Changing Hearts and Minds

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clambake

that would have never worked on the big screen.

---

It worked in real life, that is enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Having it as official policy is stupid.

---

True but since Bush and Cheney didn't see it as torture they didn't see it as official policy so therefore it was never official policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

It worked in real life, that is enough.

---

Maybe he was faking it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

As a rule, I'm against REAL torture. I don't have any issue with the list of unpleasantries in the OP.

---

Why limit yourself to the OP? The public record is extensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeChalupa

Maybe he was faking it.

---

I doubt it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeChalupa

True but since Bush and Cheney didn't see it as torture they didn't see it as official policy so therefore it was never official policy.

---

True, but this judgment was invidious. I hate to think who'd be tempted to repeat the experiment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeChalupa

Torture will not cease to exist it'll just be better hidden.

---

Probably.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Is this what you guys are so deadly serious about...?



Is that stuff really all that bad?

How about having to choose between burning to death and jumping to your death?

---

That's really past the 'torture' mark there, into 'killing'.

The thing is, these things in ISOLATION wouldn't be so bad. But taken together, their effects multiply. They have a synergistic effect.

Let's put it this way. You could come home and say you had a bad day at work if you were late, the boss was an asshole, you had a headache and you couldn't finish up the big proposal.

Any of those things by themselves, you'd be pissed, but it wouldn't affect you nearly as much as all of them occurring either together or within a short amount of time.

Sleep deprivation is one of the worst, in my mind, as it confuses the mind and is very good for forcing people to say whatever you want them to as long as you promise them sleep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

And these same people that you bleeding hearts are so worried about would stone a woman for being caught in the company of any man who is not a blood relative.


Heaven forbid, don't make these guys spend time in a room with a spider.

---

Darrin, do you believe EVERYONE we've tortured is guilty? Or has actionable intelligence?

Or do you think that a few might have been captured due to a mistake?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

(Psst -- they don't really like the military)

---

I'm in the military, putz.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

There was a leadership problem at Abu Ghraib and that situation was dealt with.

---

As a rule, I'm against REAL torture. I don't have any issue with the list of unpleasantries in the OP.[/quote]

So, are you of the mind that Germans shouldn't have been prosecuted for doing the same after WWII?

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...fte_verne.html

The military shouldn't have anything to do with the sort of interrogation under discussion IMO. I know that reflects a pre-9/11 mindset, but I don't believe 9/11 was a bridge we burned after crossing it.

9/11 didn't erase our previous history, it only rendered it *temporarily* quaint.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Is this what you guys are so deadly serious about...?



Is that stuff really all that bad?

---

So you are fine with all that being done to our soldiers if they were ever captured in any war.

Ok, I disagree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

And these same people that you bleeding hearts are so worried about would stone a woman for being caught in the company of any man who is not a blood relative.


Heaven forbid, don't make these guys spend time in a room with a spider.

---

Heaven forbid you could ever understand whose hearts and minds are actually at issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crookshanks

I think some of you guys need to watch Patton again. That's the kind of military leadership we need - none of this moral high ground crap.

---

We should slap around our own soldiers suffering from PTSD?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

(Psst -- they don't really like the military)

---

Sure we do. We don't like some of the things they are ordered to do.

Quote:

---

So you are fine with all that being done to our soldiers if they were ever captured in any war.

---

...forget captured troops, would he be fine with this kinda torture happening to him in a Mexican prison....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

(Psst -- they don't really like the military)

---

One of my arguments was based on respect for the military, and my having been a proud member of that miltitary.

Fuck your useless stereotypes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crookshanks

I think some of you guys need to watch Patton again. That's the kind of military leadership we need - none of this moral high ground crap.

---

As I said before, a dangerous idiot.

9-11 came along and slapped us in the face with our collective ignorance of the rest of the world.

The first thing I did was seek out middle easterners and muslims, and start picking their brains about it.

I read and researched as much as I could on Afghanistan, the Al Qaeda movement, and islamic extremism in general.

Did people like you go out and bother talking to muslims after this to learn something?

No.

You and Darrin, and Yonivore, and just about every other conservative I have ever talked to seems to be comfortable in a bubble of ignorance.

For some reason, you want to feel comforted by some simplistic view of the outside word in which "us" and "them" are black and white, survival depends on doing things that undermine our most deeply held principles and morals, and every muslim is out to get us. That is dangerous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sun Tsu

If you know others and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know others but know yourself, you win one and lose one; if you do not know others and do not know yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.

---

Knowing the enemy is one of the most basic principles of war, and as obvious thousands of years ago as today.

Understanding the nature of the conflict you are fighting is *the* first step in formulating a cohesive response.

Patton fought a standing army of a formal nation state. His opponents used a level of technology similar to his, sometimes superior actually, they wore uniforms, and were rather easy to spot on the battlefield.

I'm sorry, but islamic extremists have none of those characteristics.

The nature of this struggle is that of a war of ideas.

On one side is the USA.

Our idea is that we are a righteous democracy, generous, and respecting of the basic human rights embodied in our constitution and fought for by millions of our own citizens willing to give their lives for nothing more concrete than principles.

Their idea is that we are an evil empire. We are hypocrites who not only don't respect the supposed rights we say we promote, we are a force of evil by supporting the various corrupt tyrannies that populate developing world governments. Our secular, liberal "democracy" is hollow and out to get islam. We are interested in nothing but power.

The more people they convince of this idea, the more recruits they have, and the more ability they have to harm us.

The more we convince people of our idea, the more cooperation we get in general, and the fewer recruits they get.

The more violent and less ethical we become the more they win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

As I said before, a dangerous idiot.

9-11 came along and slapped us in the face with our collective ignorance of the rest of the world.

The first thing I did was seek out middle easterners and muslims, and start picking their brains about it.

I read and researched as much as I could on Afghanistan, the Al Qaeda movement, and islamic extremism in general.

Did people like you go out and bother talking to muslims after this to learn something?

No.

You and Darrin, and Yonivore, and just about every other conservative I have ever talked to seems to be comfortable in a bubble of ignorance.

For some reason, you want to feel comforted by some simplistic view of the outside word in which "us" and "them" are black and white, survival depends on doing things that undermine our most deeply held principles and morals, and every muslim is out to get us. That is dangerous.



Knowing the enemy is one of the most basic principles of war, and as obvious thousands of years ago as today.

Understanding the nature of the conflict you are fighting is *the* first step in formulating a cohesive response.

Patton fought a standing army of a formal nation state. His opponents used a level of technology similar to his, sometimes superior actually, they wore uniforms, and were rather easy to spot on the battlefield.

I'm sorry, but islamic extremists have none of those characteristics.

The nature of this struggle is that of a war of ideas.

On one side is the USA.

Our idea is that we are a righteous democracy, generous, and respecting of the basic human rights embodied in our constitution and fought for by millions of our own citizens willing to give their lives for nothing more concrete than principles.

Their idea is that we are an evil empire. We are hypocrites who not only don't respect the supposed rights we say we promote, we are a force of evil by supporting the various corrupt tyrannies that populate developing world governments. Our secular, liberal "democracy" is hollow and out to get islam. We are interested in nothing but power.

The more people they convince of this idea, the more recruits they have, and the more ability they have to harm us.

The more we convince people of our idea, the more cooperation we get in general, and the fewer recruits they get.

The more violent and less ethical we become the more they win.

---

So did you the read part about the terrorists being crazy fucking lunatics and hate every single non-muslim and it was their duty to kill us all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clandestino

So did you the read part about the terrorists being crazy fucking lunatics and hate every single non-muslim and it was their duty to kill us all?

---

Indeed.

The hard core fanatics are hard to turn.

I have also read up on a few of them who have turned their back on the extremism.

Your problem with perceiving this conflict correctly is that you seem to think that all muslims are part of Al Qaeda.

They aren't.

It isn't the opinion or sympathies of the hard core types that you have to sway, is it?

It is the fence sitters who *might* join. THAT is the group of people you fight for by not being violent and unethical.

We won the fight in Iraq against them, partly because they are murderous fucks who kill indescriminantly. The sunni population turned against Al Qaeda partly for that reason.

Our change in tactics was actually to release MORE prisoners, and use LESS force. We got "softer" and became stronger.

Wrap your mind around THAT.

"Why do you think this admin released that memo"

why do you think dubya kept those documents secret? national security? war on terror?

We learned a lot of lessons in Vietnam, and that all got boiled down into the Army's counterinsurgency manual.

We fought Iraq for 3 years the "conservative" (read: ignorant) way. Round up anybody who we even *thought* was a sympathizer, stick 'em all in a prison, and don't worry about a little collateral damage from that airstrike...

Then suddenly we discovered that (gasp) we learned something from Vietnam, and had actually written a book on it. They changed strategy and tactics to take advantage of this, and unsurpisingly it worked.

Soft power is far more important than hard power in the struggle against extremists.

Killing is necessary, but not sufficient.

Torturing prisoners, for any reason, hurts your cause far more than any short-term intelligence gain.

Before this issue of torture by insects and diapers was on the table, before the EEEEEVIL George W. Bush was even governor of Texas, why did Islamic terrorists bomb the WTC in 1993?


Were we not winning their hearts and minds back then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Before this issue of torture by insects and diapers was on the table, before the EEEEEVIL George W. Bush was even governor of Texas, why did Islamic terrorists bomb the WTC in 1993?


Were we not winning their hearts and minds back then?

---

No, not really.

We had always been dimly aware of terrorism up until then, but it had been mostly a few hijacked airliners.

We became a bit more aware of it, and concentrated a few more resources to it, but it takes a good bloody nose like 9-11 to get people's attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

According to this CNN article http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/...nts/index.html, we've approved

Using insects to scare someone with a phobia of insects
Nudity and wearing diapers
Sleep deprivation
Waterboarding

Now, these seem to fall into two categories for me. A "disrespecting" category, and a "threatening" category.

I'm not sure which I find worse. Let's see what George Washington had to say about detainment:

Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.” - George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775

And another quote...

“‘Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren who have fallen into their hands".

Does anyone think that the example put forth by the US today would be approved of by Washington? Do you think Washington was limiting his treatment of prisoners to the British because they were legal combatants?

---

Cry Havoc and unleash the dogs of war!...... Washington and the British both prosecuted war under a common understanding called the "Rules of War"
an understanding that was kept in order to minimize the barbarity that is war. I don't think for a moment he would have extended that understanding to Al Queda. The tatic Al Queda uses, is to use war to maximze terror and barbarisim not minimize it. But that's not really the question your asking is it.