Politics As Usual

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me
Not true. Citing to blogs and opinion pieces without any reference to actual evidence is what I mock.

Don't forget first-hand accounts from books written for profit

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I don't read blogs and nothing I referenced is based on an "opinion piece." Thus, I assume everything in my post passes muster with you. Hallelujah.

It passes muster if all you are saying is that these things are not proof. I read through your original post rather quickly, and took you to be saying that there was some actual evidence as opposed to speculation and conjecture.

My references to blogs and opinion pieces are directed toward Ty.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Don't forget first-hand accounts from books written for profit

When others dispute all that is said by the writer of the book and that writer has both revenge and profit motives, the books value as evidence proving something is diminished in my opinion. Unless there is some more objective evidence to corroborate what the author is saying.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Not Me
statutory rape.

Using the term "statutory rape" in a post about sexual activities in the Congo reminds me of the time I tried to call a charging foul during a pickup basketball game.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Not Me
It passes muster if all you are saying is that these things are not proof. I read through your original post rather quickly, and took you to be saying that there was some actual evidence as opposed to speculation and conjecture.

That is not "all I am saying." I am saying that these things are indicia -- in other words, they are evidence to support the conclusion. They are not conclusive evidence.

Your effort to dismiss this evidence as "speculation and conjecture," without any response to any specific point, is amusing at best.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me
When others dispute all that is said by the writer of the book and that writer has both revenge and profit motives, the books value as evidence proving something is diminished in my opinion. Unless there is some more objective evidence to corroborate what the author is saying.

Please cite to all disputed parts of Against All Enemies and Plan of Attack that were cited here by either Ty or me.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Please cite to all disputed parts of Against All Enemies and Plan of Attack that were cited here by either Ty or me.

Cite to the posts in which you or Ty cited to those books and I will point them out for you.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm not the libertarian here. The article describes run-of-the-mill prostitution, except that (1) the prostitutes are in exceptionally horrid circumstances, and (2) the johns are UN peacekeepers. Since I know that club is libertarian enough to think that prostitution should generally be legal, I couldn't figure out what principle bothered him here, other than (a) the UN should be cast in a bad light. After copious posting, I discern that he thinks that prostitution is generally OK except when the prostitutes are really poor, in which case they should not be allowed to prostitute themselves for food. Since he's not willing to give the UN any more money to do anything about the lousy conditions these people find themselves in, unless and until the NEA is defunded, he apparently thinks that really poor prostitutes should have the good taste to crawl off and die, unless they can embarrass the UN some more by continuing to live.

Are you being purposely dense? My position on prostitution is that it should be legal. If find it morally wrong (on the part of the John), however, if the woman is forced to act as a prostitute in order to avoid death or similar circumstances. A poor woman in America can get a job at McDonalds. If she chooses to forgo that job and go into prostitution instead, it should be legal and I do not have a moral problem with it.

I have already stated my positions on funding. If you want to continue to twist my position, I can't do anyting about that.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop It's obvious to me that the soldiers are guilty of inhumanity, and that the international community can and should do more to alleviate the conditions of these refugees. We all agree on the first point, but the conservatives here are usually opposed to the second point, for fearing of interfering with market forces.

What market forces are being interferred with? Oh, you mean those interferrences caused by the tyranical governments of these countries? This is not the case of a market failure. It is the absense of true markets that are failing these countries.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop I still can't tell what this has to do with Abu Ghraib, and club hasn't been able to find any discussion of U.S. soldiers taking advantage of Iraqi prostitutes so he's sort of dropped the "double standard" point.

I have done nothing of the sort. My point all along has been that the acts in Iraq are bad and these acts are bad, but that these acts won't get the coverage they are due because they were done under UN rather than US cover.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Not Me
Cite to the posts in which you or Ty cited to those books and I will point them out for you.

Cite to the posts in which you cite posts in which Ty cites disputed parts of the books and in which you provide cites to cite evidence contrary to the cited cites, and I will fuck your sister next Tuesday in exchange for a Happy Meal.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
The thrust of his post was the effort to blame the media because Americans might actually be more interested in knowing if their government is torturing prisoners in Iraq than in knowing whether soldiers on loan to the UN from Malaysia or whereever are hiring hookers in Africa. His point was silly enough, you don't need to mischaracterize it to ridicule it.

The two are not mutually exclusive. I want to know about both of these events.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I have done nothing of the sort. My point all along has been that the acts in Iraq are bad and these acts are bad, but that these acts won't get the coverage they are due because they were done under UN rather than US cover.

Which gets us back to the point. Do you really believe that the difference in covereage has nothing to do with :

1. the existence of photos and videos;

2. the fact that the coverage of the Iraq war itself is much higher than of this UN action, and in fact higher than the coverage of any other story in the entire world (NOTE: this applies to both positive and negative aspects. If Kofi Annan decided to fly onto an aircraft carrier to declare "Mission Accomplished" in the Congo, I doubt that it would get the same level of coverage as Bush's photo op did);

3. the evidence that the conduct of US soldiers at Abu Ghraib goes beyond a few bad apples flouting the rules.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The two are not mutually exclusive. I want to know about both of these events.

And you do.

But you seem to be upset that the conduct of UN soldiers is not getting daily front-page attention, when the UN action itself is barely getting any press attention at all. (Can you show me a single front-page story from the past week?)

If your theory -- that the media loves anything the UN does -- were remotely supportable, then the UN's actions in the Congo and elsewhere would be lauded in the press daily. In that case, the media's silence on misconduct of the UN soldiers involved would be evidence of media bias.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Your effort to dismiss this evidence as "speculation and conjecture," without any response to any specific point, is amusing at best.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
The torture took place (primarily, as far as we know) in the one wing of the one prison where high-intelligence value prisoners were concentrated.

Intelligence officers and torture-mercs were present, as photographed.

True but so what?

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
The soldiers currently known to have tortured prisoners gladly let themselves be photographed. At least some of these individuals are prison guards in their civilian lives, who certainly know (as the non-prison guards would virtually certainly know) that you generally do not want to be photographed torturing prisoners, unless of course you have reason to believe that your superior officers will approve that conduct.

Your conclusion is speculation and conjecture. You are just assuming that since they took the pictures it must have been because their superior officers would approve. This is just speculation. Another more plausible reason is because they are dumbasses.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
When the Red Cross first reported this to the US military, the official response was not "thanks for finding those bad apples!", but rather an effort to prevent further Red Cross surprise inspections. Eventually, the Red Cross became so frustrated with US non-response to their findings that the Red Cross almost broke its long-standing policy against going public with findings. Why would the US have behaved this way if this was really just a few bad apples?

I inferred from your question (in bold) that you think that efforts to prevent RC surprise inspections is evidence that higher ups knew about the abuse. Assuming for the sake of argument that surprise inspections were actually discouraged, you are speculating as to the reason why surprise inspections were discouraged.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
The US response to individual Iraqis who complained of their treatment was similar to the response to the Red Cross. Former prisoners' complaints were ignored or disregarded. Individuals were told that complaints would not be accepted unless they could identify the soldier responsible -- difficult to do when the complaint is that you were hooded and beaten.

I don't know if what you are saying here is accurate or not, but how does that support that higher ups knew of the abuses? It sounds like run-of-the-mill beaurocratic indifference, which is a far cry from a conspiracy.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
The sheer number of abuses, photos, videos, statements, and murders seems contrary to the "bad apple" theory. Why would there be so many "bad apples" in Iraq in 2003, when there was nothing like this in Iraq in 1991 (despite many more soldiers and many more prisoners)?

Perhaps digital cameras weren't as widely available in 1991. The lack of pictures of abuses in 1991 doesn't mean that abuses didn't occur.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
The use of forms of torture that are specifically known as interrogation techniques, such as wiring an individual and telling him that if he moves from a "stress" (i.e., pain-inducing) position he will be electrocuted, that a bunch of civilian hillbillies are unlikely to have thought of on their own.

Why not? From what I have read, some of these techniques were taught to the US soldiers as training on what they could expect if taken as a POW. Just like the women troops were taught about the likelihood of rape if they were taken as POWs. It wouldn't take much of an imagination to then think to use those techniques that you were told may be used on you.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
This Administration has not exactly shown high regard for international agreements such as the Geneva Conventions, and the guards received no education and training on the Geneva Conventions.

I don't agree that the guards received no education and training on the GC. I also don't agree that the admin hasn't shown high regard for the GC. They made a ruling that the GC doesn't apply to the Taliban. Well if you read the GC, then you know it doesn't. That doesn't mean you don't have high regard for the GC in those situations in which it applies. For you to leap from the ruling that the GC doesn't apply to the Taliban to the conclusion that higher ups approved of the abuses at Abu Ghariab, where the admin has clearly stated the GC does apply, is pure speculation.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Individuals who were involved in interrogating prisoners in Afghanistan -- where US policy was that the Geneva Conventions do not apply -- were present in Iraq at Abu Ghraib.

So what?

[Gin Rummy]

Originally posted by Not Me
Good thinking, Rummy!

Damn straight!

It’s about time.

I have been discussing this issue with my granddad, a WWII Vet who made it through the Bataan death march and his recollection was during his hallowed stint in the military, soldiers were allowed NO contact with the outside world, families included. No letters, NO calls, NO postcards, NO teletype, NO Western Union, NO pony express, NO Nothing. It was called wartime security.

Now the left wing media traitors and their comrades in the democrat party are whinging about restrictions on cell phones?

Roosevelt was bad enough, but it’s a damn thing that you modern day post-60’s freak liberals weren’t in charge of things in WW II or we’d all be dancing the goosestep over a platter of sushi now.

Any query for you leftist boys, how come the media doesn’t show these pics as many times as we have seen the panty-headed prisoner pics. No bias? BULLSHITE!

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Cite to the posts in which you cite posts in which Ty cites disputed parts of the books and in which you provide cites to cite evidence contrary to the cited cites, and I will fuck your sister next Tuesday in exchange for a Happy Meal.

w-a-t-e-r.