More From The Religion Of Peace!

[Sam]

Recognizing reality is not justifying torture. The terrorist targets civilians and lives in the shadows. That means that to fight a terrorist a government is trying to protect an entire country from very small potentially embedded groups. It is no simple task to ferret them out, no simple task to extract information from them. Mistakes will be made. And while I don't condone "torture" per se, I certainly don't have any problem with making a potential target uncomfortable if that will make them talk. Where that grey area crosses the line is difficult to define. I tend to think pushing on that line is a requirement in today's world. And that is what I mean by lowering the standards. I do not mean to imply crossing it is justified.

If you're supporting or excusing the government for "lowering its standards" by using torture, that's justifying torture. You can say that you're justifying it because you're "recognizing reality" but you're justifying it all the same. If you want to maintain that what you're supporting is not torture, then you have to make some categorical distinctions between what is and what is not. The "grey area" is not difficult to define and you're not even taking a stab at doing so here.

Even if certain kinds of torture are being levied at certain military targets, it is NOT the same, or as bad, as terrorism. These 'tortured' people , as far as I know, still have all their limbs and their lives. Further, they are people that we have good evidence intend to do far worse to the innocent than is being done to them the guilty. So you have that meaning correct, even though I think resorting to torture is not a good move, not something we should have allowed ourselves to be drawn into. I seriously doubt in the end it will have been worth what it will cost us - excepting that which is perhaps grey in terms of if it is in fact actually torture.

No, some of them don't. If you don't know then you are obligated to inform yourself by reading the various articles and reports concerning the US torture program before you belittle others for equating it with terrorism. People were maimed. People died. By numerous accounts, innocent people -- folks whose only crime was mistaken identity or being on the wrong side of a neighbor or politician.

No I would not. And the reason is simple: the terrorist who indiscriminately targets innocent civilians in public places is worse than the military that uses torture on terrorists to get information that can prevent further attacks. Neither is good, but the former is worse than the latter. And these are not 'suspected criminals' (a la the kid down the street that robbed the liquor store), these are for the most part hardened military operatives with goals that include your and my eventual death.

There do need to be groups, internal groups, that keep an eye on what is going on and that raise alarms if clear violations of the law or the basic principles of the nation are found. That is the other side of all this. But that is very different from where you appear to be headed in the arguments you've been making on this issue.


Jim

"These are for the most part hardened military operatives" ... Jim, if you're not even aware that the US tortured people to death and you're not showing particular concern that the US tortured innocent civilians, I'm not sure where you can go with this. You're justifying torture by using euphemisms, vagueness, and ignorance. Read the Senate report. Read the independent reports. Then come back and try to square your hypothetical justification of "grey area" coercion with what the government has actually done "to prevent future 911's."

You either have to renounce it wholesale or justify the torture that was systematically perpetrated. And, yes, that torture is equivalent to any other terrorism.

[Sam]

No Sam - I didn't read it that way at all. Perhaps I was not clear. I do not regard assassination per se as terrorism. Yes, assassination can be used by terrorists as a tool for terror. That much is true. And in that case we'd have a terrorist or terrorists picking off random or non-random targets in public places. But most certainly the direct assassination of say an Adolf Hitler as a military objective is NOT terrorism. So clearly then assassination can not be equated with terrorism, any more than a bomb can be equated with terrorism. The terrorist has tools of his trade. The tools themselves are not the terrorism.



Jim

Your definition of terrorism was that it was targeted at random individuals at a chosen location. If you're acknowledging that terrorists can use assassination as a tool, and therefore terrorism need not be randomly targeting individuals then you have to acknowledge that torture is not invalidated from being categorized as terrorism simply because it is (ostensibly) targeting specific individuals.

[Sam]

A worthwhile read from Peter Beinart in "The Atlantic" today that gets to the heart of what a lot of us see happening: the complete internalization of the "Muslim threat" myth by Conservatives.

This either gets stopped by the brighter lights of the movement or it ends very badly.

[Leonhard]

A worthwhile read from Peter Beinart in "The Atlantic" today that gets to the heart of what a lot of us see happening: the complete internalization of the "Muslim threat" myth by Conservatives.

I agree, the liberal threat to peoples souls is worse. Though that's not to say that Islam isn't a significant threat, just that liberals are doing far more harm.

[oxmixmudd]

Sam - you are using very limited and specific definitions. I'd appreciate it if are going to do that you would be explicit and define your terms. For example, lets look at the word "Assassinate". From Miriam Webster:

1
: to injure or destroy unexpectedly and treacherously
2
: to murder (a usually prominent person) by sudden or secret attack often for political reasons

You are using definition 2. But notice what that is definition 2, not definition 1. Notice that definition 1 (the most common usage BTW) is a bit different, and includes the possibility of the targets being random. And this is, in fact, how I am using the term (its most common usage), in describing assassination used by terrorists as an act of terrorism. That is, the unexpected and treacherous murder of individuals. An example of the same (but by no means exhaustive) would be a sniper picking off random shoppers in an open market. And it could include targetted assassiation, such as we saw recently with the lady in pakistan. But terrorism is intentional and has different motivations than military operations that might also include assassination. And I maintain there is a distinction and will not yield to your desire to equate them.

So on to you comments.

If you're supporting or excusing the government for "lowering its standards" by using torture, that's justifying torture. You can say that you're justifying it because you're "recognizing reality" but you're justifying it all the same. If you want to maintain that what you're supporting is not torture, then you have to make some categorical distinctions between what is and what is not. The "grey area" is not difficult to define and you're not even taking a stab at doing so here.

You are being ridiculous. Sam, I do not hold to the concept that military operations aimed at protecting a country from terrorism are terrorism - even if mistakes are made and there are civilian casualties.

As for the issue of torture - as I said,I generally do not support the use of torture. But there are many definitions of torture. And I really don't want to get into 'what is torture' - ok? I'm not an expert. Certainly I would call breaking peoples bones or burning their flesh or sticking bamboo strips up their fingernails torture. But there is a large area in between that and sticking them in a room and begging them to tell us what is up and I simply am not qualified to make of list of what is and is not torture.

But neither will I generalize the inevitable collateral damage associated with military operations into 'terrorism' or 'torture'. So there you have it in as much detail as I care, or am qualified, to go into. I will add that to be terrorism or torture, that has to be the intent of the action. And when it comes to the Islamic terrorists, it IS their intent to be terrorists and to conduct terrorism.

No, some of them don't. If you don't know then you are obligated to inform yourself by reading the various articles and reports concerning the US torture program before you belittle others for equating it with terrorism. People were maimed. People died. By numerous accounts, innocent people -- folks whose only crime was mistaken identity or being on the wrong side of a neighbor or politician.

Sam - this is not terrorism. I already told you I don't think we should have gone down that road. But it hardly is the equivalent of commandeering commercial planes and flying them into buildings, or strapping bombs to children and sending them into a public square! I guess I should have been more careful than to speak generally over the relative health of the detainees over the terrorist victims, but I was still a bit naive as to just how far to the left you are on this issue. My mistake.

I would point out, we have a conscience about these things, our government released that report, and we are not proud the of fact those events took place. The folks doing the former think they are acting on God's behalf! Where do you see the Osama bin laden's of the world being taken to task for their actions by their own people or governments? Yet you don't get that I guess.

"These are for the most part hardened military operatives" ... Jim, if you're not even aware that the US tortured people to death and you're not showing particular concern that the US tortured innocent civilians, I'm not sure where you can go with this. You're justifying torture by using euphemisms, vagueness, and ignorance. Read the Senate report. Read the independent reports. Then come back and try to square your hypothetical justification of "grey area" coercion with what the government has actually done "to prevent future 911's."

You either have to renounce it wholesale or justify the torture that was systematically perpetrated. And, yes, that torture is equivalent to any other terrorism.

I'm sorry Sam. I had no idea you were this far left on these issues. I don't support the use of torture as outlined in many cases in this report. But neither does the report persuade me that there is any legitimate comparison between our efforts to stop terrorism and the efforts and actions of the terrorists themselves. It does highlight the need for careful oversight and wise leadership as we conduct operations aimed at reducing the terrorists capabilities. But we still need to conduct those operations, and we are dealing with an enemy that has no real boundaries constraining their potential for violence and destruction. That, unfortunately, will force a push right up against what is moral to keep them from success. And people being what they are, that means some will cross the line. It is unavoidable. What you seem incapable of realizing is the difference between that and a full on policy of direct and unbounded terrorism to obtain a goal. By way of analogy, you seem incapable of understanding that killing a would be attacker intent on murder is not itself murder.

A small point to consider Sam: You know about these events because ...?


Jim

[Sam]

Sam - you are using very limited and specific definitions. I'd appreciate it if are going to do that you would be explicit and define your terms. For example, lets look at the word "Assassinate". From Miriam Webster:

1
: to injure or destroy unexpectedly and treacherously
2
: to murder (a usually prominent person) by sudden or secret attack often for political reasons

You are using definition 2. But notice what that is definition 2, not definition 1. Notice that definition 1 (the most common usage BTW) is a bit different, and includes the possibility of the targets being random. And this is, in fact, how I am using the term (its most common usage), in describing assassination used by terrorists as an act of terrorism. That is, the unexpected and treacherous murder of individuals. An example of the same (but by no means exhaustive) would be a sniper picking off random shoppers in an open market. And it could include targetted assassiation, such as we saw recently with the lady in pakistan. But terrorism is intentional and has different motivations than military operations that might also include assassination. And I maintain there is a distinction and will not yield to your desire to equate them.

Never argue definitions with someone who has the OED bookmarked - the primary definition, according to the definitive source, is "To murder (a person, esp. prominent or famous person) in a planned attack, esp. with a political or ideological motive. Also: to murder (a person) on behalf of another, esp. as a hired or professional killer." Even Merriam Webster uses the 2nd usage you provided as the primary usage on its page. And "to assassinate" is -much- more often used in common language as the more specific definition of murder, especially for political reasons. Lincoln was assassinated. JFK was assassinated. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. We all know this to mean a specific kind of unexpected "injury or destruction".

And it's all beside the point: so long as you are going to allow that assassination can be a subset of terrorism then my point remains: "terrorism," contrary to how you defined it, need not be directed at random or untargeted individuals.

You are being ridiculous. Sam, I do not hold to the concept that military operations aimed at protecting a country from terrorism are terrorism - even if mistakes are made and there are civilian casualties.

As for the issue of torture - as I said,I generally do not support the use of torture. But there are many definitions of torture. And I really don't want to get into 'what is torture' - ok? I'm not an expert. Certainly I would call breaking peoples bones or burning their flesh or sticking bamboo strips up their fingernails torture. But there is a large area in between that and sticking them in a room and begging them to tell us what is up and I simply am not qualified to make of list of what is and is not torture.

But neither will I generalize the inevitable collateral damage associated with military operations into 'terrorism' or 'torture'. So there you have it in as much detail as I care, or am qualified, to go into. I will add that to be terrorism or torture, that has to be the intent of the action. And when it comes to the Islamic terrorists, it IS their intent to be terrorists and to conduct terrorism.

Jim, if you can't make any significant distinction between the torture that you read in the Senate report and what you support then you simply cannot say how wide the space is between what you'll accept and what you'll condemn. And if that's the case, you've got no ground on which to criticize others who condemn what the US government has actually done as torture and terrorism.

You're avoiding dealing with the specific things that the US government has done. This isn't a discussion about where the hypothetical line of torture or terrorism is. This is a discussion about whether the US government has engaged in torture and (only incidentally) whether that torture amounts to terrorism, per the definition. If you don't want to draw a hypothetical line in the sand, fine. But you can read what the government has already done and realize that it includes purposeful, systematic, criminal actions that you yourself acknowledge is torture.

That happened. And it happened as an intentional program. And there are an awful lot of excuses and evasions of it for something that everyone supposedly agrees is heinous.

Sam - this is not terrorism. I already told you I don't think we should have gone down that road. But it hardly is the equivalent of commandeering commercial planes and flying them into buildings, or strapping bombs to children and sending them into a public square! I guess I should have been more careful than to speak generally over the relative health of the detainees over the terrorist victims, but I was still a bit naive as to just how far to the left you are on this issue. My mistake.

Yes, it is terrorism, per the definition. That it's not the kind or degree of terrorism that we find most appalling is irrelevant. You either condemn it or you don't -- and on that point, whether or not it's terrorism is also irrelevant. Not too long ago, it's wasn't "far to the left" to universally condemn the use of torture by one's government. It was pretty well understood as a general moral precept. And, by God, if you can't howl in rage at the fact that the United States government detained, tortured, and killed innocent people as part of a systematic torture program, then I don't know where you go. At the very least, it should make you say "Well, I really do need to figure out just how much 'enhanced interrogation' I'm willing to support, since it's pretty clear that this moral ambiguity I've allowed to sit unexamined is at least partially to blame for my government's actions."

I would point out, we have a conscience about these things, our government released that report, and we are not proud the of fact those events took place. The folks doing the former think they are acting on God's behalf! Where do you see the Osama bin laden's of the world being taken to task for their actions by their own people or governments? Yet you don't get that I guess.

No we don't! Who has been put on trial for these horrific actions, these violations of US and international law? How do we have national shame if those of us condemning it are on the "far left" of the issue?

I'm sorry Sam. I had no idea you were this far left on these issues. I don't support the use of torture as outlined in many cases in this report. But neither does the report persuade me that there is any legitimate comparison between our efforts to stop terrorism and the efforts and actions of the terrorists themselves. It does highlight the need for careful oversight and wise leadership as we conduct operations aimed at reducing the terrorists capabilities. But we still need to conduct those operations, and we are dealing with an enemy that has no real boundaries constraining their potential for violence and destruction. That, unfortunately, will force a push right up against what is moral to keep them from success. And people being what they are, that means some will cross the line. It is unavoidable. What you seem incapable of realizing is the difference between that and a full on policy of direct and unbounded terrorism to obtain a goal. By way of analogy, you seem incapable of understanding that killing a would be attacker intent on murder is not itself murder.

A small point to consider Sam: You know about these events because ...?

We need to conduct which operations? You don't know how far you'd be willing to let our government use violence to gather information. This isn't about "some people crossing the line." This was about a systematic program of torture ... a "full on policy," to use your own words.

There's a whole system of thought on the legitimate use of force to combat evil. You simply can't complain that those of us who condemn the US torture program as terrorism are on the wrong side of that thought. You cannot beg off what is and isn't torture, shrug and then say "Well, we need these programs and I just hope we don't have too many bad apples." The rot came from the top; the program itself was horrific and immoral. You've got to look at what's actually been done, here, Jim. And when you do that, it's clear that these were criminal acts of violence perpetrated in pursuit of political goals. That's terrorism and the moral ground between one kind of terrorism and another is not an argument you can hang your hat on.

And we know about these events because people on the "far left" have been yelling about it for ages. The administration in charge of the program tried to bury the program, going so far as to illegally destroy evidence. We almost got a Senate report that hadn't been redacted so much it was hardly useable ... but boy did the lid shut on that when Republicans gained the majority (not that the Democrats or Obama, in particular, are any less culpable, here).

Consider that you were, until very recently, unaware that people had been maimed and killed in this program. It's not like we're really owning up to these grievous national sins today.

[Cow Poke]

Never argue definitions with someone who makes them up to suit his own needs based on "logic"

FIFY / nc

[pancreasman]

FIFY / nc

To quote someone, ' can you show me where he did that?'

[Cow Poke]

To quote someone, ' can you show me where he did that?'

He knows what I'm talking about - has to do with the definition of terrorism. And I don't believe I jumped into somebody else's business when I asked you that, Pman. Rise to your better self, brother.

[pancreasman]

He knows what I'm talking about - has to do with the definition of terrorism. And I don't believe I jumped into somebody else's business when I asked you that, Pman. Rise to your better self, brother.

Ah, so on this public forum I've butted in where I don't belong. I think you all look ridiculous trying to beat each other over the head with dictionaries.

[Cow Poke]

Ah, so on this public forum I've butted in where I don't belong. I think you all look ridiculous trying to beat each other over the head with dictionaries.

you win

[pancreasman]

you win

Finally! What's my prize?

[Cow Poke]

Finally! What's my prize?

cookies.jpg

[pancreasman]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5990[/ATTACH]

Yay!

[Sam]

FIFY / nc

Given that I've relied almost completely on formal definitions of "terrorism," "torture," and "assassination," this over-used "fixed it for you" card looks downright silly here.