Are foreign countries justified in torturing American Soldiers captured in combat? Was John McCain just a big crybaby? By a score of more than two to one it appears that Batavians believe that to be true.
Years ago I caught a segment of Pat Robertson on the 700 Club talking about the evils of moral relativism. If there was a clip of it on YouTube, I would post it. It always stuck with me.
Depends on what the definition of "suspected" is. If that means that they haven't been convicted yet at a trial then the hell with them...I don't care if they are only "suspected".
Where in this question does it say anything about soldiers or military?
When you are the target, soldiers and military forces are most definately terrorizing. It is almost sad that there has never been an on the ground invasion of US soil in our lifetime. Perhaps things would be different now, had there been. The warmonger mentality of many Americans in the United States is gut wretching.
Ok...there's a difference between a perceived terrorist - a soldier fighting in a war - and an actual terrorist, who is killing innocent civilians. Like Gary said, yeah maybe we should sit down and have tea. I don't understand how people think that these scumbags deserve the same rights as everyone else. If it weren't for waterboarding, then we wouldn't have found bin Laden
"But a closer look at prisoner interrogations suggests that the harsh techniques played a small role at most in identifying Bin Laden’s trusted courier and exposing his hide-out. One detainee who apparently was subjected to some tough treatment provided a crucial description of the courier, according to current and former officials briefed on the interrogations. But two prisoners who underwent some of the harshest treatment — including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times — repeatedly misled their interrogators about the courier’s identity. "
One could argue that the misinformation that results from torture could in fact make us less safe because it delays appropriate response or has us chasing the wrong things.
Brandon, I read some of his essays back in 2002/2003, I found myself baffled as to why anybody could take serious this man of half-truths, misstatements, lies and distortions and illogic. Chomsky is to the left what Limbaugh is to the right, a man who has built a career on deceiving people.
Further, about four years ago when I was doing my studies of Walter Lippmann I discovered the degree to which Chomsky distorted Lippmann's writings to push his own socialist agenda. If you've read Manufacturing Consent, then you've read a book based on a lie because it's entire premise is a distortion of what Lippmann means by "the manufacturing of consent" in his epic Public Opinion.
This poll would have been more accurate if "waterboarded", the technique we used in Gitmo, rather than "tortured".
I, for one, do not believe they are one in the same. Detainees are aware of what it is, and have been trained to resist its effect. I'm not touting its usefulness, just differentiating between the two.
I'm not aware of ANY armed conflict we have been engaged in in which our troops have NOT been tortured. We and our allies are the only factions that put ANY credence in the Geneva Accords. And yes folks, I believe WE are the good guys - it appears far too many citizens do not see it that way these days.
If waterboarding or ANY interrogation technique used against these murdering sub-humans saves ONE American life I'm on board with it. They are not soldiers of honor - they are murderous and truly evil.
Too bad the families of their innocent victims are not allowed to administer it.
Howard, I came away from Chomsky and Herman's 'Manufacture of Consent' with the idea that it was not a distortion of Lippman's work but a description of corporate media's distortion of Lippman's work, or, in a different sense, how corporate media had distorted Lippman's concept of the manufacture of consent and applied it toward their own corporate ends. You may not agree with Chomsky's premises or conclusions, but it doesn't mean that it is all based on a lie.
I cannot argue with you about the essays you read; I do not know which essays they were and I really cannot argue your interpretation. I will say that I do not always agree with Chomsky's conclusions or his premises, but he leaves a thorough bibliographical record of his sources that helps you to decide for yourself.
You are also stretching a bit when you make Chomsky analagous to Rush Limbaugh; Limbaugh has an immense mainstream influence on the Republican Party and on a large section of right-leaning folks in this country, whereas Chomsky is barely known and not at all influential outside a small milieu of left-leaning academics.
Arguing about the practicality, effectiveness, equity of torture, mistreatment of prisoners ignores the primary objections.
"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Gilmer, 1816. ME 15:24
Chomsky is primarily responsible for creating the missinformation that Lippmann advocated "manufacturing of consent."
A myth most recently exploited in the paranoid rantings of Glenn Beck.
Lippmann's coining of the term was descriptive of U.S. propaganda efforts, and though Lippmann was part of those efforts in the Wilson administration, by the time he came to write Public Opinion, it was not a position he was advocating. More, he was warning against it (he would later fret (starting with the Phantom Public) that public opinion could be too easily swayed.
Chomsky paints Lippmann as a pro-capitalist stooge, when Lippmann was a reformed socialist, but still one of the leading lights of the progressive movement (founding editor, in fact, of the leading progressive journal of the day, the New Republic).
As for the other essays I read -- things that were posted on his web site back in the day. I couldn't remember a thing about them other than I kept thinking, "this guy is a joke."
The ability to use big words and spout novel ideas does not demonstrate one has great intellect, nor does winning adulation for such nonsense. It is the content of your ideas that matter, and on that, Chomsky can rightly be judged a buffoon.
Matthew 7:1 &2 -1Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you.
Matthew 7: 12 -All things therefore whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do ye also unto them: for this is the law and the prophets.
All the sarcasm about tea and politeness aside: This is about us, who we are, what we are about and has nothing to do with the low life pigs the terrorists are. All the right wing conservatives like to remind everyone that we are a CHristian nation, above please see the words of Christ. Well, at least some long ago monk's translation.
I always enjoyed 24, it was a
I always enjoyed 24, it was a great TV series. Jack Bauer was the man. But it was fiction. Here is some reality:
http://www.newsweek.com/2009/09/21/the-tortured-brain.html
Are foreign countries
Are foreign countries justified in torturing American Soldiers captured in combat? Was John McCain just a big crybaby? By a score of more than two to one it appears that Batavians believe that to be true.
Where in this question does
Where in this question does it say anything about soldiers or military? It says terrorists. There's a fairly big difference.
SUSPECTED terrorists!
SUSPECTED terrorists!
Years ago I caught a segment
Years ago I caught a segment of Pat Robertson on the 700 Club talking about the evils of moral relativism. If there was a clip of it on YouTube, I would post it. It always stuck with me.
Depends on what the
Depends on what the definition of "suspected" is. If that means that they haven't been convicted yet at a trial then the hell with them...I don't care if they are only "suspected".
or maybe we just sit down
or maybe we just sit down with them and have tea?
Where in this question does
Where in this question does it say anything about soldiers or military?
When you are the target, soldiers and military forces are most definately terrorizing. It is almost sad that there has never been an on the ground invasion of US soil in our lifetime. Perhaps things would be different now, had there been. The warmonger mentality of many Americans in the United States is gut wretching.
Ok...there's a difference
Ok...there's a difference between a perceived terrorist - a soldier fighting in a war - and an actual terrorist, who is killing innocent civilians. Like Gary said, yeah maybe we should sit down and have tea. I don't understand how people think that these scumbags deserve the same rights as everyone else. If it weren't for waterboarding, then we wouldn't have found bin Laden
New York
New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/us/politics/04torture.html?hp
"But a closer look at prisoner interrogations suggests that the harsh techniques played a small role at most in identifying Bin Laden’s trusted courier and exposing his hide-out. One detainee who apparently was subjected to some tough treatment provided a crucial description of the courier, according to current and former officials briefed on the interrogations. But two prisoners who underwent some of the harshest treatment — including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times — repeatedly misled their interrogators about the courier’s identity. "
One could argue that the
One could argue that the misinformation that results from torture could in fact make us less safe because it delays appropriate response or has us chasing the wrong things.
http://youtu.be/DibG5MzMlUM F
http://youtu.be/DibG5MzMlUM
Forget Pat Robertson, he's an evil man. Spend a little time being enlighted by a true intellectual, Noam Chomsky.
Noam Chomsky, socialist,
Noam Chomsky, socialist, truly evil. Chomsky may be the dumbest person to ever gain a reputation as an intellect. Right up there with Robert Fisk.
Howard, could you elaborate
Howard, could you elaborate on why you feel that Chomsky, "may be the dumbest person to ever gain reputation as an intellect."
Brandon, I read some of his
Brandon, I read some of his essays back in 2002/2003, I found myself baffled as to why anybody could take serious this man of half-truths, misstatements, lies and distortions and illogic. Chomsky is to the left what Limbaugh is to the right, a man who has built a career on deceiving people.
Further, about four years ago when I was doing my studies of Walter Lippmann I discovered the degree to which Chomsky distorted Lippmann's writings to push his own socialist agenda. If you've read Manufacturing Consent, then you've read a book based on a lie because it's entire premise is a distortion of what Lippmann means by "the manufacturing of consent" in his epic Public Opinion.
This poll would have been
This poll would have been more accurate if "waterboarded", the technique we used in Gitmo, rather than "tortured".
I, for one, do not believe they are one in the same. Detainees are aware of what it is, and have been trained to resist its effect. I'm not touting its usefulness, just differentiating between the two.
I'm not aware of ANY armed conflict we have been engaged in in which our troops have NOT been tortured. We and our allies are the only factions that put ANY credence in the Geneva Accords. And yes folks, I believe WE are the good guys - it appears far too many citizens do not see it that way these days.
If waterboarding or ANY interrogation technique used against these murdering sub-humans saves ONE American life I'm on board with it. They are not soldiers of honor - they are murderous and truly evil.
Too bad the families of their innocent victims are not allowed to administer it.
Howard, I came away from
Howard, I came away from Chomsky and Herman's 'Manufacture of Consent' with the idea that it was not a distortion of Lippman's work but a description of corporate media's distortion of Lippman's work, or, in a different sense, how corporate media had distorted Lippman's concept of the manufacture of consent and applied it toward their own corporate ends. You may not agree with Chomsky's premises or conclusions, but it doesn't mean that it is all based on a lie.
I cannot argue with you about the essays you read; I do not know which essays they were and I really cannot argue your interpretation. I will say that I do not always agree with Chomsky's conclusions or his premises, but he leaves a thorough bibliographical record of his sources that helps you to decide for yourself.
You are also stretching a bit when you make Chomsky analagous to Rush Limbaugh; Limbaugh has an immense mainstream influence on the Republican Party and on a large section of right-leaning folks in this country, whereas Chomsky is barely known and not at all influential outside a small milieu of left-leaning academics.
One more thing about Chomsky
One more thing about Chomsky - he is not dumb.
His work in Linguistics, Cognitive science, and the philosophy of science alone should cement his place in intellectual history.
Arguing about the
Arguing about the practicality, effectiveness, equity of torture, mistreatment of prisoners ignores the primary objections.
"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Gilmer, 1816. ME 15:24
Chomsky is primarily
Chomsky is primarily responsible for creating the missinformation that Lippmann advocated "manufacturing of consent."
A myth most recently exploited in the paranoid rantings of Glenn Beck.
Lippmann's coining of the term was descriptive of U.S. propaganda efforts, and though Lippmann was part of those efforts in the Wilson administration, by the time he came to write Public Opinion, it was not a position he was advocating. More, he was warning against it (he would later fret (starting with the Phantom Public) that public opinion could be too easily swayed.
Chomsky paints Lippmann as a pro-capitalist stooge, when Lippmann was a reformed socialist, but still one of the leading lights of the progressive movement (founding editor, in fact, of the leading progressive journal of the day, the New Republic).
As for the other essays I read -- things that were posted on his web site back in the day. I couldn't remember a thing about them other than I kept thinking, "this guy is a joke."
The ability to use big words and spout novel ideas does not demonstrate one has great intellect, nor does winning adulation for such nonsense. It is the content of your ideas that matter, and on that, Chomsky can rightly be judged a buffoon.
Just ask them politely who
Just ask them politely who did it. That would work way better than torture. (sarcasm)
Matthew 7:1 &2 -1Judge not,
Matthew 7:1 &2 -1Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you.
Matthew 7: 12 -All things therefore whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do ye also unto them: for this is the law and the prophets.
All the sarcasm about tea and politeness aside: This is about us, who we are, what we are about and has nothing to do with the low life pigs the terrorists are. All the right wing conservatives like to remind everyone that we are a CHristian nation, above please see the words of Christ. Well, at least some long ago monk's translation.
Howard, why don't you tell us
Howard, why don't you tell us how you really feel. Hahaha. I'll tell you this much, if he ever invites me to debate, I will decline.