihadist."
OK, then I will accept your word that you are not anti-Muslim. I would have to conclude that you are solely focused on threats emanating from the Muslim community. This focus is too narrow in my view, your view obviously differs.
Oldloadr wrote:
"Now what I don’t understand is why you are trying so hard to deflect attention from the Jihadists when there is really no other credible threat to our entire way of life in the world? If there were a hundred Eric Rudolph’s, that would not be a drop in the bucket to the number of Jihadists that want to kill you and me. Do you think that because you seem to be an apologist for the Jihadist, that they would give you a pass if they got their hands on you? "
I am not trying to deflect attention from the Jihadists, the belligerent radical ones are a subset of my BREF's, my "enemy". I am not concerned with just threats to our entire way of life, I am concerned for my life and the life of those I care about. Threats to them can come from more than just the Muslim community; more then just extra-national organizations. I want to determine who is a threat to me and mine and I think I have done that, to a large degree, with my focus on BREF's.
The threat we face going forward is from WMD's getting into the hands of BREF's. I do not want to drop the ball and only focus on Muslim BREF's for I may be attacked by non-Muslim BREF's.
Know your enemy is what drives my BREF analysis, it's what drives our security forces as well.
Complain about this comment
ynda20, (#332. At 5:57pm on 24 Oct 2010)
"... Thanks, Chryses, for attempting to take up my challenge. I'm very familiirar with Perdue University's work and the computer sim of the air crash is about the best around ..."
However, in your post #319, less than two hours earlier, at 4:48pm on 24 Oct 2010 to be precise, ynda20 wrote:
"... Perhaps you need to enlightened me on who these Engineering Professors are because I have yet to see a description of the collapse of the Three Skyscrapers in New York ..."
Not bad! You managed to contradict yourself inside of two hours!
Do you wonder why responsible people will not waste their time debating foolish nonsense?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11#Conspiracy_theories
Complain about this comment
Might I be so bold as to recommend this book:
Terror in the name of God by Jessica Stern
http://www.amazon.com/Terror-Name-God-Religious-Militants/dp/006050532X
It's a little old but it's quite a good first step to understanding the "enemy". I do not mean to patronise, so apol's if this post comes across as such.
Complain about this comment
I missed replying to this question:
Oldloadr wrote:
"Do you think that because you seem to be an apologist for the Jihadist, that they would give you a pass if they got their hands on you? "
I don't think beligernet jihadists would give me a free pass, no. I'm not an apologist for them either, they are my enemy.
I don't want to be hurt by some non-Jihadist belligerents as well as not wanting to be hurt by Jihadist belligerents.
You don't seem to care/mind about being hurt by a BREF that is non-Muslim, I find that position weird.
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#330. At 5:47pm on 24 Oct 2010)
"...In the US at least, the are plans to be able to legally intercept all internet traffic and have it scanned by law inforcement:
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Uncle-Sam-Looks-To-Expand-Wiretap-Authority-Again-110977
This will complement the phone tapping US telco's are already involved in.
It's getting pretty close to 100% servalance in the US of A which to me is strange considering 'the land of the free" mantra."
Which does not, in fact exist. Still, if it were to come to pass, and if the needed court orders can be secured, then such legislation would facilitate surveillance. The legal constraints (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) would remain.
Better luck next time.
Complain about this comment
Some people really like to think of the US as a dangerous totalitarian country, and if the facts don't support it they make farfetched comparisons. It is, therefore, quite surprising that no one has pointed out one characteristic that some US administrations [the Bush and Nixon regimes more than most] share with the right and left totalitarian regimes; moreover it is one of the characteristics that weakened them and contributed to their collapse.
The Bush regime was especially prone to hiring people of the same narrow views as the President. The Bushies did not want to hear dissenting opinions. If they heard one [sorry Mr. President, there is no Iraqi yellow cake deal with any African country] they fired the bearer of unwanted news and ordered the CIA to find [i.e. make up] something.
Whistle blowers [i.e. anyone who doubted or had evidence against the decider's plan] were fired, demonized and persecuted. According to a book I am reading this was equally true of the Blair Government in the UK. The book is full of such information and I recommend that those defending the actions of Bush/Blair read it.
"Dissent: Voices of Conscience," by Ann Wright and Susan Dixon.
"Loose lips sink ships," some say about the leaks, but refusing to accept real information, punishing those who tell the truth, covering up mistakes and other such policies sink nations. Hitler may have lost because he had the same attitude as Bush. When Wehrmacht and SS commanders wanted to rush reinforcements and panzer units to Normandy Hitler vetoed it and wouldn't [thank God] listen to their sound military advice.
So, here is a real similarity [or rather nexus of similarities] between the Natziregierung and the Bushregime. Britain's regime wasn't so bad because the British Foreign Minister and other top level people resigned in protest. However those opposing the illplanned, unnecessary and possibly illegal war [the book indicated that if not actually illegal under American law it was definitely illegal under British law, which prompted the resignations] were, unfortunately, no successful in stopping or exposing it.
Moderators, I understand the rule against promotion, so I have withheld the greater part of the citation in case that might violate it. If this information is unacceptable even so, I would appreciate your editing it out rather than banning the whole post.
Complain about this comment
Oldloadr,
“. . . You don't seem to care/mind about being hurt by a BREF that is non-Muslim, I find that position weird.”
Might it be because the probability of the one being so much more likely than the other? For example, over the last 10 years, what is the ratio of Jihadist to non-Jihadist terrorist activities?
Just asking.
Complain about this comment
JMM, (#339. At 6:25pm on 24 Oct 2010)
Excellent!
TY.
Complain about this comment
JMM wrote:
"Some people really like to think of the US as a dangerous totalitarian country, and if the facts don't support it they make farfetched comparisons."
Indeed. Some comparisons are over the top, others are right on the mark (if sometimes misunderstood :-) ).
The US is not a dangerous totalitarian country, yet. It may never become one.
I do though think that it is heading down the road towards being one, hence my "-esque" and "similar" comparisons in this thread.
It pains me to see the Land of the Free becoming less and less accurate due to fear & closed-mindedness.
(regarding your book recommendation, I have placed it on my list)
Complain about this comment
268. At 10:41am on 24 Oct 2010, jr4412 wrote RE:
Oldloadr #265
It is not a secret that the US allowed planes [plural] to depart for Saudi Arabia while other air travel was banned. It is no secret that members of the Bin Laden family and other Saudis [some menbers of the ruling family] were aboard.
The reasons given were:
1. The Bin Ladens were either distantly related or disavowed his actions.
2. The government wanted to forstall any unfortunate attempts by Americans to retaliate, which would make the situation worse.
There were in fact retaliations by well-armed but not well-educated Americans. They killed a Sikh and an indian or two, but no Arabs. This is what a combination of anger, ignorance and weapon-bearing will do.
Your post seems to be racist or ethnophobic. Do you suppose that all Bin Ladens, all Saudis, all Arabs or everyone named Mohammad should be arrested or stopped from travelling? Given the stupid retaliation, fears of reprisal were obviously justified, wouldn't you say?
Complain about this comment
273. At 11:18am on 24 Oct 2010, jr4412 wrote:
Oldloadr #271.
Your posts are interesting, as are OldLoader’s. IMHO you are both people with “issues” who happen to be on opposite sides of a debate.
“You wrote ‘Threat ...as Al Qaida are today.’
Except that Robin Cook MP said that AQ was a creation of the CIA and FBI whistleblower, Sybil Edmonds (under oath) says that OBL was a CIA agent...
So this could all be part of a Big Lie?”
I did not include the whole post because what I want to say is a general comment about your underlying assumption. You assume that the CIA invented Osama bin Laden, but they did not, they gave assistance [some say directly but most say it was actually forwarded by Pakistan’s ISI].
You may assume that, having gotten assistance from the US that Osama was their creature. While it is a possibility, it is not the likeliest.
You do know that the German government provided Lenin with a special train and safe passage through German controlled areas so that he could return to Russia and help the Kaiser win WWI? This is relevant. Lenin overthrew the Russian Monarchy, but the result was anything but good for Germany.
This might very well be what happened with the CIA and Osama bin Laden. Assuming that he was working for the US government when he arranged for the 9/11 attack is very unlikely and falls afoul of Occam’s Razor.
There are other reasons why the conspiracy theories about the towers and the Pentagon are probably wrong, but as I am not an engineer I won’t try to comment on that.
Complain about this comment
302. At 2:35pm on 24 Oct 2010, Oldloadr wrote:
“I have probably missed a few...”
You missed the simultaneous attacks on the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. If your antagonist is a leftist this would be rather more likely to get his/her attention since all of the victims were locals. They complain about “innocents” killed by the US, but like to ignore Al Qaida’s total lack of concern with who gets hurt.
Complain about this comment
Misinformers would have you believe that telco's in the US are not involved in wiretapping, they may be useful fools to some, but they're obviously decietful.
"The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) is a United States wiretapping law passed in 1994, during the presidency of Bill Clinton (Pub. L. No. 103-414, 108 Stat. 4279, codified at 47 USC 1001-1010). In its own words, the purpose of CALEA is:
To amend title 18, United States Code, to make clear a telecommunications carrier's duty to cooperate in the interception of communications for Law Enforcement purposes, and for other purposes. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act
These same fools will tell you that a court order is needed before a wiretap can take place. Anyone with an understanding of human nature will understand that while legally, a court order may be needed, if an actor wants to wiretap, especially a government actor, and said actor has the ability to do it (it is physically possible, regardless of legality), they will do it.
As US carries are required by law to make sure their systems are tappable (CALEA-compliant), Occams Razor indicates law enforcement in times of need (their definition of "need") will do whatever-it-takes to implement a wiretap(s).
This is not news.
What is news is CALEA is to be extended to the internet, to social networking sites, Skype, etc.
Land of the increasingly less-Free indeed (this is indeed true to differing degrees in other countries as well).
Complain about this comment
Are you a Perfect Citizen?
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/o/l/oldengoldendecoy/2010/07/nsa-perfect-citizen-project-isnt-eavesdropping-yet.php
I'm reminded of the recent alleged cyber-attack in Iran and muse whether the attack was a real life test of the above type of system.
While it's reported that Perfect Citizen is still in a young state, it occurs to me that governments usually lie and so I would expect this system to have already been created and in the test phase.
Obviously a nation would not want to risk negative testing results on their own infrastruture(s), and what better actor to test on than the number 1 enemy, Iran, hence the recent cyber-attacks on Iranian infrastructure.
The Stuxnet malware worm, used in the cyber-attacks on Iranian infrastructure is thought to be the work of a nation-state. I can think of two candidates.
Hopefully Wikileaks will have some information on it shortly.
Complain about this comment
337. At 6:21pm on 24 Oct 2010, Andy wrote:
You don't seem to care/mind about being hurt by a BREF that is non-Muslim, I find that position weird.
_______________________________________________________________
I think I have found the answer: Your definition of enemy includes lone wolves and criminals. Going along with what Chryses says in 340 above; if you leave those two groups out of the picture, that leaves Jihadists and Right Wing Militias. Right wing militias are usually impotent during conservative/conservative leaning administrations and are only able to recruit large numbers of followers during liberal administrations. Now, I've never been shot at by a militia member; I can't say that about Jihadist. If you look at the history of the militias, they have received more than they have given in terms of individual encounters. It is true that McVey was a sympathizer to their cause, however he, and his accomplices were still off the reservation when it comes to the militia movement. Therefore, the threat that we can track, plan for and defeat proactively; that is a “clear and present danger” (I just like that term) is the Jihadist threat. It is true that you may be killed tomorrow by a right-wing extremist while walking by an abortion clinic, but you may also be hit by a bus, mugged by a heroin addict, or make it home safe and sound. Those are things you can watch out for (situational awareness is always good) but you can’t plan for them, beyond getting a concealed carry permit and crossing the street when you come to an abortion clinic. We can plan for and take decisive steps against extra-national militant organizations. Right now, the only extra-national organizations that are actively trying to destroy western civilization are all Jihadist in ideology.
Complain about this comment
284. At 12:49pm on 24 Oct 2010, Chryses wrote:
"...May be some in the CIA have over stepped their remit or chosen to turn a blind eye to unlawful practices of others ..."
That is a polite way of putting it. How about some more from G&S's "The Pirates of Penzance"?
"But many a king on a first-class throne,
If he wants to call his crown his own,
Must manage somehow to get through
More dirty work than ever I do"
---------------
Very true,but spare a thought for those who lot is to investigate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N81Js_SkXak&feature=fvw
Complain about this comment
Andy wrote:
"You don't seem to care/mind about being hurt by a BREF that is non-Muslim, I find that position weird."
Oldloadr wrote:
"I think I have found the answer: Your definition of enemy includes lone wolves and criminals."
Yes, it does. If a person is a BREF, they are my enemy. Timothy McVeigh was a BREF, for instance. He and his ilk are my enemy.
"Going along with what Chryses says in 340 above; if you leave those two groups out of the picture, that leaves Jihadists and Right Wing Militias."
I have no time for Chryses anymore, Chryses is a troll in my view. Like a broken clock, Chryses may be right a couple of times a day. Chryses, in this instance, is mistaken and I recon misleading thread readers again.
We are not left with only those two groups as Chryses would have you believe.
There are are whole host of actors missed out; Christians, Jews (ethnic & religious) groups, Hindus, groups, pro & anti abortionalists, pro & anti capitalists, pro & anti fascists, the list is virtually endless.
If members of the above groups are also BREF, they are the enemy in my view.
BREF is a simple and, afaik, all encompasing acronym to describe the enemy of freedom-loving and peace-wanting people.
"Right wing militias are usually impotent during conservative/conservative leaning administrations and are only able to recruit large numbers of followers during liberal administrations. Now, I've never been shot at by a militia member; I can't say that about Jihadist. If you look at the history of the militias, they have received more than they have given in terms of individual encounters. It is true that McVey was a sympathizer to their cause, however he, and his accomplices were still off the reservation when it comes to the militia movement. Therefore, the threat that we can track, plan for and defeat proactively; that is a “clear and present danger” (I just like that term) is the Jihadist threat."
While I agree with your analysis that tracking certain groups is easier than tracking loan-wolves or some other groups, I think we should spend resources and keep and eye out for such loan-wolves and other groups, loan-wolves/other groups who fit the BREF description.
If they fit the BREF description, we should track them for our own safety.
"It is true that you may be killed tomorrow by a right-wing extremist while walking by an abortion clinic, but you may also be hit by a bus, mugged by a heroin addict, or make it home safe and sound. Those are things you can watch out for (situational awareness is always good) but you can’t plan for them, beyond getting a concealed carry permit and crossing the street when you come to an abortion clinic."
I can plan for them to a small degree. Government can plan for them to a much larger degree. Also, I am about identifying human enemies, not inanimate object which could cause me harm ;)
"We can plan for and take decisive steps against extra-national militant organizations. Right now, the only extra-national organizations that are actively trying to destroy western civilization are all Jihadist in ideology."
We can plan for those and plan others than just those.
Complain about this comment
JMM #343, #344.
"It is not a secret that the US allowed planes [plural] to depart for Saudi Arabia while other air travel was banned."
that's what I said (see #268, #271, #273) but couldn't find a decent reference to anymore.
"Your post seems to be racist or ethnophobic."
¿qué? I hope you'll have the decency to tell us what makes you think that.
"IMHO you are both people with “issues”.."
well, we are posting comments on a blog, what do you expect? ;)
as for the rest of your #344, you're quoting the wrong person/comment.
Complain about this comment
"And so Bethusamus said: Lo and the Three Pillars -Shall- be crushed into the Earth, and so too the Geometer's Temple, so that All Men may know it as a sign of End Times. And thus shall even the unwise and the foolish come to know, through the Work of Christ, Isaak and Angels, that it is HIS Will that will be done."
It's all right there in black and white if you people would take the trouble to Google it and turn your mind to uncovering its true, cleverly hidden meanings. I mean: show some INITIATIVE for a change.
Why Wikileaks hasn't covered THIS I'll never understand! But I guess I've let the cat out of the bag here anyway, so no harm.
Complain about this comment
@344, JMM wrote: "...what I want to say is a general comment about your underlying assumption. You assume that the CIA invented Osama bin Laden, but they did not, they gave assistance [some say directly but most say it was actually forwarded by Pakistan’s ISI]."
Hi JMM, before we go on. You make a series of speculations about OBL and who supported who... This is all very interesting but the point I was making was that I was quoting legally admissable evidence from Sybil Edmonds, FBI whistleblower, also known as the "most gagged woman in America" before she made deposition. So I am merely quoting evidence. Facts etc.
OBL has since been reported dead by many credible witnesses and despite many of his videos being proven to be fake, the CIA actually admitting to producing some fake OBL videos, he still continues to surface as the bogey man of terror. All I'm asking for is a bit of clarity on the subject rather than "let's all go to war because the USA says so". If you think the USA is completely benevolent then this flies in the face of the facts.
You continued "This might very well be what happened with the CIA and Osama bin Laden. Assuming that he was working for the US government when he arranged for the 9/11 attack is very unlikely and falls afoul of Occam’s Razor."
Occam's Razor in this context is "Motive, Means and Opportunity" - I'll let you do your own calculation on this, but make sure you look up "false flag attack" in wikipedia first.
You concluded "There are other reasons why the conspiracy theories about the towers and the Pentagon are probably wrong, but as I am not an engineer I won’t try to comment on that".
There has been some debunking of the 9/11 Truth theories - these are mainly done by "Popular Mechanics" and a website - however the debunking of this debunking is pretty straight forward but gets very messy for someone new to the subject.
The architects and engineers website ae911truth.org is pretty compelling. The strange physics of the THREE NY skycraper collapses on 9/11 plus all the other coincidences of the day definitely means that we should worry about the "official conspiracy theory" about the 19 suicide hijackers with magic passports that survived burning infernos when a third of the people killed that day have no remains of any sort... Even the BBC traced some of the supposed hijackers to actual living persons... never been adequately explained...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/1559151.stm
Despite the comments by Chryses above, I'd be happy to change my opinion if there was any real evidence to support the official story.
Complain about this comment
@335. Chryses wrote:
ynda20 wrote:
"... Perhaps you need to enlightened me on who these Engineering Professors are because I have yet to see a description of the collapse of the Three Skyscrapers in New York ..."
You wrote "Not bad! You managed to contradict yourself inside of two hours!"
No, sorry. I don't want to be unduly picky, I can see you are quite new to this topic, but I clearly said THREE Skyscrapers in New York. The Perdue University study only addresses the twin towers and not WTC7. (Indeed their excellent crash sim is only for WTC1 and not for WTC2).
Complain about this comment
Curt Carpenter #20, #352.
"I mean, come on: how hard could it be to -use- something called "wikileaks" to spread the odd bit of helpful disinformation? My grandchildren could do it."
maybe, if your grandchildren could outsmart a bunch of professionals:
"When information comes in, our journalists analyse the material, verify it and write a news piece about it describing its significance to society. We then publish both the news story and the original material in order to enable readers to analyse the story in the context of the original source material themselves. ... Unlike Wikipedia, random readers can not edit our source documents."
""And so Bethusamus said: Lo and the Three Pillars -Shall- be crushed into the Earth, and so too the Geometer's Temple, so that All Men may know it as a sign of End Times. And thus shall even the unwise and the foolish come to know, through the Work of Christ, Isaak and Angels, that it is HIS Will that will be done.""
I'm sure (well, almost) that you know what you mean, how about you help the rest of us?
Complain about this comment
the fact is not "they ignored reports of torture" but after abu ghraib scandals they HANDED-OVER torture to the Iraqi forces, to get information fast. it is a well known American foreign policy, not surprises here. a good example is Maher Arar case.
but now it is disclosed by honest people like Wikileaks and whistle-blower people in the American army.
Complain about this comment
ynda20, (#354. At 9:05pm on 24 Oct 2010)
“... No, sorry. I don't want to be unduly picky, I can see you are quite new to this topic, but I clearly said THREE Skyscrapers in New York. The Perdue University study only addresses the twin towers and not WTC7. (Indeed their excellent crash sim is only for WTC1 and not for WTC2).”
So I am to believe that if the sim included all 3 buildings simultaneously your response would somehow be radically different? You cannot be serious! Do you wonder why no one takes these issues of yours seriously?
Complain about this comment
ynda20, (#353. At 8:59pm on 24 Oct 2010)
“. . . Despite the comments by Chryses above, I'd be happy to change my opinion if there was any real evidence to support the official story.”
And who decides what constitutes “real evidence”? You or an engineering professor from Purdue University? The professor knows WAY more about physics that you do, and yet you reject his analysis.
Why do you do this?
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#346. At 7:31pm on 24 Oct 2010)
"... Misinformers would have you believe that telco's in the US are not involved in wiretapping, ..."
LOL! No one has posted to that effect here! Try to look it up.
"... they may be useful fools to some, but they're obviously deceitful ..."
From the link: "... They want to increase legal incentives and penalties aimed at pushing carriers like Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast to ensure that any network changes will not disrupt their ability to conduct wiretaps... ."
Note the future tense used. As stated, it does not yet exist. How foolish it is to mistake the future for the current? It is, perhaps, not deceitful, but it is very, very foolish.
"... In its own words, the purpose of CALEA is: ", to make clear a telecommunications carrier's duty to cooperate in the interception of communications for Law Enforcement purposes, and for other purposes. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act
"'... These same fools will tell you that a court order is needed before a wiretap can take place ..."
As does the U.S. Constitution, and other Federal legislation. Poo! Mere trifles.
"... Anyone with an understanding of human nature will understand that while legally, a court order may be needed, if an actor wants to wiretap, especially a government actor, and said actor has the ability to do it (it is physically possible, regardless of legality), they will do it ..."
I suspect that there are some people who will think that as natural or normal.
"... As US carries are required by law to make sure their systems are tappable (CALEA-compliant), Occams Razor indicates law enforcement in times of need (their definition of "need") will do whatever-it-takes to implement a wiretap(s) ..."
I'm sure that there are people who consider felonies and unconstitutional behavior routine and commonplace. That is why such behavior is proscribed. Of course, if one lives in some Utopia, the view may well be different.
"... This is not news ..."
Too true!
"... What is news is CALEA is to be extended to the internet, to social networking sites, Skype, etc ..."
Oh yes? If that were true, then there will be a schedule. You will, of course, be able to publish this schedule, that is, if it exists.
Details please, or it is retraction time!
Again.
Complain about this comment
@358. Chryses wrote: "who decides what constitutes “real evidence”? You or an engineering professor from Purdue University? The professor knows WAY more about physics that you do, and yet you reject his analysis."
It is not difficult to decide what is real evidence. You just have to explain all the observed phenomena and come up with an explanation that consistently explains it all.
I have pointed you to ae911truth.org. That outlines the main concerns about the building collapses in the columns on the right hand side of the page.
The Perdue University aircraft crash sim on WTC1 is excellent work it just doesn't go far enough. As I pointed out to you on several occasions, the Perdue University analysis does not address WTC7 - this earthquake building was not hit by plane - have you even seen the way it fell? There is also the matter of the molten steel (have you seen your oven melt - the elements inside your oven are much hotter than an office fire) and GZ dust analysis (Google "Harrit WTC").
Your disparagement of me is relatively immaterial: I am pointing out that 1300+ named, professional architects and engineers have signed a petition disputing the official conspiracy theory. Hopefully we can agree that as a fact.
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#350. At 8:17pm on 24 Oct 2010)
"... I have no time for Chryses anymore ..."
As I repeatedly showed you to be both mistaken and misleading, I can certainly understand why you would prefer to limit your future interaction with me. Doing so will reduce the number of times you are embarrassed.
"... Chryses is a troll in my view ..."
Back to your routine, eh?
"...Like a broken clock, Chryses may be right a couple of times a day ..."
I would rather be correct twice a day that mistaken repeatedly. Still, unto each his own.
"... Chryses, in this instance, is mistaken and I recon misleading thread readers again ..."
Is this to be unsubstantiated claim N+1? Or will you substantiate your claim this time? Evidence or argument will do. You never know, you might become good at it.
"... We are not left with only those two groups as Chryses would have you believe ..."
That I identified two groups in no way limits the group count to two. As I did not suggest that there were but two groups, you are back to the misleading posts again. You do that often, have you noticed?
I thought I had set the bar low enough, but I guess I should not have expected so much from you.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
ukwales, (#349. At 8:00pm on 24 Oct 2010)
“... Very true,but spare a thought for those who lot is to investigate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N81Js_SkXak&feature=fvw “
LOL! Not exactly how I saw the ICC, but hey, times change, perhaps the courts should also!
Complain about this comment
Don't let the misdirectors feed you lies. They may tell you the the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) is not in force now, but it is.
In 2006, CALEA was expandeded to include all VoIP carriers:
"CALEA is an acronym for Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, originally enacted in 1984 by the U.S. Congress.
This law as previously drafted was focused only on the monitoring and capturing requirements for telecommunication carriers and service providers when mandated through court orders or other lawful authorizations.
As of May 2006, the law has been broadly extended to include all VoIP carriers forcing many smaller non-traditional providers to comply with the same access and capture parameters."
http://www.lovemytool.com/blog/2007/09/calea-complianc.html
Plans are afoot to expand CALEA to cover Skype, Facebook, the entire internet
Misinformers would have you believe that court orders are required before a wiretap can be placed. This is true, what the misinformer will infer is the government will always comply with the law but the less gullible amongst us will know government does not always comply with the law.
Mark Klein, whom formerly worked for AT&T, is a whisteblower who shone a light on governments non-compliance with the law.
The subsequent court case was won by his team, but in 2006, the Bush administration enacted retroactive legislation giving an amnesty to companies like AT&T whom had worked with the US administration to provide illegal (without court order) wiretaps.
"Things just went from bad to downright scary under the Obama Administration. According to the StarTribune.com : Essentially, officials want Congress to require all services that enable communications -- including encrypted e-mail transmitters such as BlackBerry, social networking websites such as Facebook and software that allows direct "peer-to-peer" messaging such as Skype -- to be technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap order."
http://www.liquida.com/blog-news/11373291/facebook-skype-barack-obama/
Don't be fooled by deceitful misdirectors. DYOR.
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#365. At 11:57pm on 24 Oct 2010)
"Don't let the misdirectors feed you lies. They may tell you the the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) is not in force now, but it is ..."
No one is feeding anyone lies. No one has said the CALEA is not in force. Care to substantiate your claim?
"... Plans are afoot to expand CALEA to cover Skype, Facebook, the entire internet ..."
Translation: That is not yet law.
"... Misinformers would have you believe that court orders are required before a wiretap can be placed. This is true, ..."
If it is true, then it is not misinformation, is it?
"... what the misinformer will infer is the government will always comply with the law but the less gullible amongst us will know government does not always comply with the law ..."
Is there a post to substantiate THIS claim? No, I thought not.
"... Don't be fooled by deceitful misdirectors ..."
Or by unsubstantiated claims.
"... DYOR."
Always a good idea. If you do, you'll find that the state of the law is not QUITE as claimed. LOL!
Nice try.
Complain about this comment
In post 94 I wrote:
"... The comparison between the CIA and the Gestapo is clear. The Gestapo labelled their enemies 'untermensch', the CIA labels them 'unlawful combatants'
In post 113 Chryses commented:
"The former is not a human, the latter is."
I am not surprised that Chryses considers the later group, 'unlawful combatants' to be human, but I am a little surprised that Chryses agrees with the Gestapo and considers the former group, 'untermensch'; Jews; Gypsies; Poles along with other Slavic people like the Russians; Ukrainians; so-called Mischlinge and anyone else who was not an "Aryan", to be not a human.
Despite repeated posts on the matter, Chryses has not retracted his statement.
Both groups are human in my view, regardless of Chryses strange view as stated, don't be persuaded by Chryses that they're not.
Complain about this comment
Mark Mardell.
maybe authorities all around the world will soon be able to relax again and continue their dirty business as usual. Wikileaks may be about to disintegrate:
"..former members say that the website's obsession with pursuing the US military has resulted in Wikileaks losing sight of its founding principle that all leaks should be made available to the public no matter how large or small."
jeers and cheers from the crooks, cries of dismay (despair!!) from the people.
Complain about this comment
Andy #367.
why feed a troll? it thrives on it.
Complain about this comment
jr4412 wrote:
"maybe authorities all around the world will soon be able to relax again and continue their dirty business as usual. Wikileaks may be about to disintegrate:
"..former members say that the website's obsession with pursuing the US military has resulted in Wikileaks losing sight of its founding principle that all leaks should be made available to the public no matter how large or small."
jeers and cheers from the crooks, cries of dismay (despair!!) from the people."
I was extremely disappointed when I visited Wikileaks today. The site has been completely devoted to the war logs.
Apparently some 'maintenance' is being carried out:
"NOTE: At the moment WikiLeaks is not accepting new submissions due to re-engineering improvements the site to make it both more secure and more user-friendly. Since we are not currently accepting submissions during the re-engineering, we have also temporarily closed our online chat support for how to make a submission. We anticipate reopening the electronic drop box and live chat support in the near future."
http://wikileaks.org/media/submissions.html
It's a pretty sad state of affairs that all other documents bar the war logs are now inaccessible [cue cries of despair from the people ;) ]
Complain about this comment
355. At 9:11pm on 24 Oct 2010, jr4412 wrote:
"maybe, if your grandchildren could outsmart a bunch of professionals:
[...]"
Wow! I guess you're on top of YOUR game!
And no, I can't help you with the hermeneutics. It wouldn't be fair to all of the people here that take their blogging and googling -seriously- and are willing to put some effort into it. People like, for example, ynda20, for instance, who writes: "It is not difficult to decide what is real evidence. You just have to explain all the observed phenomena and come up with an explanation that consistently explains it all." I mean: bingo! This person has obviously read the six Forbidden Books and done his -homework-. Evidence, observed phenomena, explanation -- it's ALL THERE man. I bet he even knows what "OSAMA BIN LADEN" is an anagram for!
Complain about this comment
jr4412 wrote:
"why feed a troll? it thrives on it.
True, but I usually have a perchance for furey animals, although not those who agree with the Gestapo :)
Complain about this comment
Andy #370.
"The site has been completely devoted to the war logs."
a massive undertaking (and all man-hours volunteered!) to be sure, but there's no excuse.
Complain about this comment
Re engineering and arguments of what could and couldn't have happened at the WTC, though not an engineer I can follow clear arguments and demonstrations. I shouldn't but in without being able to cite, but I did see a debunking film by engineers who tested structural material burning in jet fuel, and discussed the validity of the arguments you keep rehashing. They also mentioned deterioration since construction.
I was able to follow well enough to find myself satisfied that the official version was more probable than any of the conspiracy theories. You might try to find it on youtube.
Additionally, I have my own pet theory of why the buildings might not have been up to the specifications.
When a student at SUNY-Albany, I noticed that the area around some of the NY State office buildings was always cordoned off. I had to detour around that area and so asked why. I was told that the stone facings had a tendency to fall off and crash into the street.
Further inquiry turned up that the building trades in NY are infiltrated by an international organizatiuon much older than Al Qaida. A percentage of contracts and profit make their way to this group, which sometimes increases its profit by substituting inferior materials in buildings.
More recently, there have been construction problems in the Massachusetts "Big Dig," due to corruption and cost cutting in construction. The conspiracy theories base all conclusions on what would have happened if the buildings had actually been constructed to spec, not on what corruption and cost cutting may have actually delivered.
Now you can accuse me of just spinning another conspiracy theory, but I am really just commenting on there being many other factors, known to be in play, that need to be taken into account. Occam's razor then comes into play, as the simplest and most likely explanations are to be preferred. Where is MAII when his engineering expertise might be valuable?
Complain about this comment
To JMM:
MAII might be sleeping.
To Andy #372
I don't know how Chryses does it.
He is amazingly coherent with so many posts and such little sleep over the last day and a half - with quick naps between:
6.07pm - 8.03pm
8.07am - 11:42am,
2:51pm - 5:44pm,
6.43pm - 9.47pm.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Curt Carpenter #371.
"hermeneutics"
had to look this up. deep, man, deep.
"..take their blogging and googling -seriously- and are willing to put some effort into it."
seems you're lucky, my free time's (fairly) scarce.
Complain about this comment
Ok, I will try to post this again minus the Muslim joke I had at the end, although without it the satire doesn't quite bite the same way...
When the truth of how we (USA) prosecute our military campaigns becomes contradictory to the public support of the war effort, some would argue this indicates we are fighting an unjust war. I don't doubt that this notion will be proffered repeatedly and loquaciously, perhaps even eloquently, on this blog.
So allow me to vouchsafe an alternative interpretation. I've seen people tortured by the CIA's - oops, I meant to say the "OGA's" - knuckleheads in both Iraq and Afghanistan, often in ways that were nasty enough to make me cringe. Mind you, my job from 2000 until 2005 to was to rip people's bodies apart with machine guns and later sniper rifles, and I rather enjoyed it, so I don't use the word "cringe" lightly.
The bottom line is, torture is the dumbest possible way to try to get somebody to be honest with you, and the fact that fat robber-baron slobs like Dick Cheney would outright endorse such practices belies a total ignorance of ground warfare, especially counterinsurgency, and *almost* makes me question whether civilian leadership of the US military is really such a good idea after all. If you start pulling out somebody's fingernails, they're going to tell you whatever it is they think you want to hear.
But I digress. Getting back to my main point, what I suggest is this - How about we try being honest with everybody, especially ourselves, about why we invaded Iraq in the first place? I will never forget when I was in the heart of Baghdad three weeks after the invasion started, having driven there from Kuwait with my battalion and shooting at everybody I met along the way, and I saw a giant banner that some educated Iraqis had strung up between two telephone poles. It read "Let us believe that you came for peace and freedom, and not for our oil only, if you want peace to be done in Iraq." It broke my heart, and looking at the picture I took of it still does today, because it just shows you how badly those people, intelligent people, wanted to believe that we were really trying to help them - when our true motives were as plain to see as the Abrams tanks rolling down the streets.
What's wrong with simply telling everybody "Hey, we need their stuff, they won't give it to us, so we're going to go over there and take it from them"? Sure, the peaceniks are going to whine, but they did that anyway, and did it make any difference? If nothing else, a more imperial attitude at the onset of the invasion might have persuaded more of those military-aged Iraqi men to shoot it out with me and my boys, instead of hiding out and waiting for us to leave so that they could pick a fight with the lazy bums that the US Army calls "infantrymen." I'm sure that given the choice, a lot of those Iraqis would have preferred to die in gunfights with the Marines - a man's death, a warrior's death - rather than have the OGA snatch them out of their beds in the middle of the night and torture them to death like they were anything less than human...
Oh, that's right, I forgot. Because there are no term limits in Congress, the legislative branch of our (US) government is dominated by career politicians, i.e. scumbags, and we have to lie, i.e. speak their language, to get them to sign off on our imperial adventures. And since imposing term limits on the Congress would need to be approved by, well, the Congress, I guess we'll just have to keep on pretending. And nobody, not Congress and not even the OGA, is better at pretending than the wonderful, warm-hearted folks in the Pentagon.
Hey, Pentagon! Let's play Pretend! Things are better in Iraq now that Saddam is gone(notice I did not say dead), right? Wikileaks is costing US troops their lives, right? Waterboarding has kept the US much safer since 9-11, right? "Defending our interests abroad" doesn't just mean making money for the defense industry, right?
God Bless America, my home sweet home.
Complain about this comment
And this time I will add that anybody, particularly some of the folks whose arguments I've read on this blog, ANYBODY who thinks that torture works
A. has never seen it being performed with their own eyes, and perhaps as a result,
B. has confused REALITY with what they've seen in the movies, where the handsome American protagonist beats somebody up real good and as a result gets some hot intel, allowing him to save the day in the nick of time. GET A GRIP. You have, as a result of being fortunate enough to not have witnessed it, abstracted torture in all its forms to something that you can somehow consider justifiable. You can blather on about how from a certain point of view even mere incarceration is torture, but we all know what a load of BS that is, we all know exactly where the line is, and exactly what constitutes crossing that line when we deal with prisoners of war - no matter what label you choose for them. A rose by any other name will scream just as loud, and lie to you just as quickly to make the pain stop.
Complain about this comment
_marko,
I don't know how he does it either, perhaps trolls breed rapidly :)
He has still not retracted is statement that 'untermensch' are "not a human" and thus his statement, a statement the Gestapo would fully support, that 'untermensch' [1] are "not a human", is still active.
He needs to retract and apologies profusely for that statement, anything less would just confirm what we already know from his statements.
[1] - Jews; Gypsies; Poles along with other Slavic people like the Russians; Ukrainians; so-called Mischlinge and anyone else who was not an "Aryan"
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Re #41 Jon:" The nature of the material they do receive is clandestine. Extremely difficult to fully corroborate. However, to not redact inconsequential names that are not public figures is irresponsible,lazy, and detrimental towards true investigative journalism."
And that's a key issue.
Even Wikipedia, which strongly disassociated itself from Wikileaks (which intentionally tried to create an impression that was related to that site) had to tighten its editing process in view of many irreponsible, unsubstantiated "edits" (including, occasionaly, insults) never subjected to any peer review.
A hacking effort whose main objective has been to score political points and promote certain political agenda and which relies on materials of dubious origines can be and is perceived by many naive readers as a source of reliable information.
Many a time the same people, who relying on similar 'sources' claim, even here, that WTC was destroyed by Mossad and that Americans have never landed on the Moon, with the whole Apollo-11 trip having been filmed in a Hollywood studio.
Complain about this comment
MAII: "If there is one immorality in war, it is not fighting with everything you have to win. That is a betrayal of your own people. That is what our leaders have done to us since the end of World War II. That is why we never really win anymore."
One can cannot fight with one's hand tied to one's back and expect to even half-win. [Vietnam being a case in point]
Just like one cannot get half-pregnant.
But I would have thought that anybody would know that.
Complain about this comment
JHMM: "Judging by the tone of some comments here, Al Qaida would be defended as just responding to evil western [US/UK] provocation."
Bu then we were Crusaders as Usama ibn Laden reminds us.
Tht "we" weren't is immaterial to al-Qaida folks and their fellow travellers here.
Complain about this comment
powermeerkat:
"One can cannot fight with one's hand tied to one's back and expect to even half-win. [Vietnam being a case in point]"
In this modern world, we have rules regarding fighting. If bullies cannot abide by the rules, don't pick a fight. Simples.
Complain about this comment
377. At 02:26am on 25 Oct 2010, jr4412 wrote:
"...seems you're lucky, my free time's (fairly) scarce."
How sad for you.
As is written in the Third Book: Go then and pass My wisdom unto your neighbor, and thus to your neighbor's neighbor, that they too may bask therein for a short time. For I am a River to my People and a Candle to the World.
Google in peace.
Complain about this comment
Oldloadr wrote:
"You see, it's not just 9/11; that's just when they got around to killing lots of American civilians. Before that, we had:
1. Violation of US Embassy in Tehran, 1979
2. Beirut US Marine barracks bombing, 1983
3. Lockerby Bombing, 1988
4. Berlin disco bombing, 1985
5. 1st WTC bombing, 1993
6. Khobar Towers Bombing, 1996 (knew one of the dead and several of the wounded in that one)
7. USS Cole, 2000
"I have probably missed a few but we here have 7 major attacks before 9/11 with only one retaliation (against Tripoli after the Berlin Disco bombing). So you see, my comrades and I have seen the Islamists at their worse and felt their sting long before 9/11 and so yes, I have no problem with terminating Jihadists with extreme prejudice (maybe that will pass muster) since they have no problem with terminating any one of us (remember Daniel Pearle).
A reply: You've clearly focuses on Muslims.
No, oldloadr concentred on murderous Islamist fanatics.
Just like pointing out abuses of the Spanish Inquisition is not tantamount to concentrating on Catholics.
Complain about this comment
JMM: "You missed the simultaneous attacks on the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. If your antagonist is a leftist this would be rather more likely to get his/her attention since all of the victims were locals. They complain about “innocents” killed by the US, but like to ignore Al Qaida’s total lack of concern with who gets hurt."
One may also point out to Islamist fanatics, not only from al-Qaida but also from Hezbollah and Hamas cowardly but intentionally hiding themselves among civilian populations, and their arsenals in mosques, in order to provoke civilian casualties. [amply documented]
Al-Qaida bombings of barber shops, bakeries, wedding parties [e.g. in Jordan Amman] and even funerals of their earlier victimes - causing numerous casualties among civilian Afghans, Iraqis, Jordanians, etc.
is only too amply documented.
[I'll skip an issue of Iranian Quds' terrorists - lead by Islamic Republic of Iran's current defense minister, now on Interpol's wanted list - bombing with deadly effect Jewish Cultural Center in Buenos Aires]
Complain about this comment
JMM: "Do you suppose that all Bin Ladens, all Saudis, all Arabs or everyone named Mohammad should be arrested or stopped from travelling?"
If a Bolshevik/Nazi concept of collective responsibility had been aplied Stalin's daughter and Krushchev's son should have been killed, or at least jailed, rather than being granted asylum/resident status in the United States.
[Where Teng Siao Ping's eledest son as well as daugher and son-in law of PRC pres. Hujintao also comfortably reside. :)]]
Complain about this comment
"In this modern world, we have rules regarding fighting."
Who is "we"?
and what do you [not us] know about combat, let alone, military strategy?
Complain about this comment
Sounds like someone needs to know more about Computer Science. Specifically encryption history and advanced math.
If they knew encryption they would know that wars have been lost and people killed because of leaky secrets ever since Mary Queen of Scotts. Leaky lips sink the ship?
If they studied advanced math they would know that conclusions based on unnormalized (raw) data is not accurate. However, I assume they know well that this is one way to deceive others with statistics.
Giving us access to the raw data will only facilitate our enemies and confuse us unless we know what to do with this data. How many of us are experienced in this particular war and the reality of the tactics needed?
Complain about this comment
391. At 06:01am on 25 Oct 2010, Fluidly Unsure wrote:
However, I assume they know well that this is one way to deceive others with statistics.
_____________________________________________________
There are liars, damn liars and then there are statisticians.
________________________________________________________
385. At 04:17am on 25 Oct 2010, Andy wrote:
In this modern world, we have rules regarding fighting. If bullies cannot abide by the rules, don't pick a fight. Simples.
_________________________________________________________________
Are you referring to the International Rules of Armed Conflict, commonly referred to as the Geneva Convention? If we went by only those rules, the US could have obliterated North Viet Nam and executed all of the captured VC, so the previous statement was correct. It was politically imposed Rules of Engagement from DC, not international laws or treaties that had us with one hand behind our collective back.
In the current un-pleasantries: If we went strictly by the Geneva Convention, we wouldn't have needed Gitmo at all as all those taken to Gitmo are afforded no protection since they were illegal combatants (no uniform/no flag/hiding in Mosques and firing from same). By the international Rules, they could have all been summarily executed.
Complain about this comment
"CIA Executive Assassination Ring set up by US government, said Seymour Hersh"
The same former "Ramparts" contributor who a little more than a year ago reported that an "invasion on Iran is imminent" and even "revealed" a date certain based on his "reliable inside sources"?
[Btw. I'm still wating for Mr. Hersh's reliable reports on how this invasion went. :)]
P.S. Please, next time try and find yourself less discredited sources.
Complain about this comment
Fluidly Unsure observes: "If they knew encryption they would know that wars have been lost and people killed because of leaky secrets ever since Mary Queen of Scotts. Leaky lips sink the ship?"
No wonder then why both Russians and Chinese try their best to penetrate NSA and steal as many source codes as possible in Silicon Valley.
As they have been trying for many years. :)
Complain about this comment
Oldloadr: "If we went strictly by the Geneva Convention, we wouldn't have needed Gitmo at all as all those taken to Gitmo are afforded no protection since they were illegal combatants (no uniform/no flag/hiding in Mosques and firing from same). By the international Rules, they could have all been summarily executed."
The problem is that those who invoke Geneva Convention hardly ever read it.
And thus wouldn't know that it pertains to "uniformed members" of an enemy state's "regular forces".
Not to any terrorist thugs.
Complain about this comment
@393
Seymour Hersh discreditted...
From wikipedia
"Seymour (Sy) Myron Hersh (born April 8, 1937) is a United States Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist and author based in Washington, D.C. He is a regular contributor to The New Yorker magazine on military and security matters.
His work first gained worldwide recognition in 1969 for exposing the My Lai Massacre and its cover-up during the Vietnam War, for which he received the 1970 Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting. His 2004 reports on the US military's mistreatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison gained much attention."
This is direct plea to Mark Mardell: Please delete this whole blog!
It is just full of Americans justifying their actions and indeed condoning torture. Rational debate left this place soon after you posted your entry.
eg "Rules do not apply to Terroist Thugs" etc etc
Complain about this comment
@374, JMM wrote:
"Re engineering and arguments of what could and couldn't have happened at the WTC, though not an engineer I can follow clear arguments and demonstrations. I shouldn't but in without being able to cite, but I did see a debunking film by engineers who tested structural material burning in jet fuel, and discussed the validity of the arguments you keep rehashing. They also mentioned deterioration since construction."
Sorry but a TV crew debunking is hardly science. They were not using military grade energetic nano-materials or even trained demolition experts to conduct their TV expose. Sorry, go back again to ae911truth.org to find 1300+ named, professional architects and engineers putting their reputation on the line. Try to support a rational debate about this if not for the War on Terror then for Skyscraper safety. At the very least the outrageous amount of money spent on building earthquake-proof buildings and controlled demolition companies needs to be investigated, if you can bring steel framed structures down with fires no hotter than my wood-burning stove!
Complain about this comment
@382. powermeerkat wrote:
I agree. You can't rely on wikipedia and even Wikileaks material could be tainted with disinformation. Could be complete disinformation!
You continue "Many a time the same people, who relying on similar 'sources' claim, even here, that WTC was destroyed by Mossad and that Americans have never landed on the Moon, with the whole Apollo-11 trip having been filmed in a Hollywood studio."
I am pointing out that 1300+ named, professional architects and engineers point out problems with the official story re the Tower collapses. Who was behind it cannot be found out without a serious and detailed investigation. Various "Inside Job" suspects spring to mind but that is speculation too far. Comparisons with Moon-Landing hoax believers is disingenuous - I don't see petitions from ex-Rocket engineers anywhere!
Complain about this comment
[Semour Hersh] "received the 1970 Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting."
So did Walter Duranty for his lies filed repeatedly from Moscow as NYT's long time bureau chief there, with NYT publisher desperately trying to return this Pulitzer to distance his paper from a lying lier telling lying lies. [check]
Complain about this comment
Andy wrote:
"In this modern world, we have rules regarding fighting."
powermeerkat wrote:
"Who is "we"? "
Andy wrote:
"Those that have signed up to the modern rules of war, the convention & treaties. [heck, even those that have no signed up are still required to follow most of the rules]"
Complain about this comment
Andy wrote,
"and what do you [not us] know about combat, let alone, military strategy?"
Company, atten..tion!
I know that I send in soldiers with weapons and a whole load of orders to follow which include following the rules of law. For this my soldiers remunerated with the Queens' shilling and they should do as they're damn well told up to and including laying down their lives.
Company, stand easy. Not you powermeerkat, gimme 50 now.
Complain about this comment
Andy wrote:
"In this modern world, we have rules regarding fighting. If bullies cannot abide by the rules, don't pick a fight. Simples."
Oldloadr wrote:
"Are you referring to the International Rules of Armed Conflict, commonly referred to as the Geneva Convention? If we went by only those rules, the US could have obliterated North Viet Nam and executed all of the captured VC, so the previous statement was correct. It was politically imposed Rules of Engagement from DC, not international laws or treaties that had us with one hand behind our collective back."
I mean all the rules in place, including the International Rules of Armed Conflict.
Oldloadr wrote:
"In the current un-pleasantries: If we went strictly by the Geneva Convention, we wouldn't have needed Gitmo at all as all those taken to Gitmo are afforded no protection since they were illegal combatants (no uniform/no flag/hiding in Mosques and firing from same). By the international Rules, they could have all been summarily executed."
Indeed, much like many of these chaps, who wore no uniforms, hid at home, and fought a regular army. "Terrorists" the lot of 'em. :)
Complain about this comment
powermeerkat #382.
"Even Wikipedia, which strongly disassociated itself from Wikileaks (which intentionally tried to create an impression that was related to that site).."
intersting assertion, and damaging if untrue. you can, of course, provide sources that confirm what you wrote??
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#372. At 01:58am on 25 Oct 2010)
“... True, but I usually have a perchance for furey animals, although not those who agree with the Gestapo :)”
As you have, as far as I can tell, only accused me of agreeing with the Gestapo (Post #376) I believe that you are again making that accusation.
That claim is false (ref posts #113, #209, #248), and you knew that that claim was false when you made it.
Looking for an apt word in this situation, I Googled “a known untruth expressed as truth.”
Look what I found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie
Complain about this comment
398. At 08:55am on 25 Oct 2010, ynda20 wrote:
I am pointing out that 1300+ named, professional architects and engineers point out problems with the official story re the Tower collapses.
______________________________________________________________
I went to the site you listed and started searching the names of the 1300 distinguished architects and when I checked the very first one, Mr. Gage, I found this interesting article which I will quote a snippet from:
http://globalbrief.ca/tomquiggin/2010/05/01/911-conspiracy-theories-%E2%80%93-debunking-richard-gage/
Debunking conspiracy theories that involve the government is a relatively simple process. Rather than getting bogged down in the analysis of minor details, a larger overview of the relationship between government and conspiracies will easily determine if a conspiracy is at play.
Any major event will attract a fringe group which seeks to profit financially or advance an agenda by creating a conspiracy. One current example is the speaking tour of Mr Richard Gage who is the founder of “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.” His current tour is taking him to Canada, where he will address audiences at the University of Toronto, Carleton University and the University of Quebec in Montreal. Mr Gage believes that it was “explosives” that brought down the World Trade Center buildings on 9/11 and not the 400,000 pound airliners travelling at several hundred miles per hour.
Mr Gage would have us believe that a mysterious conspiracy was behind the 9/11 attacks and that it was secret operatives who planted the “explosives.” As with any other conspiracy theory that involves accusations that the “government” or the CIA (or whoever) actually carried out the attack, it is necessary to run down the following checklist of observations. If you can get past all of these tests, then maybe there really was a conspiracy at work. If not, it is simply that, a conspiracy theory dreamt up by fringe individuals.
1. A good conspiracy theory suggests that the government is competent enough to map out the strategy, plan the mission, subvert the individuals required to run the plot and then carry it out without getting caught. For anyone who has ever worked for government, it is known that the level of competency required to create such a conspiracy is beyond that of virtually any government – democratic or otherwise.
2. A conspiracy theory assumes that the government pays its employees enough to remain silent. Given the untold millions that could be made by a single book deal revealing the conspiracy and the relatively low rates of pay in government, this is obviously a ludicrous suggestion.
3. The 9/11 conspiracy theory assumes that the rank and file worker in government who helped carry out the conspiracy would tolerate and assist in the mass murder of their fellow citizens. This might be a fair criticism of senior political leaders in some states, but it is a slanderous accusation for the vast majority of government workers in democratic states.
Complain about this comment
ynda20, (#396. At 08:25am on 25 Oct 2010)
“... This is direct plea to Mark Mardell: Please delete this whole blog!
It is just full of Americans justifying their actions and indeed condoning torture. Rational debate left this place soon after you posted your entry ...”
Interesting. All of your posts followed Mr. Mardell’s entry. Are you claiming that you have failed to engage in rational debate?
Complain about this comment
Misinformers would have you believe that increased legal incentives and penalties aimed at pushing carriers like Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast to ensure that any network changes will not disrupt their ability to conduct wiretaps do not yet exist, they may be useful fools to some, but they're obviously deceitful.
The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act came into force in 1994. From that link it states:
"CALEA's purpose is to enhance the ability of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to conduct electronic surveillance by requiring that telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment modify and design their equipment, facilities, and services to ensure that they have built-in surveillance capabilities, allowing federal agencies to monitor all telephone, broadband internet, and VoIP traffic in real-time."
Those requirements are in place now, not sometime in the future as deceitful fools would have you believe. CALEA compliance is mandatory, it is law (in the US). An AT&T Whistle-Blower's evidence can shine the light on the deceitful misdirectors lies that it is not in place now.
Misinformers would have you believe that that governments always plays by the rules, rules laid down in such documents as the U.S. Constitution and other Federal legislation(s). These fools think you're naive, don't be fooled by them.
The current US administration wants CALEA expanded to require all services that enable communications, Skype, Facebook, Blackberry, the entire internet to be tapable. CALEA compliance will be mandatory for those companies wishing to do business in the US just like it is mandatory for US telco's currently.
"Things just went from bad to downright scary under the Obama Administration. According to the StarTribune.com : Essentially, officials want Congress to require all services that enable communications -- including encrypted e-mail transmitters such as BlackBerry, social networking websites such as Facebook and software that allows direct "peer-to-peer" messaging such as Skype -- to be technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap order."
http://www.liquida.com/blog-news/11373291/facebook-skype-barack-obama/
Don't be fooled by deceitful misdirectors. DYOR.
Complain about this comment
ynda20,
Do you remember back to yesterday? Do you remember post #290, at 1:08pm on 24 Oct 2010? You wrote something then as I recall.
“... Which country are we going to invade today?
Times up!
You are wrong.
Again
Complain about this comment
I'm curious.
I posted:
"... The comparison between the CIA and the Gestapo is clear. The Gestapo labelled their enemies 'untermensch', the CIA labels them 'unlawful combatants', in each case they're targets are afforded lesser rights than another human and in each case they're subject to abuse that another human would not have to endure ..."
When I'm replied to that "The former is not a human" but "the latter is.", I automatically think that the replier has the same view the Gestapo had.
I wonder what they mean by "While some may disagree, many people believe that there is a qualitative difference between humans and non-humans." as on the face of it I think they're yet again agreeing with the Gestapo.
I wonder whether the replier really does think that Jews; Gypsies; Poles along with other Slavic people like the Russians; Ukrainians; so-called Mischlinge and anyone else who was not an "Aryan") and are not human.
I'd like a straight answer to a straight bunch of wonderings.
Complain about this comment
powermeerkat, (#393. At 07:52am on 25 Oct 2010)
“...[Btw. I'm still wating for Mr. Hersh's reliable reports on how this invasion went. :)]
Mr. Hersh may have shared his calendar with ynda20.
#290. At 1:08pm on 24 Oct 2010, ynda20 wrote: Which country are we going to invade today?
Complain about this comment
402. At 10:29am on 25 Oct 2010, Andy wrote:
Indeed, much like many of these chaps, who wore no uniforms, hid at home, and fought a regular army. "Terrorists" the lot of 'em. :)
____________________________________________________________________
2 Things:
1. Those “chaps” you linked to did have a military organization with officers and sergeants and a flag (remember “Don’t Tread on Me?”) Have you ever noticed that when the Rebels/Patriots/Revolutionaries win, it’s called a revolution? If the gov’t in power wins, it’s called a civil war, just sayin’.
2. You never saw me use the word terrorist. I think the term is too ambiguous to be helpful, just like the Global War on Terrorism. The enemy are Jihadists and the war is the Global War Against Jihadistan.
Complain about this comment
ynda20 #396.
"It is just full of Americans justifying their actions and indeed condoning torture."
"A fools mouth is his destruction, and his lips are the snare of his soul."
"..plea to Mark Mardell: Please delete this whole blog!"
no, censorship and secrecy is what got us into this mess in the first place.
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#385. At 04:17am on 25 Oct 2010)
“... In this modern world, we have rules regarding fighting. If bullies cannot abide by the rules, don't pick a fight ...”
Al-Qaeda went to their targets to pick a fight. They do not play by the rules. Once you get all parties to abide by the rules, I suspect things will improve.
Simple.
Complain about this comment
"Those that have signed up to the modern rules of war, the convention & treaties. [heck, even those that have no signed up are still required to follow most of the rules]"
Those who signed Geneva Convention know that it pertains specifically to "uniformed soldiers" of enemy state's "regular armed forces".
Which, my dear Andy, automatically excludes Vietcong, Taliban, al-Qaida, Quds, Hezbollah, Sendero Luminoso, FARC and similar outfits.
BTW. Sorry , but you could hardly be in a position to put this meerkat at attention for several reasons:
rank aside, since the time of Continental Congress you have no jurisdiction over military forces of certain exploited former North American colony.
Sorry 'bout that.
So not even 'at ease': just relax. Since there's nothing you can do about it.
[no, Int. Hague Tribunal is also out of the question. :-)]
P.S. Had Major Andre not pretented to be somebody else and wore a uniform of British Army he would have been spared. Alas!
Complain about this comment
Andy wrote:
"Indeed, much like many of these chaps, who wore no uniforms, hid at home, and fought a regular army. "Terrorists" the lot of 'em. :)"
Oldloadr wrote:
"2 Things:
1. Those “chaps” you linked to did have a military organization with officers and sergeants and a flag (remember “Don’t Tread on Me?”) Have you ever noticed that when the Rebels/Patriots/Revolutionaries win, it’s called a revolution? If the gov’t in power wins, it’s called a civil war, just sayin’."
I think someone needs to edit that wiki entry then for it says,
"At the outset of the war, the thirteen colonies lacked a professional army or navy. Each colony provided for its own defenses with local militia. Militiamen were lightly armed, had little training, and usually did not have uniforms. Their units served for only a few weeks or months at a time, were reluctant to go very far from home, and were thus generally unavailable for extended operations." [my bold]
Oldloadr wrote:
"2. You never saw me use the word terrorist. I think the term is too ambiguous to be helpful, just like the Global War on Terrorism. The enemy are Jihadists and the war is the Global War Against Jihadistan."
I agree with the first part, but I think [belligerent] Jihadists are only part of the enemy though - BREF's are our enemy.
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#380. At 02:56am on 25 Oct 2010)
“... his statement, a statement the Gestapo would fully support ...”
As I do not agree that untermensch are not a human, the Gestapo cannot agree with me.
But you knew that before you posted this, didn’t you? You certainly did, as I explained it to you in posts posts #113, #209, #248
Since you did know that what you were postinf was false when you posted it, I Googled “a known untruth expressed as truth.”
Look what I found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie
Complain about this comment
powermeerkat wrote:
"Those that have signed up to the modern rules of war, the convention & treaties. [heck, even those that have no signed up are still required to follow most of the rules]"
powermeerkat wrote:
"Those who signed Geneva Convention know that it pertains specifically to "uniformed soldiers" of enemy state's "regular armed forces".
Which, my dear Andy, automatically excludes Vietcong, Taliban, al-Qaida, Quds, Hezbollah, Sendero Luminoso, FARC and similar outfits."
Indeed, which is why I mention not just specifically that Geneva Convention, but "modern rules of war, the convention & treaties"
powermeerkat wrote:
"BTW. Sorry , but you could hardly be in a position to put this meerkat at attention for several reasons:
rank aside, since the time of Continental Congress you have no jurisdiction over military forces of certain exploited former North American colony.
Sorry 'bout that.
So not even 'at ease': just relax. Since there's nothing you can do about it.
[no, Int. Hague Tribunal is also out of the question. :-)]"
In my land you will obey my rules, and snap to it! Gimmie 50 now you insolent colonialist .:-)
Peace.
Complain about this comment
Chryses wrote:
"As I do not agree that untermensch are not a human, the Gestapo cannot agree with me."
As you referred to untermensch as not a human, you could agree with each other, I'm will wondering if you do.
So, do you retract your referral to untermensch as "not a human"?
Complain about this comment
Chryses wrote:
powermeerkat, (#393. At 07:52am on 25 Oct 2010)
“...[Btw. I'm still wating for Mr. Hersh's reliable reports on how this invasion went. :)]
Mr. Hersh may have shared his calendar with ynda20.
#290. At 1:08pm on 24 Oct 2010, ynda20 wrote: Which country are we going to invade today?
A growingly popular T-shirt among folks who have enough of PC BS:
"What would Jesus bomb?"
Complain about this comment
"I think someone needs to edit that wiki entry..."
Could Julian Assange be your man to do the job?
Or perhaps Daniel Schmitt (real surname: Donscheit Berg) would? :)
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#409. At 10:58am on 25 Oct 2010)
". . .I posted:
"... The comparison between the CIA and the Gestapo is clear. The Gestapo labelled their enemies 'untermensch', the CIA labels them 'unlawful combatants', in each case they're targets are afforded lesser rights than another human and in each case they're subject to abuse that another human would not have to endure ..."
You did indeed assert what you are pleased to refer to as the similarities between the Gestapo, which actively participated in genocide, with the CIA, which has not.
"...When I'm replied to that "The former is not a human" but "the latter is.", I automatically think that the replier has the same view the Gestapo had . . ."
Perhaps if you read what was posted, rather than what you wanted to read, you would have fewer problems.
Here is what I actually posted in 113
"You are mistaken.
Untermensch is German for under man, sub-man, sub-human. The German word Mensch literally means human. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untermensch)
An unlawful combatant is a civilian who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action. (http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/terrorism-ihl-210705)
The former is not a human, the latter is."
Once the quote is honestly read in context, the meaning is clear. I was referring to the definitions. As you copied the last sentence, and did not copy the definitions to which it referred, any honest reader must assume that the removal of context was intentional.
". . .I wonder what they mean by 'While some may disagree, many people believe that there is a qualitative difference between humans and non-humans.' as on the face of it I think they're yet again agreeing with the Gestapo.
I believe that there is a qualitative difference between humans and non-humans. The Gestapo and people like them would disagree. What could be simpler, other than an intentional misreading?
"...I wonder whether the replier really does think that Jews; Gypsies; Poles along with other Slavic people like the Russians; Ukrainians; so-called Mischlinge and anyone else who was not an "Aryan") and are not human . . ."
Any honest reading of posts 113, 209, and 248 will clear up any misinterpretations.
"...I'd like a straight answer to a straight bunch of wonderings."
As you wish.
Since you read the post from which you quote (#113), you were aware of the context.
As you removed the quote from the context, you changed its meaning, particularly when you added your reinterpretation, which changed it from a rejection of the Gestapo to an agreement
As the interpretation of the quote was false (ref posts #113, #209, #248), and you knew that that claim was false when you made it, I Googled "a known untruth expressed as truth."
This is what I found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie
I trust you are pleased with my straight answer to your bunch of wonderings.
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#418. At 11:47am on 25 Oct 2010)
"...As you referred to untermensch as not a human, you could agree with each other, I'm will wondering if you do.
So, do you retract your referral to untermensch as 'not a human'?"
Untermensch is German for under man, sub-man, sub-human. The German word Mensch literally means human. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untermensch)
Will you deny the definition? Will you actually deny that German word the meaning?
You are mistaken.
Again.
Complain about this comment
Andy wrote:
"I think someone needs to edit that wiki entry..."
powermeerkat wrote:
"Could Julian Assange be your man to do the job?
Or perhaps Daniel Schmitt (real surname: Donscheit Berg) would? :)"
Or someone at the Pentagon could redact it like it never happened :-)
Complain about this comment
" which is why I mention not just specifically that Geneva Convention, but "modern rules of war, the convention & treaties" "
Fine, Andy.
Now, pray, tell me, which modern rules of war, convention and treaties pertain to Hamas, Hezbollah, Sendero Luminoso, Quds, FARC, Taliban, al-Qaida, etc.
I'll appreciate all relevant links.
thank you.
P.S. I can assure you that uniformed members of North Korean 2 million strong Army will be (if push comes to shove) treated according to Geneva Convention rules.
[LONG LIVE DEAR LEADER, GREAT LEADER KIM IL-SUNG'S SON KIM JONG-IL!
LONG LIVE HIS SON AND HEIR KIM JONG-UN!
ALL POWER IN HANDS OF THE PROLETARIAT!
(as always)]
Complain about this comment
Andy: "Gimmie 50 now you insolent colonialist .:-)"
Now, would that be in British pounds?
[For obvious reasons I'd prefer US dollars. :)]
May force be with ya!
Complain about this comment
Andy. (#407. At 10:51am on 25 Oct 2010)
"... Misinformers would have you believe that increased legal incentives and penalties aimed at pushing carriers like Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast to ensure that any network changes will not disrupt their ability to conduct wiretaps do not yet exist, they may be useful fools to some, but they're obviously deceitful ..."
It seems that you have been reduced to spamming #365.
Nice try, but you've been caught out.
Again
Complain about this comment
powermeerkat, (#424. At 12:11pm on 25 Oct 20100
"... Fine, Andy.... I'll appreciate all relevant links."
Andy, while he often adds DYOR at the end of his posts, has been known to make, now and again, unsubstantiated claims.
I urge you to not hold your breath waiting for any useful links in response to your request.
Complain about this comment
Chryses in post 421 tries to convince us of what he "actually" posted in post 113, however a brief analysis shows this to be false and that's substantiated by comparing what is there in post 113 with what Chryses claims he actually posted.
Chryses misdirection continues.
Chryses claims he was referring to the definitions. I took a look at the definitions he provided in that post, here's it is:
"Untermensch (German for under man, sub-man, sub-human; plural: Untermenschen) is a term that became infamous when the Nazi racial ideology used it to describe "inferior people", especially "the masses from the East," that is Jews, Gypsies, Poles along with other Slavic people like the Russians, Ukrainians, so-called Mischlinge and anyone else who was not an "Aryan" according to the contemporary Nazi race terminology. The German word Mensch literally means human."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untermensch
Immediatly after giving the definitions, Chryses stated "The former is not a human, the latter is. While some may disagree, many people believe that there is a qualitative difference between humans and non-humans.".
This left me, and any right minded logical thinking person, with the impression that Chryses does not think untermenschen are a human.
As an aside, I have to admit that I laughed out loud when Chryses complains about removing quotes from the context and changing meanings considering that's exactly what I think Chryses does often, as substantiated in this thread.
Complain about this comment
Andy wrote:
" which is why I mention not just specifically that Geneva Convention, but "modern rules of war, the convention & treaties" "
powermeerkat wrote:
"Fine, Andy.
Now, pray, tell me, which modern rules of war, convention and treaties pertain to Hamas, Hezbollah, Sendero Luminoso, Quds, FARC, Taliban, al-Qaida, etc.
I'll appreciate all relevant links.
thank you."
I'm afraid I don't have all relevant links at my disposal, so this brief summary will have to do: some of the modern rules of war, conventions and treaties.
powermeerkat wrote:
"P.S. I can assure you that uniformed members of North Korean 2 million strong Army will be (if push comes to shove) treated according to Geneva Convention rules."
Can you substantiate that assurance? ;-)
Complain about this comment
@405. At 10:39am on 25 Oct 2010, Oldloadr wrote:
You wrote "I went to the site you listed and started searching the names of the 1300 distinguished architects and when I checked the very first one, Mr. Gage, I found this interesting article which I will quote a snippet from:
http://globalbrief.ca/tomquiggin/2010/05/01/911-conspiracy-theories-%E2%80%93-debunking-richard-gage/
Debunking conspiracy theories that involve the government is a relatively simple process. Rather than getting bogged down in the analysis of minor details, a larger overview of the relationship between government and conspiracies will easily determine if a conspiracy is at play. "
Three Skyscrapers with only two airliners is not really a minor detail.
The rest of the article merely refers to how "stupid" conspiracy theories are, ignoring the fact that the official story is a conspiracy theory. One which was supported by super-hero-like suicide hijackers (that were arguing over the cost of hooker the previous day), with magic passports that survive infernos and evidence of wills and MS Flight Sim manuals musteriously not loaded onto the flights at airports in brand new suitcases.
Really! Knocking down buildings is easy compared to coordinated suicide hijackings avoiding USAF and missile defenses.
The Occam's Razor refered to in the article you mention should be "Motive, Means and Opportunity".
You can knock Richard Gage (that's an "ad-hominin" argument, by the way). But it should have been simple to prove the Government version of events. Hasn't been done, so far...
Complain about this comment
Few things re the "Untermensch" debate:
1. In order to treat non-uniform combatants less well than clearly marked combatants, one must have a fool-proof strategy to ensure that captives are combatants in the first place. This is sometimes obvious and sometimes not, but regardless of any "security" concerns, an army on foreign soil has a duty of care to ensure that civilians are treated appropriately. That doesn't mean that every civilian mistreatment or death is automatically a criminal issue, but it does mean that military forces must show that they took reasonable steps to protect civilians from harm and abuse.
2. This is also a 2nd amendment issue. The constitution permits the right to bear arms and links this right (in some disputed way) to the formation of "a well armed and well regulated militia". Without getting into politically motivated interpretations of that linkage, do americans maintain uniforms or other identification that separates them from civilians with their guns? Delving into the realm of unlikely scenarios, imagine the British invaded again - or even the Chinese or Koreans. I can't imagine armed civilians all accepting invasion without a fight. Invaders would then only have to use the US's own reasoning to impugn the safety and dignity of any civilian.
3. The non-combatant idea remains linked to the previous administration's attempts to justify torture and minimise the US body count. In this light the life of anyone in a theatre of combat (civilian or otherwise) who is not a US soldier has been deemed to have less value than that of a US soldier. An untermensch.
Complain about this comment
PartTimeDon wrote:
"Few things re the "Untermensch" debate:
1. In order to treat non-uniform combatants less well than clearly marked combatants, one must have a fool-proof strategy to ensure that captives are combatants in the first place. This is sometimes obvious and sometimes not, but regardless of any "security" concerns, an army on foreign soil has a duty of care to ensure that civilians are treated appropriately. That doesn't mean that every civilian mistreatment or death is automatically a criminal issue, but it does mean that military forces must show that they took reasonable steps to protect civilians from harm and abuse."
Agreed.
Currently there is a dichotomy at work. Suspects out of uniform are treated as suspected non-uniform combatants ("terrorists") rather than suspected civilians. Innocent until proven guilty should prevail and until proven to be non-uniformed combatants, all treatment (duty of care) that should be offered civilians should be offered suspected non-uniform combatants/suspected civilians.
Also, when I talk of the rights of civilians, would like to point out that all civilians should be afforded the same rights and not as is the case some civilians get more rights than others.
It would be proper for Iraqi civilians whom are under the protection of the US to get the same protections as US civilians would there, else, and to use the parlance, they would be a sub-civilian class.
PartTimeDon wrote:
"2. This is also a 2nd amendment issue. The constitution permits the right to bear arms and links this right (in some disputed way) to the formation of "a well armed and well regulated militia". Without getting into politically motivated interpretations of that linkage, do americans maintain uniforms or other identification that separates them from civilians with their guns? Delving into the realm of unlikely scenarios, imagine the British invaded again - or even the Chinese or Koreans. I can't imagine armed civilians all accepting invasion without a fight. Invaders would then only have to use the US's own reasoning to impugn the safety and dignity of any civilian."
Agreed.
It boils down to do unto suspected civilians as you would have the opposing forces do unto your grandmother.
PartTimeDon wrote:
"3. The non-combatant idea remains linked to the previous administration's attempts to justify torture and minimise the US body count. In this light the life of anyone in a theatre of combat (civilian or otherwise) who is not a US soldier has been deemed to have less value than that of a US soldier. An untermensch."
Indeed. Additionally, US military personnel (I'm thinking mainly of CIA operatives here) active in the field are "terrorists" for not wearing uniforms and skulking about in civilian areas. It's time to bomb Langley to take those "terrorists" out. I wonder if those who want all means available used against "terrorists" would mind a nuke going of around Langley, and would they shrug at the collateral damage to the US civilian population that would occur? :)
Complain about this comment
425. , powermeerkat wrote:
"Andy: "Gimmie 50 now you insolent colonialist .:-)"
Now, would that be in British pounds?
[For obvious reasons I'd prefer US dollars. :)]
__________________________
Well, it's lucky you're not in charge of the economy.
Most people would take the 50 quid,exchange it for dollars and after the bank fee have around $70 US.
The woeful state of mathematics and international affairs is plain to see
Complain about this comment
Powermeerkat
"What would Jesus bomb?"
:-) LOL
Of course the answer depends on who is claiming that Jesus supports their cause today.
I suspect he would bomb everyone who claims divine support for their little conflicts.
Complain about this comment
powermeerkat wrote:
"A growingly popular T-shirt among folks who have enough of PC BS:
"What would Jesus bomb?""
RomeStu wrote:
":-) LOL
Of course the answer depends on who is claiming that Jesus supports their cause today.
I suspect he would bomb everyone who claims divine support for their little conflicts."
If Jesus were to wear that T-shirt himself, there's not much doubt that he would be summereraly shot for being a suspected terrorist.
Still, being the Son of God should come with some perks so perhaps he could regenerate.
I wonder what Gods' vengeance and furious anger would be towards those who mistakenly shot the Messiah though, ~2000 years of wandering the earth breeding self-resentment? :)
Complain about this comment
Ref# 432 Andy
...US military personnel (I'm thinking mainly of CIA operatives here) active in the field are "terrorists" for not wearing uniforms and skulking about in civilian areas. It's time to bomb Langley to take those "terrorists" out. I wonder if those who want all means available used against "terrorists" would mind a nuke going of around Langley, and would they shrug at the collateral damage to the US civilian population that would occur? :)
__________
Bit of an extreme way to put it, but it's good point.
Is there a difference between a "enemy combatant" fighting for a terrorist organisation and an unidentified government operative - a spy?
And what of the Taleban? They had a (legally) legitimate national armed forces in 2001. Are the same fighters now terrorists? At what point did that change take place? Bear in mind that no-one really believes there have been FREE and FAIR elections in Afghanistan yet.
America's deision to declare war, while it removes many legal problems for the US army on foreign soil, makes a few problems too. Is it legally possible for the Taleban to have legitimate POWs (should they choose to start honouring the Geneva convention) or are captured soldiers merely hostages?
As for nuking Langley, that's probably going a bit far. But after engaging in strategies of warfare in Afghanistan that resulted in (lots of) civilian casualties the US might find itself morally unable to take the high ground if it (as a military establishment) was bunker-bustered by the Taleban. More to the point, if it was done so by a Taleban soldier who clearly marked himself as such and then surrendered, would the US have to legally treat him as a POW instead of giving him the Virginian choice of the Needle or the Chair.
This is all far-fetched, but the point stands that the US has abused the conventions of warfare in order to take advantage of them for its own troops, while denying any such legal standing to its adversaries.
Complain about this comment
"What would Jesus Bomb?"
Reminds me of the Buddhist maxim "If You Meet The Buddha On The Road, Kill Him" - and hey, the Buddhists are pacifists!
http://www.dailybuddhism.com/archives/670
In the meantime... who will held accountable for all the crimes revealed by the wikileak documents?
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#428. At 12:23pm on 25 Oct 2010)
"...Chryses misdirection continues ..."
One of the benefits of not posting falsehoods is that I need not misdirect.
"...Chryses claims he was referring to the definitions. I took a look at the definitions he provided in that post, here's it is:
"Untermensch (German for under man, sub-man, sub-human; plural: Untermenschen) is a term that became infamous when the Nazi racial ideology used it to describe "inferior people", especially "the masses from the East," that is Jews, Gypsies, Poles along with other Slavic people like the Russians, Ukrainians, so-called Mischlinge and anyone else who was not an "Aryan" according to the contemporary Nazi race terminology. The German word Mensch literally means human."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untermensch
Immediatly after giving the definitions, Chryses stated "The former is not a human, the latter is. While some may disagree, many people believe that there is a qualitative difference between humans and non-humans ..."
Andy, Andy, Andy, will you ever learn? By this time you should know that anytime you post your falsehoods, I'll show them to be falsehoods.
Here is what I actually posted in 113
"You are mistaken.
Untermensch is German for under man, sub-man, sub-human. The German word Mensch literally means human. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untermensch)
An unlawful combatant is a civilian who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action. (http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/terrorism-ihl-210705)
The former is not a human, the latter is."
As everyone can read, what you said I posted is not what I posted.
"... This left me, and any right minded logical thinking person, with the impression that Chryses does not think untermenschen are a human... ."
That is the definition of the word. What do you think untermenschen means? LOL!
"...As an aside, I have to admit that I laughed out loud when Chryses complains about removing quotes from the context and changing meanings considering that's exactly what I think Chryses does often, as substantiated in this thread."
That was an observation, not a complaint. Everyone can see that you took the quote out of context. No need to complain about it.
I just caught you posting another falsehood, and you knew that it was false when you posted it. Sooooo, guess what? I Googled "a known untruth expressed as truth."
This is what I found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#432. At 3:01pm on 25 Oct 2010)
“... It's time to bomb Langley to take those "terrorists" out. I wonder if those who want all means available used against "terrorists" would mind a nuke going of around Langley, and would they shrug at the collateral damage to the US civilian population that would occur? :)”
Way to hold the moral high ground there! Care to share any more of your ethical teachings with your viewing public?
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#435. At 5:49pm on 25 Oct 2010)
“... If Jesus were to wear that T-shirt himself, there's not much doubt that he would be summereraly shot for being a suspected terrorist ...”
While such “tragic events” can happen almost anywhere (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4711021.stm), they are less likely to occur where freedom of expression is written into the constitution.
In fact, in some of those locations, you can purchase a bumper sticker for your automobile (http://www.carryabigsticker.com/jesus_bomb.htm) while advocating using nuclear weapons on allies while wearing a WWJB T-shirt (http://altahemp.com/whowojebo.html), and still be protected.
... should one be so inclined.
Unfortunately, those places are few and far between.
Complain about this comment
Chryses, you make me laugh. Your repeated claims of Here is what I actually posted in 113 are getting smaller and smaller. You're claiming post 113 is smaller and smaller each time.
Let me help you out.
The current character count of what you claim you actually posted in post 113 now consists of 435 characters, in actual fact, your post 113 consists of 1544 characters.
In other words, for reasons of misdirection, you are only actually now posting close to 28% of what you actually posted in post 113.
I can understand why. For your points to have any hope of looking good, you need to selectively post only a portion of what was contained in post 113. I don't think any right minded person would be fooled by such misdirection, such a falsehood, such barefaced http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies
I'd tell you to stop digging, but you seem to be having fun and it is amusing in a fish-out-of-water kinda way.
Complain about this comment
Chryses,
To aid you and other who may not have fallen asleep yet in this discussion, here are the first 832 character of 1544 character post, post 113
"Andy, (#94. At 1:14pm on 23 Oct 2010)
"... The comparison between the CIA and the Gestapo is clear. The Gestapo labelled their enemies 'untermensch', the CIA labels them 'unlawful combatants', in each case they're targets are afforded lesser rights than another human and in each case they're subject to abuse that another human would not have to endure ..."
You are mistaken.
Untermensch is German for under man, sub-man, sub-human. The German word Mensch literally means human. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untermensch)
An unlawful combatant is a civilian who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action. (http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/terrorism-ihl-210705)
The former is not a human, the latter is. While some may disagree, many people believe that there is a qualitative difference between humans and non-humans. "
I talk about two groups, the Gestapo labelled 'untermensch' and the CIA labelled 'unlawful combatants'. You pipe in with your definitions of them and immediately go on to state "The former is not a human, the latter is.".
Your statement is as the Gestapo would state. You give no indication that you do not agree with the Gestapo view, you just baldly state it.
In subsequent posts, that come with caveats, you come close to baldly stating it is not your view (but have never actually flatly state it is not your view, thus far) when you're trying to dig yourself out of the hole you created for yourself in post 113, but you still have a retraction to make if you want us to believe that you did not actually mean what you wrote. An apology would be fitting as well.
Enjoy.
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#441. At 00:30am on 26 Oct 2010)
“... for reasons of misdirection, you are only actually now posting close to 28% of what you actually posted in post 113.
One of the benefits of not posting untruths is that I need not try to misdirect.
You claim that the reason I only post the pertinent portions of the post #113 is “for reasons of misdirection”. As anyone can go to post #113 and read the whole post, it is unnecessary, indeed, it is inappropriate to repost the entire thing, as the entirety is not in question.
Nice try, but I’ve caught you again.
The only part that is relevant to your untruth is the portion I selected, as you are quite aware. By removing the original context, and adding your own, you have attempted to portray my opposition to the Nazi Gestapo as agreement.
One of the better features of this forum is that you are unable to change what I posted, and what you posted, so I’ve caught you again! Each time you post your untruths, I’ll Google "a known untruth expressed as truth."
Each time I do I suspect your untruths will return the same thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie
Complain about this comment
Andy and Chryses, please!
If the strawman should fight the scarecrow, who would win?
Would the fight be under the jurisdiction of the Geneva Convention, the World Court, the IOC or WWF?
Inquiring minds don't give a [fill in the blank].
Fun is fun, you have both counted coup, you have each made some points that were valid and some not so much. You are allowing yourselves to decend into an intellectual [no insult intended] version of a high school cafeteria food fight. [Oh no, not the chocolate pudding too!]
Peace, love [and fill in various international versions of these, banned by the moderators for being icky and foreign].
PS Moderators "icky" is a perfectly good American English word and has been since at least 1965. It can be located on page 652 of the Random House Webster's College Dictionary v1999. The Wikipedia entry is confusing as the word had nothing to do with birds in common usage.
Complain about this comment
Chryses wrote:
"The only part that is relevant to your untruth is the portion I selected, as you are quite aware. By removing the original context, and adding your own, you have attempted to portray my opposition to the Nazi Gestapo as agreement."
I have not removed the original context, indeed, the first 832 characters of a 1544 character post includes the original context, the hint to that fact is in the word "first".
Black is white to you, I especially love this:
"One of the better features of this forum is that you are unable to change what I posted, and what you posted.."
LMAO at the irony, you're just too funny.
Complain about this comment
JMM,
OK.
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#442. At 00:43am on 26 Oct 2010)
"... The comparison between the CIA and the Gestapo is clear. The Gestapo labelled their enemies 'untermensch', the CIA labels them 'unlawful combatants', in each case they're targets are afforded lesser rights than another human and in each case they're subject to abuse that another human would not have to endure ..."
You did indeed post that (#94). The most revealing portion is, "... in each case they're subject to abuse ..." as if that establishes an essential similarity. It would seem that you have forgotten that one group was almost exterminated in the Nazi gas chambers, while the other was not. It takes a special kind of mind to hold that the first group, which was subjected to the Holocaust is essentially similar to the second, which was not.
It goes without saying that I responded to this absurd conflating of dissimilar groups with "You are mistaken." I then showed you why you were, and for that matter, remain, mistaken.
First, I provide generally accepted definitions (providing sources, of course, so that unlike some, my claims are not unsubstantiated) of the terms you misuse
"... Untermensch is German for under man, sub-man, sub-human. The German word Mensch literally means human. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untermensch) ..."
And
"...An unlawful combatant is a civilian who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action. (http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/terrorism-ihl-210705) ..."
I then contrast the two definitions.
"... The former is not a human, the latter is. While some may disagree, many people believe that there is a qualitative difference between humans and non-humans ..."
As is now obvious, given the context (which you had hidden by excising this or that portion of the text), "the former" is a referent to the first definition, and "the latter" is a referent to the second (former/latter... first/second - work on it, you'll get it, no one else had a problem with it).
I am pleased that you have, for whatever reasons, provided the opportunity for me to methodically, step-by-step, show how the post you misrepresent was assembled, all in grammatically and syntactically correct English prose. There now remains no honest way for you to suggest that I meant 'X' when I said 'Y'. I have taken this opportunity to close to you this avenue of distortion and misrepresentation.
"... I talk about two groups, the Gestapo labelled 'untermensch' and the CIA labelled 'unlawful combatants' ..."
Indeed you do as if there is an essential similarity, which as I have show to be false.
"... You pipe in with your definitions of them ..."
Those are not my definitions. One is a German word, and the other may be found in any number of dictionaries, a link to one of which I provide.
You are wrong.
Again
"...and immediately go on to state "The former is not a human, the latter is."
I have already demonstrated to what the sentence refers - definitions.
It is the willful misconstruing of an unambiguous text that identifies you as one who tells a known untruth as truth. It is either that, or admit that you are unable to read straightforward argument when presented as a set of English prose sentence.
The choice is yours sir, either admit illiteracy, or being someone who expresses a known untruth as truth.
I now continue with a refutation of the next portion of your post #442
"...your statement is as the Gestapo would state ..."
You do seem to have difficulty with word definitions, don't you? As you have acknowledged in a prior post (do please ask me to substantiate the claim), I refer to a collection of Untermensch as people; the Gestapo would not.
You are wrong.
Again.
"... You give no indication that you do not agree with the Gestapo view, you just baldly state it ..."
Perhaps you do have a reading impairment. As demonstrated immediately above, I use words to show that I consider Untermensch to be humans by referring to a collection of them as people. Perhaps you were unable to understand "... While some may disagree, many people believe that there is a qualitative difference between humans and non-humans ..."? Let me help you. What that means is that while some (and who might those be? Hint: Gestapo) may disagree, many people (you, I, JMM, etc.) believe that there is a qualitative difference between humans and non-human. Now do you understand?
"...In subsequent posts, that come with caveats, you come close to baldly stating it is not your view (but have never actually flatly state it is not your view, thus far) when you're trying to dig yourself out of the hole you created for yourself in post 113 ..."
I have shown again, this time with you providing the vehicle of quoting my post (Have I said Thank You?) that what I actually posted (and you cannot whine about the character count this time, as you provided the text LOL!) that what I posted was not what you said I posted. Actually, what you said I posted was just about one hundred and eighty degrees off of what I posted in clear, unambiguous English prose. You know how to read. You knew it was one hundred and eighty degrees off when you posted your false claims.
"...but you still have a retraction to make if you want us to believe that you did not actually mean what you wrote ..."
Oh, but I did mean that I hold myself in opposition to the Gestapo. Don't you?
"... An apology would be fitting as well ..."
You will have to wait a very long time before I will apologize for being anti-Nazi.
"... Enjoy."
I have enjoyed this step-by-step, and line by line refutation of your untruths. It has been satisfying to show that what you said I posted is not at all what I posted. Perhaps it was because you invited me to do so.
Complain about this comment
Powermeerkat,
At 12:28pm on 25 Oct 2010, Andy wrote “... I'm afraid I don't have all relevant links at my disposal, so this brief summary will have to do: some of the modern rules of war, conventions and treaties ...”
Translation: I don’t know
Complain about this comment
Mark Mardell.
strange how General Casey's reported opinon in defense of US policies ("Our policy all along was if American soldiers encountered prisoner abuse, to stop it and report it immediately up the US chain of command and up the Iraqi chain of command") directly contradicts what was said by the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, back then ("I don't think you mean they (American soldiers) have an obligation to physically stop it. It's to report it.").
seems that General Casey has been wheeled in for a quick bit of 'damage limitation'. ;)
it's shameful that the BBC published General Casey's comment without ascertaining its truth.
re conspiracies -- this BBC report shows that sometimes conspiracy is not even required to explain certain events, sloppy and negligent journalism can do that more than adequately.
Complain about this comment
powermeerkat wrote:
"P.S. I can assure you that uniformed members of North Korean 2 million strong Army will be (if push comes to shove) treated according to Geneva Convention rules."
Andy asked: Can you substantiate that assurance? ;-)
Look no further than to treatment of captured North Korean soldiers during the Korean War.
Or even of Russian pilots pretending to be Korean, shot down in the same theater of operations. :)
Complain about this comment
" Well, it's lucky you're not in charge of the economy.
Most people would take the 50 quid,exchange it for dollars and after the bank fee have around $70 US."
RomeStu, read again the original Andy's post.
He asked to give HIM 50, not offered to give ME 50.
So my response was quite rational I'd think; wouldn't ya? :)
Complain about this comment
Powermeerkat
"What would Jesus bomb?"
RomeStu:-) LOL
Of course the answer depends on who is claiming that Jesus supports their cause today.
I suspect he would bomb everyone who claims divine support for their little conflicts.
PM: True, shaving regularly with Okham's Razor might prevent introducing extraneous entities when none are needed.
However, what would you say to those "gentlemen" who wage holy war (jihad )against us in the name of Allah?
And if the latter was to select targets, wouldn't they be (according to his Prophet's writings) "infidels" like us?
[Inquiring minds want to know. :)]
Complain about this comment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7N7jNqr_Los
Former CIA agent says that "there are two CIAs... One is US-President's Own Gestapo, and I use the term advisedly..." (about 4 minutes in...)
Complain about this comment
jr4412, (#449. At 06:58am on 26 Oct 2010)
“... seems that General Casey has been wheeled in for a quick bit of 'damage limitation'. ;) ...”
It certainly appears that way.
Complain about this comment
ynda20, (#453. At 08:24am on 26 Oct 20100)
“... Former CIA agent says that "there are two CIAs... One is US-President's Own Gestapo, and I use the term advisedly..." (about 4 minutes in...)”
Wouldn’t this be the same former CIA analyst (not agent), Ray Mcgovern, who was one of the people who predicted back in August that Israel might attack Iran in that month? Yes indeed he is. As we can all recall that is exactly what happened.
The carnage was awesome.
Complain about this comment
ynda20 #453.
thank you, Curt Carpenter (#371) was spot on when he praised your (research) skills.
Complain about this comment
@456. At 11:24am on 26 Oct 2010, jr4412 wrote:
"ynda20 #453. thank you, Curt Carpenter (#371) was spot on when he praised your (research) skills."
Thanks. I do my best. It's not easy with all these dis-info agents around.
As for the lack of a war with Iran... Sure... currently! There has been none yet. But are you denying there isn't an awlful lot of warnings that the USA may attack?
And if they do, it will because of "something" that Iran has done. Are you sure that "something" hasn't just been a dirty trick? A false flag attack? Like the Bay of Tonkin event (or rather non-event).
Complain about this comment
ynda20 #457.
"As for the lack of a war with Iran.."
mystified, haven't mentioned Iran once on this blog.
"..an awlful lot of warnings that the USA may attack?"
agree, there are, even the comedians already have picked up on that. personally I think it's a lot to do with Iran selling its oil in Euros (Iraq got clobbered as soon as they did!!), but the excess production of weapons plays a role too (we cannot just keep stocking them, at some point we have to use them, ie clear out the warehouses).
Complain about this comment
@458. jr4412 wrote:
re USA may attack? ..."agree, there are, even the comedians already have picked up on that. personally I think it's a lot to do with Iran selling its oil in Euros (Iraq got clobbered as soon as they did!!), but the excess production of weapons plays a role too (we cannot just keep stocking them, at some point we have to use them, ie clear out the warehouses)."
There is a whole bunch of reasons: Oil and Dollar/Euro amongst them. I think the US are still upset with Iran about the Hostage Crisis! The media states that the US may be thinking of using of nuclear weapons on Iran - I think this is the most worrying...
Complain about this comment
Chryses wrote:
"Wouldn’t this be the same former CIA analyst (not agent), Ray Mcgovern, who was one of the people who predicted back in August that Israel might attack Iran in that month? Yes indeed he is. As we can all recall that is exactly what happened."
As I recall, the Irans' Bushehr nuclear power plant was official started up on August 21 , shortly afterwards it was the victim of a cyber-attack by the "Stuxnet" worm which is though to have eminated from a nation-state, probably Israel or the US.
Complain about this comment
ynda20 #459.
"I think the US are still upset with Iran about the Hostage Crisis!"
and the Iranians still hurt from a lack of a public apology for this incident. ;(
Complain about this comment
Here is the Ray Mcgovern's interview from August 4th, 2010 (Chryses' post 455 gave me the name, cheers).
Complain about this comment
This is it BBC? This is what I and millions of others pay tv licences for? A real story about the war crimes committed by the coalition forces gets a couple of paragraphs dedicated to the Pentagons spin rather than the contents of the documents! You gave the cat bin lady more coverage, the state of the journalistic integrity of the BBC reporting on this issue is chilling. Truley disgraceful shame on you.
Complain about this comment
This is Fox news, nothing to see here, please move along quietly ..... :-)
Complain about this comment
463, Nugget,
Does your name stand for gold nugget...or chicken nugget?
Anyhew...
words from the wise Bobby D.,
"For them that must obey authority
That they do not respect in any degree
Who despise their jobs, their destinies,
Speak jealously of them that are free
Cultivate their flowers to be
Nothing more than something
They invest in."
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#460. At 3:12pm on 26 Oct 2010)
“Chryses wrote:
"Wouldn’t this be the same former CIA analyst (not agent), Ray Mcgovern, who was one of the people who predicted back in August that Israel might attack Iran in that month? Yes indeed he is. As we can all recall that is exactly what happened."
As I recall, the Irans' Bushehr nuclear power plant was official started up on August 21 , shortly afterwards it was the victim of a cyber-attack by the "Stuxnet" worm which is though to have eminated from a nation-state, probably Israel or the US.”
Haven’t we been down this street before?
Example #1
Andy (#115. At 3:11pm on 23 Oct 2010) to JMM
"There does not have to be an exact match for a similarity to occur."; post 106 where I stated, "..CIA hides behind similar legislation in the US.. ....."similar" ....."similar""
As you can now perhaps comprehend, I am not talking equivalency, I am talking similarity.”
Example #2
Now let’s get an record of what was actually said ...
“... a group of experienced former FBI and CIA officials have sent a memo to President Obama warning that Israel may bomb Iran as early as this month ...” (@7 sec)
Computer virus = explosive weapon
Ah, another of Andy’s world famous similarities!
Nice try
Complain about this comment
Chryses,
you do realise that military attacks can occur without explosions, don't you?
I listened to the link I provided of the Ray Mcgovern interview (have you?). Ray Mcgovern mentions military attack, nowhere does he say explosion.
Complain about this comment
Chryses,
Rather than believing what those reporting what the letter says, why not read the actual letter?
"MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: War With Iran
We write to alert you to the likelihood that Israel will attack Iran as early as this month. This would likely lead to a wider war. Israel’s leaders would calculate that once the battle is joined, it will be politically untenable for you to give anything less than unstinting support to Israel, no matter how the war started, and that U.S. troops and weaponry would flow freely. Wider war could eventually result in destruction of the state of Israel. This can be stopped, but only if you move quickly to pre-empt an Israeli attack by publicly condemning such a move before it happens.
.."
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Opinion/073167-2010-08-03-ray-mcgovern-mr-president-preempt-an-israeli-attack-on-iran.htm
Ah, I know why, because it will show your mistake.
Why let the truth get in the way of a lie eh.
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#467. At 6:29pm on 26 Oct 2010)
"Chryses,
you do realise that military attacks can occur without explosions, don't you?
I listened to the link I provided of the Ray Mcgovern interview (have you?). Ray Mcgovern mentions military attack, nowhere does he say explosion."
Damage Control! Damage Control! Damage Control!
462. At 3:26pm on 26 Oct 2010, Andy wrote:
Here is the Ray Mcgovern's interview from August 4th, 2010 (Chryses' post 455 gave me the name, cheers).
Notice how in the initial post, you refer to the interview? Once I followed the link, and copied to print the words of the interviewer (who is, of course, part of the interview to which you refer) who says, and I'll quote again for your instruction, "... a group of experienced former FBI and CIA officials have sent a memo to President Obama warning that Israel may bomb Iran as early as this month ..." (@7 sec).
Further, @ 9 sec, the banner reads, "TO BOMB OR NOT TO BOMB?"
The interviewer continues, "Joining me to help discuss this is one of the men behind the memo, former CIA analyst, Ray McGovern."
She turns to Mr. McGovern and says, "So Ray, first of all, tell me a little bit more of why you guys are making that prediction ..."
Sooooooooo. With that introduction, if Mr. McGovern was not talking about bombing he would have corrected the interviewer then. He did not.
Further, @ 1:35, Mr. McGovern speaks of, and again I'll quote from the link you provided (Thank You) "a military strike". Now, knowing that some people might mistake the expression of "a military strike" as referring to, oh, computer hacking comes to mind, I have taken the liberty of providing a definition (not MINE mind you, merely A definition).
"A military strike is a limited attack on a specified target. Strikes are used, amongst other things, to render facilities inoperable (e.g. airports), to assassinate enemy leaders, and to limit supply to enemy troops. A strike can often be the prelude to a war or siege, whose initial strike is for a strategic or tactical disruption, as opposed to all out victory. A strike accomplished by aircraft is known specifically as an airstrike. A strike designed to prevent the danger of a future condition or development is known as a pre-emptive strike." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_strike)
Further, while Mr. McGovern speaks of "a military strike" the banner reads, "CAUTION:RED FLAGS FLYING AFTER WARNING OF ISRAEL ATTACK ON IRAN"
You post "... you do realise that military attacks can occur without explosions, don't you?
I listened to the link I provided of the Ray Mcgovern interview (have you?) ..."
You are probably aware by now that I had listened to the interview.
Now, with these facts before us,
1. You had listened to the interview
2. You heard the interviewer announce "a memo to President Obama warning that Israel may bomb Iran"
3. You had heard the interviewer introduce Mr. McGovern as "one of the men behind the memo"
4. You saw the banners "TO BOMB OR NOT TO BOMB?", and "CAUTION:RED FLAGS FLYING AFTER WARNING OF ISRAEL ATTACK ON IRAN"
5. You heard Mr. McGovern refer to ) "a military strike"
6. You understand English
7. You then advance the proposition that Mr. McGovern was referring to a computer virus.
I do believe that I have caught (again) you expressing an untruth (#7) as a truth!
Congratulations!
Complain about this comment
Crepes,
"Sooooooooo. With that introduction, if Mr. McGovern was not talking about bombing he would have corrected the interviewer then. He did not."
How many times have you beaten your wife? Are you a wife beater as you have not said you're not.
Have you read the memo they're discussing?
Regarding different types of military attacks, you may wish to educate yourself by reading this article about the US releasing it's cyber warfare manual, the Cyberspace Operations: Air Force Doctrine Document 3-12.
You don't seem to have a clue regarding the threat of cyber warfare, ie, a type of warfare that does not need explosions/ bombs.
Also, stop putting words into my mouth when you say, "You then advance the proposition that Mr. McGovern was referring to a computer virus.".
I was doing no such thing. McGovern states a military attack as I have said he said. It is my idea that this military attack could perhaps be a cyber attack and that such a cyber attack could have been the attack on Bushehr, here are my words for you continued education:
Andy: "As I recall, the Irans' Bushehr nuclear power plant was official started up on August 21 , shortly afterwards it was the victim of a cyber-attack by the "Stuxnet" worm which is though to have eminated from a nation-state, probably Israel or the US."
You have been caught putting words into my mouth and misdirecting readers again Chryses. Would you please desist this inexcusable and childish action.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Crepes...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't blame Andy cause' crepes are awesome.
Especially the strawberry ones...:)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
LucyJ,
If I were a Strawberry Crêpe, would Wikileaks report it?
Complain about this comment
Chryses,
Alas, you would probably have to be boysenberry or rhubarb crepe for them to report it...whatever that means...lol...wikileaks wants attention, they want something exciting just like CNN, so strawberry would probably be too oldschool for them...
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#467. At 6:29pm on 26 Oct 2010)
"Chryses,
you do realise that military attacks can occur without explosions, don't you?
I listened to the link I provided of the Ray Mcgovern interview (have you?). Ray Mcgovern mentions military attack, nowhere does he say explosion."
Damage Control! Damage Control! Damage Control!
462. At 3:26pm on 26 Oct 2010, Andy wrote:
Here is the Ray Mcgovern's interview from August 4th, 2010 (Chryses' post 455 gave me the name, cheers).
Notice how in the initial post, you refer to the interview? I followed the link, and copied out the words of the interviewer (who is, of course, part of the interview) who says, and I'll quote again for your instruction, "... a group of experienced former FBI and CIA officials have sent a memo to President Obama warning that Israel may bomb Iran as early as this month ..." (@7 sec).
Further, @9 sec, the banner reads, "TO BOMB OR NOT TO BOMB?"
The interviewer continues, "Joining me to help discuss this is one of the men behind the memo, former CIA analyst, Ray McGovern."
She turns to Mr. McGovern and says, "So Ray, first of all, tell me a little bit more of why you guys are making that prediction ...."
Sooooooooo. With that introduction, if Mr. McGovern was not talking about bombing he would have corrected the interviewer then. He did not.
Further, @1:35, Mr. McGovern speaks of, and again I'll quote from the link you provided (Thank You) "a military strike". Now, knowing that some people might mistake the expression of "a military strike" as referring to, oh, computer hacking comes to mind, I have taken the liberty of providing a definition (not MINE mind you, merely A definition).
"A military strike is a limited attack on a specified target. Strikes are used, amongst other things, to render facilities inoperable (e.g. airports), to assassinate enemy leaders, and to limit supply to enemy troops. A strike can often be the prelude to a war or siege, whose initial strike is for a strategic or tactical disruption, as opposed to all out victory. A strike accomplished by aircraft is known specifically as an airstrike. A strike designed to prevent the danger of a future condition or development is known as a pre-emptive strike." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_strike)
Further, while Mr. McGovern speaks of "a military strike" the banner reads, "CAUTION:RED FLAGS FLYING AFTER WARNING OF ISRAEL ATTACK ON IRAN"
You post "... you do realise that military attacks can occur without explosions, don't you?
I listened to the link I provided of the Ray Mcgovern interview (have you?) ..."
You are probably aware by now that I had listened to the interview.
Now, with these facts before us,
1. You had listened to the interview
2. You heard the interviewer announce "a memo to President Obama warning that Israel may bomb Iran"
3. You had heard the interviewer introduce Mr. McGovern as "one of the men behind the memo"
4. You saw the banners "TO BOMB OR NOT TO BOMB?", and "CAUTION:RED FLAGS FLYING AFTER WARNING OF ISRAEL ATTACK ON IRAN"
5. You heard Mr. McGovern refer to "a military strike"
6. You then advance the proposition that Mr. McGovern was referring to a computer virus.
Can you explain how 6 follows 1 through 5?
Complain about this comment
LucyJ, (#475. At 10:48pm on 26 Oct 2010)
"...wikileaks wants attention, they want something exciting just like CNN, so strawberry would probably be too oldschool for them..."
Hmmm. Well, Wikileaks could spill the beans on Mr. Assange's sex life.
Just a thought.
Complain about this comment
Chryses,
As you admit, it was the interviewer and the interviewer studio that had mention of bombs, not the interviewee Mr. McGovern.
Mr McGovern does not need to correct everything the interviewer says or correct everything that may be displayed on the set he is sitting in or said to him.
As an aside, I think he did correct her when he kept on referring to military strikes rather than using the interviewers terminology, "bomb". He seems smart enough to know that military strikes could include bombs and not exclude any other type of military strike.
Mr McGovern talks about military strikes. I think military strikes are strikes committed by the military, simples. As military's around the world are gearing up to defend against and plot cyber strikes, I also look out for those types of military strikes. As Iran was is alleged to have been attacked by a nation-state only short time after Mr McGovern warned of a military strike on Iran by her enemies, I propose the two may be linked.
Complain about this comment
Chryses #477.
"Well, Wikileaks could spill the beans on Mr. Assange's sex life."
who needs Wikileaks when we've CNN?
of course, contemplating the sordid details of a sex crime which may -- or may not !! -- have taken place, beats thinking about 'our boys' committing war crimes on government orders any day.
"Just a thought."
quite, idle, self-indulgent speculation, way to spend the day.
Complain about this comment
jr4412, (#479. At 00:10am on 27 Oct 2010)
“... ’Just a thought.’
quite, idle, self-indulgent speculation, way to spend the day.”
In contrast to, oh, complaining about it?
LOL!
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#470. At 8:00pm on 26 Oct 2010)
"Crepes, ..."
Crepes? OMG! - Is that what you have been reduced to? - Crepes? LOL!
"...Have you read the memo they're discussing? ..."
Can this entertainment get any better?
462. At 3:26pm on 26 Oct 2010, Andy wrote: "Here is the Ray Mcgovern's interview ..."
I then displayed for the world to read that the interview contained "... a group of experienced former FBI and CIA officials have sent a memo to President Obama warning that Israel may bomb Iran as early as this month ..." (@7 sec)
So quick, like a bunny you switched to
467. At 6:29pm on 26 Oct 2010, Andy wrote: "... Ray Mcgovern mentions military attack, nowhere does he say explosion."
I then displayed for the world to read that @ 1:35, Mr. McGovern speaks of, and I quote from the link you provided "a military strike". I also showed that no HONEST interpretation of "military strike" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_strike) would avoid the violence plastered across the screen "TO BOMB OR NOT TO BOMB?"
So quick, like a bunny you switched to
470. At 8:00pm on 26 Oct 2010, Andy wrote: "... Have you read the memo they're discussing? . ..."
That is what is known a Red Herring. Whether I have read the memo or not is irrelevant. A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html)
You referred me to the interview, and I showed that the interview refuted you.
You then referred me to a small piece of the interview, what Mr. McGovern said, and I showed that what he said refuted you
You are now referring to the memo that he is referring to in a desperate attempt to find SOMETHING I cannot use to show how wrong you are.
Again.
Well, enjoy your Red Herring.
Nice try
To continue ...
"...Regarding different types of military attacks, you may wish to educate yourself by reading this article about the US releasing it's cyber warfare manual, the Cyberspace Operations: Air Force Doctrine Document 3-12... ."
Irrelevant noise. It has nothing to do with the fact that the "military strike" Mr. MrGovern referred to never happened.
"...You don't seem to have a clue regarding the threat of cyber warfare, ie, a type of warfare that does not need explosions/ bombs ...."
Irrelevant noise. It has nothing to do with the fact that the "military strike" Mr. MrGovern referred to never happened.
"...Also, stop putting words into my mouth when you say, 'You then advance the proposition that Mr. McGovern was referring to a computer virus.'.
I was doing no such thing. McGovern states a military attack as I have said he said. It is my idea that this military attack could perhaps be a cyber attack and that such a cyber attack could have been the attack on Bushehr, here are my words for you continued education: ...."
LOL! Go back and read what you posted.
I said that you advanced the proposition that Mr. McGovern was referring to a computer virus. Correct.
You take grave exception to that and say, and I quote, "... It is my idea that this military attack could perhaps be a cyber attack". Yes.
I did post that you advanced the proposition that Mr. McGovern was referring to a computer virus.
"... You have been caught putting words into my mouth and misdirecting readers again Chryses ..."
Actually, no. The problem seems to be that you were unable to understand what you read.
Complain about this comment
Chryses #480.
"In contrast to, oh, complaining about it?"
I would have thought that anyone with a conscience would oppose war crimes, complain about them even. but if you're content to "LOL!", well...
Complain about this comment
jr4412, (#482. At 01:43am on 27 Oct 2010)
“... ‘In contrast to, oh, complaining about it?’
I would have thought that anyone with a conscience would oppose war crimes, complain about them even. but if you're content to "LOL!", well...”
Non sequitur alert!Non sequitur alert!Non sequitur alert!
Your complaint was about my jibe at Mr. Mr. Assange's sex life. And NOW “... I would have thought that anyone with a conscience would oppose war crimes ...”
Non sequitur alert!Non sequitur alert!Non sequitur alert!
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#478. At 11:44pm on 26 Oct 2010)
“... As you admit, it was the interviewer and the interviewer studio that had mention of bombs, not the interviewee Mr. McGovern ...”
No admission is involved. You referred us to the interview, didn’t you?
Now suddenly you want to focus on something else, anything else. Why is that?
“... Mr McGovern does not need to correct everything the interviewer says or correct everything that may be displayed on the set he is sitting in or said to him ...”
Of course not! He can let his organization build a lie around him, just like ...”
Oh, wait! Wikileaks will spill the beans on him!
LOL!
As an aside, I think he did correct her when he kept on referring to military strikes rather than using the interviewers terminology, "bomb". He seems smart enough to know that military strikes could include bombs and not exclude any other type of military strike.
Let me see if I understand this claim. You’re telling us that Mr. McGovern “seems smart enough to know that military strikes could include bombs”? And you expect anyone to take you seriously?
“... Mr McGovern talks about military strikes. I think military strikes are strikes committed by the military, simples ...”
I have taken the liberty of providing a definition (not MINE mind you, merely A definition).
"A military strike is a limited attack on a specified target. Strikes are used, amongst other things, to render facilities inoperable (e.g. airports), to assassinate enemy leaders, and to limit supply to enemy troops. A strike can often be the prelude to a war or siege, whose initial strike is for a strategic or tactical disruption, as opposed to all out victory. A strike accomplished by aircraft is known specifically as an airstrike. A strike designed to prevent the danger of a future condition or development is known as a pre-emptive strike." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_strike)
Any chance of you reconsidering your claim NOW?
“... As military's around the world are gearing up to defend against and plot cyber strikes, I also look out for those types of military strikes. As Iran was is alleged to have been attacked by a nation-state only short time after Mr McGovern warned of a military strike on Iran by her enemies, I propose the two may be linked.”
Any evidence to support THIS claim? Or will it be yet another unsubstantiated claim?
Complain about this comment
Chryses wrote:
"You referred me to the interview, and I showed that the interview refuted you."
Not in this thread you have not. Substantiate that claim.
Chryses wrote:
"You then referred me to a small piece of the interview, what Mr. McGovern said, and I showed that what he said refuted you"
Again, not in this thread you have not. Substantiate that claim.
Chryses wrote:
"You are now referring to the memo that he is referring to in a desperate attempt to find SOMETHING I cannot use to show how wrong you are.
Again.
Well, enjoy your Red Herring.
Nice try"
Again, not in this thread you have not. Substantiate that claim.
Regarding the military strike that Mr. McGovern mentions, it may or may not have happened, I doubt we'll ever know. I think that perhaps it did and that perhaps it was the cyber strike that Iran suffered at the hands of an alleged nation-state(s) shortly after Mr. McGovern's warning. You seem sure it has not happened. You seem to be a believer of absence of irrefutible evidence is evidence of absence, ah well.
Andy wrote:
""...Also, stop putting words into my mouth when you say, 'You then advance the proposition that Mr. McGovern was referring to a computer virus.'. I was doing no such thing. McGovern states a military attack as I have said he said. It is my idea that this military attack could perhaps be a cyber attack and that such a cyber attack could have been the attack on Bushehr, here are my words for you continued education:..."
Chryses wrote:
"LOL! Go back and read what you posted.
I said that you advanced the proposition that Mr. McGovern was referring to a computer virus. Correct."
Incorrect. I did not use the word "was", I said "could perhaps be".
Mr. McGovern referred to a military strike, I posited that "could perhaps be a cyber attack" Iran suffered.
You have been caught putting words into my mouth and misdirecting readers again Chryses. Would you please desist this inexcusable and childish action.
Your problem seems to be that you unable to understand what I wrote. It's pretty simple English so it's diffucult for me to believe it's an honest mistake on your behalf, especially taking into account the numerous occations you have misrepresented me.
Complain about this comment
jr4412 wrote:
"Chryses #480.
"In contrast to, oh, complaining about it?"
I would have thought that anyone with a conscience would oppose war crimes, complain about them even. but if you're content to "LOL!", well..."
I also think that anyone with a a conscience would oppose war crimes, complain about them even, but there are some weird people in the world who do not exhibit a conscience.
Torturers, psychopaths, internet trolls, bigots, are a few groups who do not exhibit such consciences when faced with war crimes.
Complain about this comment
Chryses,
I don't want you to focus on something else, anything else, I think you need all the focus you can muster to keep up with this discussion.
Andy wrote:
“... Mr McGovern does not need to correct everything the interviewer says or correct everything that may be displayed on the set he is sitting in or said to him ...”
Chryses wrote:
“Of course not! He can let his organization build a lie around him, just like ...
Oh, wait! Wikileaks will spill the beans on him!
LOL!"
Mr McGovern is not the one building lies, I suspect you are. Mr McGovern answered questions, the first in that interview being: "So Ray, first of all, tell me a little bit more of why you guys of why you guys are making that prediction, why specifically do you think something will happen this month?"
He answered that something would be a "military strike". Anyone can go and substantiate that against the tape.
Andy wrote:
“As an aside, I think he did correct her when he kept on referring to military strikes rather than using the interviewers terminology, "bomb". He seems smart enough to know that military strikes could include bombs and not exclude any other type of military strike."
Chryses wrote:
“Let me see if I understand this claim. You’re telling us that Mr. McGovern “seems smart enough to know that military strikes could include bombs”? And you expect anyone to take you seriously?"
As you can read, I'm telling you exactly what I wrote which was:"He seems smart enough to know that military strikes could include bombs and not exclude any other type of military strike.", exactly as I wrote it.
Andy wrote:
“... Mr McGovern talks about military strikes. I think military strikes are strikes committed by the military, simples ...”
Chryses wrote:
“I have taken the liberty of providing a definition (not MINE mind you, merely A definition).
"A military strike is a limited attack on a specified target. Strikes are used, amongst other things, to render facilities inoperable (e.g. airports), to assassinate enemy leaders, and to limit supply to enemy troops. A strike can often be the prelude to a war or siege, whose initial strike is for a strategic or tactical disruption, as opposed to all out victory. A strike accomplished by aircraft is known specifically as an airstrike. A strike designed to prevent the danger of a future condition or development is known as a pre-emptive strike." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_strike)
Any chance of you reconsidering your claim NOW?"
No. A military strike is a strike committed by the military. That statement stands by itself quite easily, an averagely intelligent six year old could understand it and see the truth in it. Why can't you?
Andy wrote:
“... As military's around the world are gearing up to defend against and plot cyber strikes, I also look out for those types of military strikes. As Iran was is alleged to have been attacked by a nation-state only short time after Mr McGovern warned of a military strike on Iran by her enemies, I propose the two may be linked.”
Chryses wrote:
“Any evidence to support THIS claim? Or will it be yet another unsubstantiated claim?"
In post 470 I provided you with a link an article on the US's Cyberspace Operations: Air Force Doctrine Document 3-12. From there you could if you had the will (and use Google) find the document itself, but as you seem rather lazy, let me Google that for you: here here is the direct link the document itself. With regards to the latter part, I suggest people take the key words ("Iran attacked nation-state") and Google it themselves, it's not difficult, you should try it sometime.
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#485. At 02:31am on 27 Oct 2010):
"... 'You referred me to the interview, and I showed that the interview refuted you.'
Not in this thread you have not. Substantiate that claim ..."
Sure you did Andy! It was post #462. At 3:26pm on 26 Oct 2010, Andy wrote"Here is the Ray Mcgovern's interview ..."
I then displayed for the world to read that the interview contained "... a group of experienced former FBI and CIA officials have sent a memo to President Obama warning that Israel may bomb Iran as early as this month ..." (@7 sec)
Caught you!
"... 'You then referred me to a small piece of the interview, what Mr. McGovern said, and I showed that what he said refuted you'
Again, not in this thread you have not. Substantiate that claim ... ."
Sure you did Andy! It was post #467. At 6:29pm on 26 Oct 2010, Andy wrote: "... Ray Mcgovern mentions military attack, nowhere does he say explosion."
I then displayed for the world to read that @ 1:35, Mr. McGovern speaks of, and I quote from the link you provided "a military strike". I also showed that no HONEST interpretation of "military strike" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_strike) would avoid the violence plastered across the screen "TO BOMB OR NOT TO BOMB?"
Caught you!
"... 'You are now referring to the memo that he is referring to in a desperate attempt to find SOMETHING I cannot use to show how wrong you are.
Again.
Well, enjoy your Red Herring.
Nice try'
Again, not in this thread you have not. Substantiate that claim ..."
Sure you did Andy! It was post #470. At 8:00pm on 26 Oct 2010, Andy wrote: "... Have you read the memo they're discussing? . ..."
Caught you!
"… Regarding the military strike that Mr. McGovern mentions, it may or may not have happened, I doubt we'll ever know ..."
Pure nonsense! Can you provide any evidence of a "military strike"? You know, as in an honest interpretation of "military strike" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_strike)
"... I think that perhaps it did ..."
Evidence?
"... and that perhaps it was the cyber strike that Iran suffered at the hands of an alleged nation-state(s) shortly after Mr. McGovern's warning... ."
Perhaps, and perhaps not. If you want anyone to believe you, you'll need to substantiate your claim.
"... You seem sure it has not happened ..."
Has what happened?
"... You seem to be a believer of absence of irrefutible evidence is evidence of absence, ah well."
Can you provide ANY evidence to substantiate your claim?
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#487. At 03:05am on 27 Oct 2010)
"... Mr McGovern is not the one building lies, I suspect you are ..."
I am pointing out that the man you rely upon for information predicted a "military strike" (his words) in August that didn't happen.
"...Mr McGovern answered questions, the first in that interview being: 'So Ray, first of all, tell me a little bit more of why you guys of why you guys are making that prediction, why specifically do you think something will happen this month?'
He answered that something would be a "military strike". Anyone can go and substantiate that against the tape ..."
Correct. I have taken the liberty of providing a definition (not MINE mind you, merely A definition).
"A military strike is a limited attack on a specified target. Strikes are used, amongst other things, to render facilities inoperable (e.g. airports), to assassinate enemy leaders, and to limit supply to enemy troops. A strike can often be the prelude to a war or siege, whose initial strike is for a strategic or tactical disruption, as opposed to all out victory. A strike accomplished by aircraft is known specifically as an airstrike. A strike designed to prevent the danger of a future condition or development is known as a pre-emptive strike." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_strike)
The "military strike" (his words) did not happen in August, or September, or so far in October.
Just the kind of predictive accuracy one can rely on, eh?
Complain about this comment
Chryses,
You have caught yourself.
(note: what childishness, how old are you Chryses, 14/15?)
Chryses wrote:
"I also showed that no HONEST interpretation of "military strike" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_strike) would avoid the violence plastered across the screen "TO BOMB OR NOT TO BOMB?""
I have provided links to the US's Cyberspace Operations: Air Force Doctrine Document 3-12. This documents military uses of cyber attacks. Cyber attacks avoid bombs, here is another
Again, you have caught yourself, nobody else, and it makes you look rather daft and DISHONEST. I'm not sure why your bothering, do you want to come across as the most dishonest poster on the web or something?
Andy wrote:
""… Regarding the military strike that Mr. McGovern mentions, it may or may not have happened, I doubt we'll ever know ..."
Chryses wrote:
"Pure nonsense! Can you provide any evidence of a "military strike"? You know, as in an honest interpretation of "military strike" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_strike)"
The words are in simple English, if you find them nonsense, learn the language a little better. I also think you need to look up and understand what the word "honest" means.
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#487. At 03:05am on 27 Oct 2010)
"… Andy wrote:
'... Mr McGovern talks about military strikes. I think military strikes are strikes committed by the military, simples ...'
Chryses wrote:
'I have taken the liberty of providing a definition (not MINE mind you, merely A definition).
"A military strike is a limited attack on a specified target. Strikes are used, amongst other things, to render facilities inoperable (e.g. airports), to assassinate enemy leaders, and to limit supply to enemy troops. A strike can often be the prelude to a war or siege, whose initial strike is for a strategic or tactical disruption, as opposed to all out victory. A strike accomplished by aircraft is known specifically as an airstrike. A strike designed to prevent the danger of a future condition or development is known as a pre-emptive strike." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_strike)
Any chance of you reconsidering your claim NOW?'
No. A military strike is a strike committed by the military. That statement stands by itself quite easily, an averagely intelligent six year old could understand it and see the truth in it. Why can't you? ..."
I see. If the definition of a word doesn't suit you, you simply ignore the definition. Even when the definition of "military strike" is placed on the display 18" in front of you, as it is contrary to whqt "military strike" has to men in order for your belief to remain intact, you dismiss it.
Well, I must admit that type of denialism is a straightforward way of handling facts that don't fit your theories.
Complain about this comment
Chryses wrote:
"... Mr McGovern is not the one building lies, I suspect you are ..."
Andy wrote:
"I am pointing out that the man you rely upon for information predicted a "military strike" (his words) in August that didn't happen."
You have posted your opinion that no military strike occurred as fact without substantiating the fact. I have posited an opinion that it may have done and given my reasons for my posit.
Andy wrote:
"...Mr McGovern answered questions, the first in that interview being: 'So Ray, first of all, tell me a little bit more of why you guys of why you guys are making that prediction, why specifically do you think something will happen this month?'
He answered that something would be a "military strike". Anyone can go and substantiate that against the tape ..."
Chryses wrote:
"Correct."
Hallelujah!!
Chryses wrote:
"I have taken the liberty of providing a definition (not MINE mind you, merely A definition).
"A military strike is a limited attack on a specified target. Strikes are used, amongst other things, to render facilities inoperable (e.g. airports), to assassinate enemy leaders, and to limit supply to enemy troops. A strike can often be the prelude to a war or siege, whose initial strike is for a strategic or tactical disruption, as opposed to all out victory. A strike accomplished by aircraft is known specifically as an airstrike. A strike designed to prevent the danger of a future condition or development is known as a pre-emptive strike." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_strike)
The "military strike" (his words) did not happen in August, or September, or so far in October.
Just the kind of predictive accuracy one can rely on, eh?"
I am reminded of the old philosophical riddle that raises questions regarding observation and knowledge of reality: If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
I reasonable person cannot be sure if a military strike happened as predicted by Mr McGovern because there is no smoking gun. There are indications that it may have happened (cyber strike on Iran), but nobody can be sure because nobody knows who initiated the cyber strike. There may also have been other, as yet unreported military attacks on Iran that we are not aware of because it has not reached the public domain.
To me, the tree may have fallen, I have given my reasoning as to why I think that a possibility. To you, you know the tree did not fall because the evidence/opinion shown to you does not indicate the tree fell.
I think we're near the end of this debate Chryses. You do not accept certain facts/opinions and that's OK. Have fun.
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#487. At 03:05am on 27 Oct 2010)
"... Andy wrote:
'... As military's around the world are gearing up to defend against and plot cyber strikes, I also look out for those types of military strikes. As Iran was is alleged to have been attacked by a nation-state only short time after Mr McGovern warned of a military strike on Iran by her enemies, I propose the two may be linked.'
Chryses wrote:
'Any evidence to support THIS claim? Or will it be yet another unsubstantiated claim?'
In post 470 I provided you with a link an article on the US's Cyberspace Operations: Air Force Doctrine Document 3-12. From there you could if you had the will (and use Google) find the document itself, but as you seem rather lazy, let me Google that for you: here here is the direct link the document itself. With regards to the latter part, I suggest people take the key words ("Iran attacked nation-state") and Google it themselves, it's not difficult, you should try it sometime."
The link you provide has no relevance to your claim. None whatsoever. You provide no evidence, no evidence at all, that the computer virus is related to Mr. McGovern's prediction. None whatsoever. This is yet another unsubstantiated claim of yours.
You might also want to check your calendar. The one most people use has June preceding August, not following it. Did you really think no one would notice?
Here is one link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11388018.
And here is a quote from it "... It was first detected in June and has been intensely studied ever since ..."
Here is one link: http://intelligencenews.wordpress.com/2010/09/29/01-571/
And here is a quote from it "... The virus, named Stuxnet, was discovered in Iran in June by a Belarusian computer security firm doing business in the Islamic Republic ..."
You seem to have no idea of what you're talking about. Mr. McGovern warned of a "military strike" on Iran in August, and you are trying to suggest that a computer virus discovered two months BEFORE his prediction might be LINKED?
How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you make such gross mistakes?
Complain about this comment
Chryses,
I'm happy for you that in post 491 you could finally "see" what I opined a reasonably averagely intelligent six year old could see. There may be hope yet.
I am not sure what definition of a word you mean. "Military strike" is two words (one .. two), perhaps you mean some other word I am not yet aware of?
Once you understand that the military can strike using computers in what is termed "cyber strikes", come back and we can move forward.
Here is a bit of background reading for your continued education:
"US call for Nato cyber-strike capacity causes division
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - Developing a Nato cyber-war capability and French opposition to joint nuclear planning are emerging as the main bones of contention in the debate on a new Nato "Strategic Concept," to be adopted next month.
The new document is to replace a 10-year-old strategy paper written before the Internet age and before France joined the transatlantic alliance's command structure. The office of Nato secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen drafted the new Strategic Concept and distributed it to the 28 member countries last week. It is to be adopted by consensus at the Nato summit in Lisbon on 19 and 20 November.
* Print
* Comment article
The Pentagon's push for a Nato "active cyberdefence" is the most divisive issue so far, EUobserver has learned.
"Active cyberdefence is a very sensitive topic. Many experts have brought it up, that in order to have defence, you need some offence as well. I would be very surprised if Nato at 28 will find consensus to include it," a diplomat from one of the Baltic states said.
Broader wording outlining cyber-attacks as a growing threat and the need for Nato to be "adaptable and flexible" in its capacity to react is a likely compromise.
..
.."
http://euobserver.com/13/30962
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#490. At 03:37am on 27 Oct 2010)
"Chryses,
You have caught yourself.
(note: what childishness, how old are you Chryses, 14/15?)
Chryses wrote:
'I also showed that no HONEST interpretation of "military strike" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_strike) would avoid the violence plastered across the screen "TO BOMB OR NOT TO BOMB?"'
I have provided links to the US's Cyberspace Operations: Air Force Doctrine Document 3-12. This documents military uses of cyber attacks. Cyber attacks avoid bombs, here is another ..."
Bad news Andy. I followed your links:
http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/afdd3-12.pdf
http://www.dod.gov/pubs/foi/ojcs/07-F-2105doc1.pdf
The links you provide have no relevance to your claim. The say nothing at all about the computer virus you propose to be Mr. McGovern's "military strike". You provide no evidence, no evidence at all, that the computer virus is related to Mr. McGovern's prediction.
You provide no evidence, none whatsoever to substantiate your claim.
Caught you!
"... and it makes you look rather daft and DISHONEST ..."
Since I wasn't caught all of your claims are irrelevant.
"...I'm not sure why your bothering, do you want to come across as the most dishonest poster on the web or something?"
Well, I am not sure about THAT, but I do know that June comes before August! You seem to have no idea of what you're talking about. Mr. McGovern warned of a "military strike" on Iran in August, and you are trying to suggest that a computer virus discovered two months BEFORE his prediction might be LINKED?
Here is one link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11388018.
And here is a quote from it "... It was first detected in June and has been intensely studied ever since ..."
Here is one link: http://intelligencenews.wordpress.com/2010/09/29/01-571/
And here is a quote from it "... The virus, named Stuxnet, was discovered in Iran in June by a Belarusian computer security firm doing business in the Islamic Republic ..."
Did you really think no one would notice?
Caught you!
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#492. At 03:54am on 27 Oct 2010)
"Chryses wrote:
'... Mr McGovern is not the one building lies, I suspect you are ...'"
Umm. Nope. I didn't write that. You did in post #487.
Wrong again!
Complain about this comment
Chryses,
I have presented my evidence regarding a possible military strike occurring as per Mr. McGovern's prediction several times. You can accept that as evidence towards a military strike or not, your choice.
To state that I have not presented evidence is a lie, and it's a lie you continue to repeat.
Perhaps you are not aware of the term circumstantial evidence. It is a regular term, even if you have never hear that particular tree fall before.
Chryses wrote:
"You might also want to check your calendar. The one most people use has June preceding August, not following it. Did you really think no one would notice?
Here is one link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11388018.
And here is a quote from it "... It was first detected in June and has been intensely studied ever since ..."
Here is one link: http://intelligencenews.wordpress.com/2010/09/29/01-571/
And here is a quote from it "... The virus, named Stuxnet, was discovered in Iran in June by a Belarusian computer security firm doing business in the Islamic Republic ..."
You seem to have no idea of what you're talking about. Mr. McGovern warned of a "military strike" on Iran in August, and you are trying to suggest that a computer virus discovered two months BEFORE his prediction might be LINKED?
How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you make such gross mistakes?"
Mr. McGovern predicted a military strike on Iran in August. That could have taken many forms, including a cyber strike. A cyber strike could have taken the form of a virus. The virus does not have to have been released after Mr. McGovern memo/interview for it to be the predicted military strike Mr. McGovern alluded to. Viruses can lay dormant until some future point in time, many viruses have this feature (I'll let you Google that). Much like sleeper cells placed way back in time become active at some future point, the same can be programmed into a virus. The cyber virus that struck Iran is alleged to be transported via USB sticks. It obviously takes time for USB sticks infected with a virus to hopefully make their way to their targets. The analogy would be that an aerial attack starts when it is launched, the attack clock does not start when the bombs land on their target.
Complain about this comment
Andy, (#492. At 03:54am on 27 Oct 2010)
"...The 'military strike' (his words) did not happen in August, or September, or so far in October.
Just the kind of predictive accuracy one can rely on, eh?'
I am reminded of the old philosophical riddle that raises questions regarding observation and knowledge of reality: If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
I reasonable person cannot be sure if a military strike happened as predicted by Mr McGovern because there is no smoking gun. There are indications that it may have happened (cyber strike on Iran), but nobody can be sure because nobody knows who initiated the cyber strike. There may also have been other, as yet unreported military attacks on Iran that we are not aware of because it has not reached the public domain.
To me, the tree may have fallen, I have given my reasoning as to why I think that a possibility. To you, you know the tree did not fall because the evidence/opinion shown to you does not indicate the tree fell ..."
Well, if you have no evidence to support your claims, I guess sheltering in the bosom of Bishop Berkley might provide some solace. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest#History)
"... I think we're near the end of this debate Chryses. You do not accept certain facts/opinions and that's OK. Have fun."
Before you go, would you help me out with a problem I'm having? You have suggested that the Stuxnet virus reported in various news feeds earlier this month could be the "military strike" Mr. McGovern warned the President about. Now, the Stuxnet virus was found in Iran in June. If Mr. McGovern predicted a of a "military strike" on Iran in August, how could a computer virus discovered two months before his prediction be linked?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Andy, (#497. At 04:36am on 27 Oct 2010)
“... Mr. McGovern predicted a military strike on Iran in August. That could have taken many forms, including a cyber strike. A cyber strike could have taken the form of a virus. The virus does not have to have been released after Mr. McGovern memo/interview for it to be the predicted military strike Mr. McGovern alluded to ...”
Actually, yes, it does. As the virus was discovered in June, the virus had to have been deployed before Mr. McGovern predicted an August “military strike”. Further, the virus was reported as active in the Siemens control systems.
“...Viruses can lay dormant until some future point in time, many viruses have this feature (I'll let you Google that) ...”
Irrelevant. The distribution occurred prior to the prediction.
“... Much like sleeper cells placed way back in time become active at some future point, the same can be programmed into a virus ...”
Do you have any evidence that the Stuxnet virus has this feature? I didn’t think so.
“... The cyber virus that struck Iran is alleged to be transported via USB sticks. It obviously takes time for USB sticks infected with a virus to hopefully make their way to their targets. The analogy would be that an aerial attack starts when it is launched, the attack clock does not start when the bombs land on their target.”
Entertaining, but completely irrelevant.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS