Paris attacks

[swansont]

Any membership in religion should be forbidden.

 

That's not what we're discussing.

[CharonY]

Saddam used chemical weapons that the United States provided and what was the response? The first Iraq war didn't come for several years after Saddam's U.S. provided chemical weapon attack and that war was only meant to push Saddam out of Kuwait. He was left in power. In my opinion it is false moral outrage to provide someone the means to kill, do nothing as they kill, and then over a decade later when it is convenient to do so start wagging the finger.

 

 

In the 90s the first Iraq war was a surreal experience. Up to that point it in the media Saddam Hussein was portrayed as the guy who keeps the fundamentals at bay. Then the narrative changed rather suddenly and what freaked me out at that time was that after the events there was a massive real-time revisionism in the media. Remember, the internet was not yet available as a repository of information and you actually had to search for physical articles in the library to make sure that your memory was accurate. This is one of the reason why I think that history is extremely important to provide context, especially when soundbites and easy answers supersede in-depth analyses, such as reducing the situation in the Middle East just to the religious component.

 

 

There is no harm is admitting to a mistake. I am not suggesting that the western world allow ourselves to be murdered as penance. Nor am I saying it is all our fault. I am merely pointing out that we have made mistakes and should be learning from them. We can't solve this by treating it as a black and white good vs evil dispute. Wrapping ourselves up in the our national flags and labeling others as the problem will not resolve anything. We must account for our own behavior while holding other accountable for theirs.

 

Indeed. During the cold war the conflicts in the Middle East were mostly viewed (or at least treated) through the view of anti-communist ideology rather than religion. One of the reasons I think why there is so much effort in justifying the actions of Western powers is because the attitude of the citizens has changed. A few decades back there probably would have been less outrage if the US or other governments create much suffering in far away countries. Now they at least have to control the news cycles while doing so (but just until people forget).

 

I think it goes well beyond the scope of this topic, but since it has been mentioned, I'd like to add that many officials have not acknowledged that Iraq post-invasion was badly mismanaged. This is against the narrative that you may have found in the internet where some claim that WWII level destruction would have been better as it resulted in stable nations such as German and Japan, which is utter nonsense, of course.

Many of the actions were based on erroneous assumption, including a functioning Iraqi bureaucracy. A country always requires such an apparatus to function (even under dictatorial rule, what some promoting strong leader or iron fist regimes tend to forget) and at the same time banning Ba'ath members to work in the government. I.e. decisions were made that were at best short-sighted and in the long run led to massive destabilization.

 

An important thing about something like "winning hearts and minds" is to acknowledge that it is not about bringing in a new system or ideology. Realistically, when push comes to shove few people are that interested in democracy or freedom. These are high ideals that you think about on a full stomach. Rather, the actual question is whether your personal live is better now or then. And the US not only did not manage to control insurgency, but by putting hundreds of thousands out of work they even created a basis for it. The multi-series Army report "On point" is a very interesting read for this.

Edited November 20, 2015 by CharonY

[tar]

CharonY,

 

Indeed, during the cold war we had bigger concerns. A couple pushes of a button and everybody would have been toast.

 

It is hard to Monday Morning quarterback the last 75 years or the last 1000 or the last 1400 or the last 2000 and say we made a mistake here and one there and so on, because we are here without the problems that were facing decision makers then.

 

Like you say, we did not have the internet then.

 

We now have to concern ourselves with questions like "are we feeding their narrative?" or "is our narrative a good one?"

 

At the same time, we have to write a good script, be good actors and directors and good critics of the play.

 

Knowing our history is a good first step in avoiding mistakes that were made in the past, but this is a complicated, and rather huge world, with a great number of different threads running through it, and each story has its chapters and each chapter its subplots.

 

There is, I think in human interaction, the requirement for a story to go by. The American Dream, Striving 'till all the world is for Allah, accepting Jesus Christ into your heart, unifying relativity and quantum physics into one theory, or whatever, but a story. Something with characters, and a scene, and good guys and bad guys, conflict and conflict resolution.

 

Of course when you hear a story or tell a story, or live a story, you want to be the good guy, and see good triumph over evil in the end.

 

What would have made a good story 1000 years ago, is still a good story today. Problem is, we don't all go by the same narrative, which is problematic in the internet age, were we all have such instant access to each other's story.

 

I am concerned for instance that "we" as the West, helped to encourage the Arab spring. We encouraged young people to look at the repressive kingships and dictatorships that ran their countries, and do something about it. We encouraged people to rewrite their story. We did however, in retrospect, not provide a good workable, replacement story. So we have currently not a battle so much of whose bombs are more terrifying, but a battle of whose story is better.

 

If the story battle is which is better the Old Testament, the New Testament or the Kuran, we are liable to be in for a clash of civilizations.

 

I am rather sure for instance that I don't want to be called to prayer 5 times a day. Nor do I wish to be obliged to go to Temple or Mass or Church. But I was raised a Presbyterian, and somewhat adhere to the stories that flowed from Christ and the Protestant revolution against Rome in Germany and the American Revolution and so on. I have my story. I have my way of life, I have a Protestant work ethic and an impulse toward Christian Charity. I (we of my story) defeated Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, communism, and Saddam and Bin Laden, and stand against North Korea, and Iran's desire to destroy Zionism.

 

A complicated story. With conflicts and resolutions, wins and losses, and all sorts of people with different stories fighting on my side and against me, along the way.

 

I will still stand with France, against Da'ish.

 

Regards, TAR

despite my involvement with Bin Laden and Saddam, there came the times to shut them down

despite my mistakes in Iraq and Syria, I still prefer my narrative over the horrors of Da'ish

[MonDie]

Actually I would think that the socioeconomic situation (especially large differences), political stability and education are more likely to be the main factors. There are stable, but largely religious countries (including a number of states in the US, but we can take western Turkey as example, too). But a stable life and high levels of education seem to moderate the crazy-think.

 

I posted earlier about lead exposure and violent crime rates -- thank you Overtone -- and how some east Mediterranean societies seem to have been slow to phase it out.

http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=findpost&pid=892702

As a biologist, what do you think about investigating ecological reasons for violence and intolerance? Of course humans are unique in their use of language. Culture, including sacred texts, group identities and rituals, obviously has a mediating role in a lot of violence. Yet all animal behavior is ultimately rooted in physiology and ecology. I was surprised to learn that omega-3 can treat BPD, a disorder associated with antisocial behavior, especially in men. As someone who doesn't think our sacred texts are much more than paper and ink, I think the religion debate is mostly a distraction from real, scientific explanations. I would appreciate your take on this.

[CharonY]

 

I posted earlier about lead exposure and violent crime rates -- thank you Overtone -- and how some east Mediterranean societies seem to have been slow to phase it out.

http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=findpost&pid=892702

As a biologist, what do you think about investigating ecological reasons for violence and intolerance? Of course humans are unique in their use of language. Culture, including sacred texts, group identities and rituals, obviously has a mediating role in a lot of violence. Yet all animal behavior is ultimately rooted in physiology and ecology. I was surprised to learn that omega-3 can treat BPD, a disorder associated with antisocial behavior, especially in men. As someone who doesn't think our sacred texts are much more than paper and ink, I think the religion debate is mostly a distraction from real, scientific explanations. I would appreciate your take on this.

 

Because I am a biologist I tend to be careful to look at physiology to explain social phenomena. Typically, our knowledge does not extend to the mechanistic links that are required to develop causative models. Especially as behavior is modulated by an indefinite number of factors, it is often not helpful to cast it by using the spotty knowledge in biology we have. An analogy is to try to explain complex biological systems using physics approaches. The methodology and knowledge is not quite there yet, though it can applied to certain subset of issues. In this case, one could e.g. speculate that it increases say threshold for violent behavior by a %. However, whether it has any societal impact is purely speculative and certainly cannot explain the existing political situation.

Added disadvantages is that many people underestimate the flexibility of biological systems and believe that if something has a biological root, the outcome is deterministic. This is, of course entirely wrong as biological actions are the result of complex interactions of organisms with the external and internal environment. Another issue is that often laypersons (and sometimes even specialists) are not able to evaluate the uncertainty of these studies. As a result they assume something as "scientific proven" when it is at best a vague theory.

[MigL]

Thanks for all that Ten oz.

But exactly which part of your post is evidence that S, Hussein's government was one of the dozen DECENT governments the US has deposed over the last 75 yrs ?

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

Thanks for all that Ten oz.

But exactly which part of your post is evidence that S, Hussein's government was one of the dozen DECENT governments the US has deposed over the last 75 yrs ?

 

Wasn't that a quote from Overtone?

 

I cant speak for them, but I didn't gather the meaning that statement as righteous and good, insomuch as those who had a handle on sectarian violence and limited it to border skirmishes or in-fighting. While Saddam was brutal, cocky and deceptive, he really wasn't much of a threat when compared to power vacuum left behind him.

 

Most of us don't like China's stance on human rights etc., but in the interest of world peace we reluctantly accept the status quo, lest we give rise to another country jumping on the terror bandwagon and we endure the inundation of refugees.

 

Not to direct this at you (I'm actually inclined to think you'd agree), but only to expand a little... when we defeated Germany and Japan (who were not decent then), we occupied the territories until they got their acts together. It was made clear they couldn't raise an army, oppress their citizens or expand borders. Both complied and moved on. They became super powers and our allies in less time than between now and the first gulf war. Interestingly enough, even in the absence of an army, those countries had no fear of being taken over by others because their compliance earned our security.

 

Muslims like to believe they insult Israel by labeling them as occupiers. To that end I salute Israel for sticking to their guns, because they will continue to occupy the territory indefinitely for historical and legal reasons, no less in spite of the violence it endures. It's the only country in the middle east that is a democracy, where Jews, Christians, Arabs and Atheists live and work together. If extremism wages war and advocates violence among the rest of the world, they do so at their own peril. They'll just never amount to anything.

 

In almost every case (other than Iraq), America has been late for the war. Not because they're lazy or indifferent, but because they're given to exhaust all other means before calling the banners. In the case for Syria, countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, UAR and so on, need to step up and that's where the pressure should be applied. Failing that, they should be made accountable. If it takes Saudi oil to stop Syria, so be it. That should be a priority, not an alternative after all SA is one of the greatest instigators, as is Iran. Russia needs to straighten up too, as do we in some aspects, especially where refugee and humanitarian issues lay.

 

For us in the civilized world to be turning on each other in the meantime only emboldens the bad guys.

Edited November 21, 2015 by Lagoon Island Pearls

[overtone]

Really Overtone ?

" in the past 75 yrs the US has deposed dozens of decent governments "

Do you consider S. Hussein's government ( dictatorship ) decent ?

Or the one in Afghanistan?

Because those are the ones we are discussing

If you pay attention to the post I was replying to, you will notice that I was referring to US behavior over the past 75 years. The claim was that for 75 years the US has always been on the side of democracy and against strongmen, mullahs, and dictators. I simply pointed out that any such claim was in error. The US has deposed dozens of democratic, reasonable, decent governments and replaced them with rightwing strongmen and dictators and even a couple of mullah types. The US did this a lot.

That would include the fairly decent government we deposed in order to install Saddam Hussein, for example. And the fairly decent government we deposed to re-install the Shah of Iran, leading after decades of strongman rule with all the usual atrocities etc to the Iranian Revolution - which, since the decent folks had been harshly suppressed, turned out to be a fundie Islamic State headed by an Ayatollah.

 

It is hard to Monday Morning quarterback the last 75 years or the last 1000 or the last 1400 or the last 2000 and say we made a mistake here and one there and so on, because we are here without the problems that were facing decision makers then

There is no reason to get the facts wrong, though. It's not Monday Morning quarterbacking to point out that in the past 75 years the US has deposed quite a few democratically elected and not at all horrible governments and installed rightwing strongmen and dictatorships in their place, that anyone trying to rewrite the plain history to say the US has for 75 years always been on the side of the decent democracy and against the strongmen or dictatorships is simply in error. Badly in error.

Whatever the reasons, the US did these things, in physical fact.

 

But I have no shame for any of our behavior against our enemies in prison in Guantanamo. I have no reason to extend human concern to persons that would chop off my head without a thought.

I do.

Not only do you have no idea who was put in Gitmo (most of them were innocent of terrorism, and the ones who were terrorists were not chopping off heads - that was done by other people) or probably how they were treated (the same guy set up the interrogation protocols and other aspects of Abu Ghraib), but your notion that human concern is some kind of disposable courtesy we don't extend to our enemies is not sensible or right - and directly contrary to any actual Presbyterian upbringing you may have had.

Fact: the first American head to be chopped off in Iraq came after the photos of Abu Ghraib were released - you remember the guy who was beaten to death in one of the "interrogation" cells? The photos of rape scenes? The accounts of threatening and torturing wives and children of suspected "terrorists"? Do you recall that Abu Ghraib was one of Saddam's ugly prisons?

 

Muslims like to believe they insult Israel by labeling them as occupiers. To that end I salute Israel for sticking to their guns, because they will continue to occupy the territory indefinitely for historical and legal reasons, no less in spite of the violence it endures.

Israel keeps expanding its territory - is there some limit to how much water and land they are allowed to seize from their neighbors, and if there is how should we get them to respect it?

It's the only country in the middle east that is a democracy, where Jews, Christians, Arabs and Atheists live and work together

They've accomplished that by fencing the Muslims who used to live all across the area into small apartheid regions, and abusing them.

Edited November 21, 2015 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

 

... They are guilty as hell.

No, for two reasons.

To be guilty, there has to be intent- mens rea

and also to be guilty there generally has to be a crime and that, in turn usually requires a victim.

 

Who is the victim in what you are calling a crime?

Also just a quick reminder that the actions of the criminals are not those sought by Islam.

 

Edited November 21, 2015 by John Cuthber

[Bells]

European laws let people to be moslems.

 

International human rights protects one's beliefs in their deity of choice.

 

Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

 

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

 

Islam let moslems to be terrorists against the rest secular world.

 

 

Islamic terrorists, and ISIS in particular, kill more Muslims than they do anyone else in the "secular world". Muslims are also targeted more by ISIS than anyone else in the "secular world". In around 8 months in 2014, they killed more than 9,000 Iraqi's, the majority of the victims were Muslims.

 

It all is logic trap for backward people, which turns them into terrorists.

 

 

 

What a horrendously bigoted statement. In saying this, you ignore the context of how Islamic terrorism arose in the first place and the role of the West in the formation of such groups.

 

 

 

 

I didn't demand to despise the group. Rather I was demanding to despise the politicians which don't forbid the religion in Europe.

 

 

Any membership in religion should be forbidden.

 

Have you considered the simple fact that banning religion or one's religious belief is just as bad as forcing people to be of a particular religion? That it is just as oppressive, not to mention a gross violation of their basic and fundamental human rights?

[Hans de Vries]

No, for two reasons.

To be guilty, there has to be intent- mens rea

and also to be guilty there generally has to be a crime and that, in turn usually requires a victim.

 

Who is the victim in what you are calling a crime?

Also just a quick reminder that the actions of the criminals are not those sought by Islam.

 

I love the deceptive way this infographic tries to portray Islam as peaceful.

 

It says: do not kill children, old people, women, monks and priests and people who surrendered - so what about people who are neither of these?

 

It also says: do not impose Islam on others. Of Islam does not force anyone to convert. You can also pay Jizya or die - with so many possibilities, how can we even speak of imposing anything?

Most Westerners don't understand Islam and assume it's like Christianity and Muhammad is like Jesus - nothing can be farther from the truth.

 

In Islam armed war against the disbelievers is considered to be the holiest deed possible and an obligation of every able bodied Muslim. It's significance is even higher than pilgrimage. You may pray for 50 years never missing a single prayer, go on pilgrimage to Mecca every year and your entry into paradise still isn't certain - but if you spend just one hour on the battlefield fighting for the sake of Allah (fighting for causes other than Islam does not have the same effect and may send you to hell), you get an instant ticket to paradise - paradise full of beautiful virgins, delicious food, wine etc.

 

Do yiou guys really think this and other stupid beliefs don''t play a role in ISlamic terrorism?

[tar]

Overtone,

 

One of the reasons we were in Iraq to push out Saddam was his brutality against the South Eastern Shi'ite population in his country. Many of the Guard that did his bidding were Sunni.

After we slaughtered the guard escaping from Kuwait, leaving the oil wells burning and putting hydrocarbons into the air that are probably still affecting global weather, as we were proceeding through the South East area we found plenty of signs of torture and abuse, batteries and instruments whose purpose was obvious. In this, us using torture and being anything like Saddam is, as you say, not who we want to be. At the same time, it is difficult to fight an enemy who themselves are not subscribers to the Geneva convention.

 

War is hell.

 

You cannot be on the battlefield with tremendous concern for the guy that is about to shoot you. You have to shoot them first. It is difficult to extract information from a prisoner, without doing them bodily harm, but we have figured some ways to do it, inflicting some mental harm. Breaking down the prisoner in such exercises as water boarding is not far from the battery idea, or breaking fingers or cutting off genitalia or breaking bones and beating somebody, but it is different than doing those things.

 

The intent of the law, protecting prisoners is still upheld in water boarding. It is not however upheld by stacking naked prisoners together and abusing them sexually. That is rape, and the personages responsible for it, and ordering it, and allowing it, are to be held accountable. That is not who we are. Or how we want to be. This is why I am ashamed of the one scenario and not ashamed of the other.

 

In Cuba, we hold some prisoners who are at war with the U.S. and were trying to kill us when we captured them, want to kill us presently,

 

None wish to move to East Orange, run a car dealership and support the constitution of the U.S..

 

None fight for countries that are subscribers to the Geneva convention.

 

All did not even fight for a country. They are fighting for an ideology that does not care about such Earthly considerations as respect for others.

 

In Somalia, that time a group of marines had to fight their way out, one marine tells of how, as he was fighting his way through the streets, a combatant was firing at him with a weapon in his right hand while holding a woman in front of him with his left. He had to decide, in an instant whether he was going to murder the woman, or die.

 

Regards, TAR

he chose not to die

now he lives with the hurt

remember, many of the recruits of Da'ish are criminals to begin with

 

Da'ish tends to recruit people who have already hurt people, and been put in prison, because of their crimes

All the worst of Saddam's Guard are now the leaders of the movement.

 

Think about it. You want to extend these folks Christian Charity?

 

On what grounds?

One of the propaganda threads against the U.S. is how many civilians we killed. I remember well an incident soon after we took Baghdad where a mortar round hit a marketplace.

 

It was not a U.S. mortar round.

 

Think about it.

Overtone,

 

Part of my thought on the Monday Morning quarterbacking was that, regardless of the decisions we have made in the past or the questionable methods that may have been used here and there, we DO NOT have the problems we had in the past. In other words we solved those problems.

 

We as a civilization had to make the right choices and do the right things to address problems that would destroy us. Otherwise, we would not be here talking about it.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited November 21, 2015 by tar

[John Cuthber]

I love the deceptive way this infographic tries to portray Islam as peaceful.

 

It says: do not kill children, old people, women, monks and priests and people who surrendered - so what about people who are neither of these?

 

It also says: do not impose Islam on others. Of Islam does not force anyone to convert. You can also pay Jizya or die - with so many possibilities, how can we even speak of imposing anything?

Most Westerners don't understand Islam and assume it's like Christianity and Muhammad is like Jesus - nothing can be farther from the truth.

 

In Islam armed war against the disbelievers is considered to be the holiest deed possible and an obligation of every able bodied Muslim. It's significance is even higher than pilgrimage. You may pray for 50 years never missing a single prayer, go on pilgrimage to Mecca every year and your entry into paradise still isn't certain - but if you spend just one hour on the battlefield fighting for the sake of Allah (fighting for causes other than Islam does not have the same effect and may send you to hell), you get an instant ticket to paradise - paradise full of beautiful virgins, delicious food, wine etc.

 

Do yiou guys really think this and other stupid beliefs don''t play a role in ISlamic terrorism?

Well, I can't speak for "most Westerners" but I do think that Christ and Mohammed have a lot in common and that Christianity and Islam have a lot of similarity.

 

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+10%3A34&version=KJV

 

https://www.lds.org/music/library/hymns/onward-christian-soldiers?lang=eng

 

http://cyberhymnal.org/htm/f/i/fightthe.htm

[Airbrush]

No, for two reasons.

To be guilty, there has to be intent- mens rea

and also to be guilty there generally has to be a crime and that, in turn usually requires a victim.

 

Who is the victim in what you are calling a crime?

 

Also just a quick reminder that the actions of the criminals are not those sought by Islam.

 

If you did not see the "no parking" signs, you may argue you had no intent, but that is no excuse to pay the fine.

 

A crime usually requires a victim? What about those killed in prior terrorist attacks?

 

It doesn't matter what Islam seeks, people in violation of human laws should be arrested and given a fair trial, and the sentence should fit the crime. Joining a terrorist organization should be a crime, even if you were lied to by your recruiter. Small groups of people heading across the desert towards ISIS controlled zones are probably not there for a pick-nick, and probably not archeologists searching for artifacts in the desert. If they are jounalists or doctors without borders, then they are in for a rude awakening when they encounter ISIS sentries. Their fate is a coin flip between acceptance or death.

Edited November 21, 2015 by Airbrush

[dimreepr]

 

If you did not see the "no parking" signs, you may argue you had no intent, but that is no excuse to pay the fine.

 

A crime usually requires a victim? What about those killed in prior terrorist attacks?

 

It doesn't matter what Islam seeks, people in violation of human laws should be arrested and given a fair trial, and the sentence should fit the crime. Joining a terrorist organization should be a crime, even if you were lied to by your recruiter. Small groups of people heading across the desert towards ISIS controlled zones are probably not there for a pick-nick, and probably not archeologists searching for artifacts in the desert. If they are jounalists or doctors without borders, then they are in for a rude awakening when they encounter ISIS sentries. Their fate is a coin flip between acceptance or death.

 

 

You continue to conflate terrorism with Islam, no doubt through ignorance or maybe because they use the Muslim religion as an excuse, much like the KKK used Christianity.

 

If I used the word god to describe myself would you prey to me, or just dismiss me as a loon?

[John Cuthber]

 

 

A crime usually requires a victim? What about those killed in prior terrorist attacks?

 

Joining a terrorist organization should be a crime, even if you were lied to by your recruiter.

Nice red herring there.

Those people were killed by someone else.

 

And, once again, you don't seem to understand that not every wrong act is a crime.

[Ten oz]

Nice red herring there.

Those people were killed by someone else.

 

And, once again, you don't seem to understand that not every wrong act is a crime.

To that point what determines a crime most often has to do with the presceptive of whose in control. It was a crime per German law during WW2 to habour Jewish people. During this same time period it was a crime for a black person living in the south to use certian toilets. Where all whites living in the south charge with a crime once segregation ended, of course not.

[tar]

Thread,

 

After the Paris attack it came out that some of the terrorists were related to a bar that was closed due to drug activity at the bar.

 

Does anyone know how drugs are involved in the recruitment of soldiers for Da'ish?

 

I am guessing that normal individuals cannot kill innocent women and unarmed civilians so easily, and kill themselves, if all the normal human equipment was functioning properly.

 

If not drugs, then some form of hypnosis, or some threat against family, or something. But sober clear minded people just don't do that.

 

Something is amiss.

 

Regards, TAR

[John Cuthber]

Thread,

 

After the Paris attack it came out that some of the terrorists were related to a bar that was closed due to drug activity at the bar.

 

Does anyone know how drugs are involved in the recruitment of soldiers for Da'ish?

 

I am guessing that normal individuals cannot kill innocent women and unarmed civilians so easily, and kill themselves, if all the normal human equipment was functioning properly.

 

If not drugs, then some form of hypnosis, or some threat against family, or something. But sober clear minded people just don't do that.

 

Something is amiss.

 

Regards, TAR

Or maybe they are just drug dealing to raise money- like lots of illegal groups do.

[overtone]

It is difficult to extract information from a prisoner, without doing them bodily harm, but we have figured some ways to do it, inflicting some mental harm. Breaking down the prisoner in such exercises as water boarding -

You have got to be kidding.

 

That is, in black and white on my screen, the classic excuse and denial combination of every torture regime that ever had to justify its behavior to an unfriendly audience (most never have).

 

It's been in the news, it's been in the movies, it's a click away anywhere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilawar_(torture_victim) There is no excuse for an American knowing no better than that about how prisoners were treated at Bagram, at Abu Ghraib, at Gitmo, at how many others we don't even have a solid count. Do we include the Syrian torture prisons we subcontracted to? The Israeli setups we picked up techniques and borrowed "interrogators" from?

 

No government ever set up a torture operation whose actual primary function was obtaining information. And the US operations set up by W&Cheney were no exception - most of the people "broken down" had no information, for starters, as is usual in such setups. That did not interfere very much with obtaining confessions from them, of course.

 

 

The intent of the law, protecting prisoners is still upheld in water boarding.

Oh, please. Torture is torture. We hanged Japanese officers for doing to actual American soldiers what we did to ordinary civilians in Gitmo, and we were justified in hanging them.

 

 

and the personages responsible for it, and ordering it, and allowing it, are to be held accountable. That is not who we are.

So we say. But we don't do. You, who have fought and voted and argued against holding anyone accountable for the organization and setup and operation of torture prisons by the W&Cheney administration - are you sure that isn't who you are? You have had plenty of opportunity to actually oppose that garbage, at a minimum by voting against its perpetrators.

 

Part of my thought on the Monday Morning quarterbacking was that, regardless of the decisions we have made in the past or the questionable methods that may have been used here and there, we DO NOT have the problems we had in the past. In other words we solved those problems.

1) So why the difficulty in simply describing, factually, what was done and when? What's the problem with getting the facts straight?

 

2) Like what problems have we "solved"? Delusion and fantasy. The Iraq War "solved" nothing, and made most things worse, and is showing signs of turning into near total victory for Bin Laden (remember his stated strategy was to have the West break itself - its economy, its social and political hold on the East - in wars it cannot fight forever and cannot win). Or maybe Iran - we'll have to see how it plays out.

 

 

Da'ish tends to recruit people who have already hurt people, and been put in prison, because of their crimes

All the worst of Saddam's Guard are now the leaders of the movement.

Yeah - how did that happen? Do you have any idea? Do you remember way, way, way back to like fifteen years ago with the WMDs, twelve years ago with Bremer's triumph, ten years ago with all those tens of thousands of trained Iraqi soldiers fighting for democracy, maybe even eight years ago when the "Surge" put those guys on the payroll for a few months?

Or did this latest horror just rise up out of nowhere into your view, completely unconnected with Abu Ghraib, completely unconnected with Adnan Chalabi's free ride into Iraq or the installation of Al Maliki, completely unconnected with US policy toward the Kurds or the Saudis, just emerge from the sand like something in a Hollywood movie?

 

Think about it. You want to extend these folks Christian Charity?

On what grounds?

On the grounds that becoming the monster you fight is a victory for monstrosity. On the clear and explicit grounds of the declarative sentences in that Bible you pretend is the basis of your morality.

 

And the thread point is, that this refugee crisis in Europe is partly - perhaps largely - of US creation. And it seems bad form - at a minimum - to say anything disparaging about the French, who have been put in a bad position at least partly by US bad behavior.

Edited November 21, 2015 by overtone

[MonDie]

I am guessing that normal individuals cannot kill innocent women and unarmed civilians so easily, and kill themselves, if all the normal human equipment was functioning properly.

 

If not drugs, then some form of hypnosis, or some threat against family, or something. But sober clear minded people just don't do that.

Sociopathy might have been an adaption.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3428807/

[overtone]

Sociopathy might have been an adaption.

Suicide probably is not.

 

Self sacrifice for a cause may be related to a mental disorder in many cases, but the sociopaths in ISIL are not the ones blowing themselves up.

Edited November 21, 2015 by overtone

[tar]

Overtone,

 

I quite strongly support the French. I feel like they understand now, how I felt watching the pillar of smoke coming from where the World Trade Center towers once stood.

 

I told the violin to a deer hunt joke, because then the French were not reactionary. This week they are. Next week, or next month when we shut down a bunch of cells and take out some more leaders, and degrade ISIL some more, we both, me and France can get unreactionary again and try to be more reasonable.

 

On the whole we treat our prisoners rather well, and give them Korans and clean clothes and food and such.

We could have, after all just killed them on the battlefield for their crimes against us.

 

Regards, TAR

Let's say we expended American lives and American money to put perpetrators of crimes against humanity into prison in Iraq and ISIL came along and freed them and they organized a strike against some civilians at a concert in Paris.

 

Lets just say such a thing would happen.

 

You think this is because some American prison guards thought it was funny to disgrace these prisoners and take videos of it?

 

You think such a causal relationship is a reasonable thing to figure?

 

I think not.

to release a criminal that has already declared war on society is asking to be hurt again by said criminal

So, given a group that is largely released prisoners, released by other released prisoners, I would call the group a criminal group. Blaming the police for their crimes, is stupid unhelpful and unreasonable​.

Edited November 21, 2015 by tar

[overtone]

On the whole we treat our prisoners rather well, and give them Korans and clean clothes and food and such.

 

We could have, after all just killed them on the battlefield for their crimes against us.

You really don't know any better than that?

Let's start from the basics: Most of the prisoners did not come from battlefields, and many were not captured by us. Things done on battlefields are not generally labeled "crimes" - it's an odd term, as if the US military invading another country were enforcing the law. The prisons the US set up did not resemble POW camps.

Instead of POW setup holding people captured in battle, as would be expected in something considered a war, we set up a system of torture prisons to "interrogate" mostly people who were either captured by us in civilian environs (during house to house searches, say) or delivered to us by their local enemies, often for bounty payments, for whatever reasons they had. These prisons were similar in form and function to the ones employed by tyrants and oppressors everywhere - we used Saddam's buildings, even, in Iraq, as well suited to the purpose (the drains for the blood and filth produced during sessions, the wall and ceiling and floor attachment points for the chains, the electrical outlets for the more sophisticated implements, were already installed). The consequences of this were manifold, and almost all bad.

For example, the headchoppings you find so memorable began, in Iraq, in direct and explicit response to what we did in those prisons. The early stages of the rallying of what has become ISIL trace in part there, reinforcing the effects of Bremer's "de-Baathification" and the ethnic cleansing that followed. And so forth.

So this has nothing to do with the current refugee crisis in Europe, you think?

Edited November 22, 2015 by overtone

[tar]

Overtone,

 

If you curse Allah in ISIL held towns now, you get whipped in the square. If you curse the Prophet, you get killed.

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/isis-wives-and-enforcers-in-syria-recount-collaboration-anguish-and-escape/ar-BBnhaPm?ocid=spartanntp

People were killed last year in Paris for drawing and publishing a comic for heaven's sake. Don't tell me I have to be careful not to piss off a Muslim Fundementalist or I deserve the terror he inflicts. That is not reasonable or useful advice.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited November 22, 2015 by tar