Ending the war in Iraq is right for a lot of reasons. The war was unjustified, unnecessary and unprovoked. It is counterproductive, strengthening al-Qaeda and weakening the moral authority of the United States. It is deadly: Many Americans, and many, many more Iraqis, have been killed or injured as a result of the fighting. And it is costly: Well over $250… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (659)Hello Jay C,
Here are four reasons why I don’t want the US government to legally sanction torture, why I think Cheney et al are wrong to wish to keep it as a legal ace in the hole.1. Because of what it would do to us as a civilization. I think it would add to the erosion of moral sense in America. I think one of the few very clear lessons of history is that means and ends are inseparable. You can’t achieve dignified goals by using demeaned methods of reaching them. There are scenarios that can be devised that uphold the logic of being able to extract information by way of torture, and, piggybacking on your example of the kidnapped child, I would wreak unholy havoc upon the kidnapper I’d caught in order to free the child.
But my private vendetta also isn’t be the proper basis for law. What I’d be doing would have nothing to do with rationality or justice. Once such a thing is legally in-bounds, the precedent is set for cops, judges, and soldiers to use the expedient technique and cut to the torturous chase.
A cop defending himself with a righteous shot is a far cry from a couple of brutes doing their thing on a suspect’s pain nerves.
I feel it would pollute our national culture, legitimizing something the enormous majority of us (in other countries as well as in America) recoil in disgust from. We would become desensitized, complacent, tolerant of expedient means, bad.
2. Because it’s certain that we’ll end up torturing innocent suspects. This is akin to my argument against capital punishment; there’s no way to be 100% certain that you’ve cooked the right fish. An interrogator might be very confident he has the right man, inflicting legal agony upon him or wrecking his mental processes to get the information that is considered vital to deflect an attack or to neutralize an immediate threat, only to find later that the guy shrieking and going mad at his hands has nothing to do with it, he only fits the description. If time pressures or demands of command personnel mounted, I think this sort of mistake is even more likely. And again, connected to #1, it would make beasts of our peace officers and soldiers, some at least. Beastly men who have a taste for that sort of thing might even be recruited. I have no wish to foster this.
(continued)
Posted by Kuya on Nov 16, 2005 at 5:00 PM Kuya,
fyi, Looks like we are posting at the same time. The following was written before you started your 4 Points and I haven’t read them yet.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 16, 2005 at 5:14 PM If, for the sake of the argument, the story Rabbit has provided is factually accurate and correct, then the US is responsible.
And we have laws to exercise that responsibility and they should be enforced.
Excesses will happen in war and those committing the excesses should, and have been, and will continue to be, punished.
This is entirely consistent with what I have said.
But my past experience with Rabbit’s “sources” is that they end up being old, worn out, dead end rabbit warrens of dried dung pellets.
My own dearth of quotable sources is a result of my belief that quoting someone on the Internet is like buying Florida swamp land or the Brooklyn Bridge from the guy on the corner.
Rabbit et al might be content with relying on someone else to make their point, but I am quite capable of independent rational thought and, unlike Rabbit, and despite his repeated and loud admonishments to others (me think he doth protest too much), I know the difference between opinion, argument and facts.
As far as my providing links to my own blog, I have unsuccessfully tried to educate Rabbit on the intent and purposes of a bibliography, or in Internet parlance, of linking to other sources. I generally don’t link to other people’s opinions because I can make my own point. Logic is not democratic. Posturing and parading twenty links of other people’s opinions doesn’t make your point more right.
When I link to my blog, it is because I have already posted a related post that others might be interested in, but they are not there to validate the opinions and arguments I make here. I know how to construct consistent and complete paragraphs.
But I have yet to see here any rational demonstration (ie an argument that does not rely on conspiracy theories and conjectures) that shows the American forces have not been diligent in minimizing civilian casualties.
Nor has Rabbit acknowledged that most of the thousands, tens of thousands, of innocent Iraqi deaths in the past year and half have been a direct and indirect result of the insurgency, not the American presence. Nor has Rabbit acknowledged that the insurgency is an undemocratic and military power grab based on the downfall of the Sunni regime; a regime descended literally and figuratively from the Butcher of Baghdad supported by a faction of the Sunni people that itself consists of only 20% of the Iraqi population.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 16, 2005 at 5:14 PM (to continue)
3. It won’t help us win a war, not the war on terror nor any other. I wouldn’t say it would make much difference in terms of triggering worse shit from al Qaeda; it’s clear they have no sense of restraint whatsoever (blasting wedding parties in Amman, now there’s a way to bring the kingdom of “god” closer to fruition; fuckin wack as ever… i hope the tide of Jordanian opinion is well and truly turned, but what a vicious reality check!).
I don’t think terrorism will go away until a) the rich and powerful countries of the world set their power toward rectifying the squalorous conditions and historical conflicts used to justify terror, b) they make amends and repair the damages they themselves have wrought, such as in Afghanistan and Iraq, c) psycho nihilists who despise their own lives, who give up their power to think and allow themselves to be mindless, hyper-obedient killers, are put away, and d) the world at large finally, at long last, learns to be suspicious of inspiring rhetoric by charismatic apocalyptors, instead of allowing their flights of emotion to make them admire the bloody tricksters.
a) and b) are a matter of will driving government policy. c) and d), well…
Of course being able torture or not has little to do with successful battlefied strategy, intelligent use of personnel and materiel, and other factors of military victory.
4. This is just a personal note, connecting back to #1. I’m not going to give any loyalty to a nation I can’t admire or respect. So far, I’ve had no impulse to turn in my passport, I definitely identify with America. What’s left of her Enlightenment-era source ideals still have a grip on me, even if I might lament our TV obsession, our refusal to see ourselves as part of the world, or the behavior of this-or-that government. Despite my criticisms, I’m attached to the place, and I don’t wish to lose that feeling.
But what the fuck’s to be loyal to, if we’re just as bad as the power-mad authors of other people’s torments that we say are our enemies? And what’s to prevent us from becoming that, if we legally sanction torture, even with the hedge of saying “only if necessary”. I fear that the world “necessary” would be used more and more often over time, unless we eschew torture and decide to be above it.
Those are my reasons why I think torture should never get the legal nod, should be prohibited and prosecuted if it’s carried under color of American authority.
I do see how it can be philosophized and discussed using the rhetorical techniques, but frankly we can justify anything we want if we try hard enough and phrase it in just the right way. Although I recognize the need to establish mechanisms for identifying fallacious arguments, rhetorical progressions are not a satisfying substitute for what I believe would take place in the meat-and-bone, blood-and-screams, madness-and-horror of real life. It’s about more than socratic dynamics or whatever.
Posted by Kuya on Nov 16, 2005 at 5:15 PM You can see I’m not too good with the lingo of proper argumentation, but you get my drift.
Gotta sign off for now, peace be with all y’all.
Posted by Kuya on Nov 16, 2005 at 5:23 PM Point 1
If the point of breaking the guy’s arm was vindictiveness, then you are absolutely right. Vendettas should not, and are not, a basis of law. But you take my example out of context. The point was to extract the information the dude had to save my little girl, not an angry father out of control in a moment of abject grief.
is it immoral for me to twist the guy’s arm, break it if necessary, to find out where his accomplice is taking her?
I still say no, it is not immoral. It is not immoral for a cop defending himself with a righteous shot but it is absolutely immoral for a couple of brutes doing their thing on a suspect’s pain nerves., if they be brutes and the only rationale is for their pleasure.
However, is it immoral for a couple dudes to do their thing if they are trying to find out where the nuke is going?
No. There is a difference.
Just as there is a difference between a good shooting and cops forming execution squads because they don’t like the judges releasing perps on technicalities.
Morality is not in the act, but in the intent and the justification. If we can justify murder in self-defense, if we can justify a cop making a righteous shot, why can we not justify an extreme interrogation that saves thousands?
I do not advocate torture as a rule. In most, nearly all cases, it is not necessary. Police officers do not need that authority in course of their duties. The few extreme cases where it could arguably be necessary are very few and far between, and simple economics and skill retention requirements dictate that it would not be effective to train officers in such extreme interrogation the way they are trained in the use of lawful deadly force.
My intent is to show that a universal blanket condemnation of extreme interrogation techniques as torture has no rational basis. I would not want extreme interrogation to be regularly used or encouraged, but there are extreme situations where the end does justifies the means.
I would not also want regular soldiers to be trained in such techniques. For the same reason I would not train regular police officers. Their job is not intelligence. The training to make a fighting soldier, one who can kill if necessary, should not include such training. I support the prohibition of torture in the Army Field Manual and in the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
But I also agree with Cheney when he argues that the CIA should not be bound by the same rules. They are not soldiers. It IS their job to acquire intel, and they should receive training on the appropriate and inappropriate uses of extreme interrogations.
Properly set as a precedent, extreme interrogation is no less dangerous to civil society than giving police officers the authority to use deadly force. The same argument of the danger of “expediency” could be made against police officers and the use of deadly force. But because we do successfully distinguish the difference between lawful and unlawful deadly force, the argument against potential expediency is mute, so long as we are able to make the same distinction between indiscriminate torture and extreme interrogation.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 16, 2005 at 7:25 PM Point 2
I would simply refer to the previous arguments of police officers using lawful deadly force.
If you accept the necessity for officers to have that authority, if you accept the necessity for the officers at the scene to make those decisions, then your arguments against the use of torture conflict with your acceptance of lawful deadly force.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 16, 2005 at 7:31 PM Point 3
I believe extreme interrogation will, or merely possible could, help us in the War on Terror.
A nuke going off at Wall Street and Broad is al Qaeda’s Holy Grail. The cell organization makes it very difficult to crack even conventional al Qaeda Ops. Extreme interrogation may yield the one clue we need to stop that.
The suicide bomber mentality also makes it difficult to convince most detainees to cooperate. Threaten them with life imprisonment in a humane jail (despite the fact they show no humanity towards their intended innocent victims in terrorist attacks) will not make much of an impression.
But it is said every one has their breaking point. And extreme interrogation is sometimes the only way to find that point.
The whole notion of the Geneva Convention was to civilize the waging of war. But that requires both sides accept and acknowledge the necessity of that Convention. Al Qaeda has demonstrated over and over their lack of humanity. Our careful and judicious use of extreme interrogation does not reflect a lack of humanity on our part. Not when American forces are deliberately put at risk by their commanders every day to minimize innocent casualties.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 16, 2005 at 8:03 PM Point 4
Yeah verily.
Yet in my bones I feel the same about shackling the arms of our soldiers in combat to the same philosophical and rhetorical arguments that searches for utopian morality and yet cannot resolve simple moral arguments.
The unwillingness to define extreme interrogation that could save thousands as lawful stands in stark contrast with a society that is willing to accept lawful deadly force, even when the execution of that force accidently results in the death of a 13 year old kid in a dark alley.
The arguments for one are no different than the arguments for the other.
And murder is much, much worse than torture.
Death is final.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 16, 2005 at 8:11 PM Ah. Jay-jay.
I must warn you. You’re treading on thinner and thinner ice with every word you write.
Your ethical postulations and speculations bear as much relevance to a real dilemma as a freshman private school Ethics class’s consensus on the morality of stealing bread does in the mind of someone who hasn’t eaten in three days.
Please consider going back and re-thinking what you have said with this critical tool in mind.
Posted by luminous beauty on Nov 16, 2005 at 8:41 PM Ah, perhaps, my friend.
But as your comments are as worthy of consideration as a teat on a fly, I have little to worry about.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 16, 2005 at 8:51 PM My, my, my Jay. After all we’ve been through, how can you be so inconsiderate? Your intransigent obliviousness is so obvious both here and there. Truly a prodigious talent.
Posted by luminous beauty on Nov 16, 2005 at 9:21 PM In other words, since you are at a loss for words on rebutting my comments, you take the ethical high road and kill the messenger?
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 16, 2005 at 9:33 PM Not at all, Jay. I’ve learned from experience how pointless it is to attempt to cut through your sophomoric inadequacies and intellectually dishonest cluelessness and converse with you in a rational manner. I’m merely content to point out to others the fabulous self-ironies you commit to these pages. For example; how above you boast of your superior abilities to think independently and form coherent thoughts for yourself, blah, blah, blah. You then proceed to present rote regurgitations of the most banal conventional opinions imaginable and defend them with the weakest, most supercilious rhetoric it has ever been my dismay to witness. If you weren’t so oblivious to the bald faced reality of what I have just said, you’d be no fun at all.
Posted by luminous beauty on Nov 16, 2005 at 10:31 PM In other words, since you are at a loss for words on rebutting my comments, you take the ethical high road and kill the messenger?
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 16, 2005 at 10:40 PM Now you are just being redundant. You have my answer. Respond if you are able. If you can’t, you can’t. It is that simple.
Posted by luminous beauty on Nov 16, 2005 at 11:26 PM ... a show down ... ten paces ... draw… my money is on Lumninous Beauty ... sorry Jay ... your shots miss the mark ... the target I see at least.
Luminous Beauty is like the Lone Ranger. Wearing the white hat ... hi ho Silver ... away.
Apologies everywhere there. Just having fun. Glad that it is war of words.
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 16, 2005 at 11:43 PM For Kuya,
Israeli intelligence has now admitted to warning and pulling out Israeli patrons from the hotel which exposes lie number one that they did not.
all photos released of the bomb damage shows ceilings blown out. No suicide bombers. Lie number two.Jordan is 92% Sunni. Why attack sunnis and for what benefit?
No, I do not believe they learned their lesson about terrorism as even vey intelligent and thought provoking people such as yourself can even gloss over. If the media is proven to be lying about this, then what else are they lying about?
I will submit an example of a televised interview with a man on a train car during the 7/7 blasts who was credited with being closest to the bomb and see if you can hear the discrepencies as presented by a man present on scene and the story presented by the media. This is an excerpt:“The policeman said ‘mind that hole, that’s where the bomb was’. The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don’t remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag,” he said.
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/region_wide/2005/07/11/83e33146-09af-442 21-b2f4-1779a86926f9.lpf
exercises at same place same time:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/090705bombingexercises.htm
In effect, we are torturing people who truly do not have beneficial information attribitable to a nuke attack in this country. To continue this behavior of barbarism, it is sure to undermine any moral fabric that may be left in the cloth of our country…which may be the point.
Posted by beowulf on Nov 17, 2005 at 12:00 AM Actually David, considering Jay had just at that moment in time surmised my ‘secret’ it may, if made consciously, have been one of Jay’s wittier remarks. If unconscious; still pretty funny.
Posted by luminous beauty on Nov 17, 2005 at 12:26 AM How is that for funny?
Sorry Jay and Luminous Beauty. In a way I betrayed both of you. Luminous Beauty then, Jay now. Maybe
I told Jay back a while ago when I saw this Jay comment to you:
I had visited his blog previously and emailed him to tell him that it was actually his not her .
I throw myself upon your mercy. Both of you.
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 17, 2005 at 2:16 AM Kuya your view is shared by about half the sensible people Rabbit knows, and it is not exactly that Rabbit disgrees with most of the contentions about the likely effect of pulling out.
Rabbit’s determination is based upon listening to what the majority of Iraqis are saying and have been saying for a long while now. The internal strife, was non-existant to begin with, the Iraqis mostly were ready to pick up their country from what was left and they have the experience intelligence and sophistication to do it without further intervention. That was and still is the wests mistake. Have you read the Blog of Riverbend? Baghdad Burning? If not you are in for an eye opening experience and I suggest you look as soon as possible. River will tell you much better than Rabbit can. The violence which exists has been deliberately incited by the occupation forces. That has been too widely reported and a number of proofs of it have surfaced quite recently. This was being reported by Iraqis from the outset and even yet while internal strife is growing, far more Iraqis are sceptical of many of the supposed insurgent attacks against civilians. The people on the ground know what ios happening and they are on the internet telling the truth, if you look. Most of the violence revolves around the occupation and those Iraqis who are in fact the worst of the bunch but who have sidled up to the US occupation and are using you as patsies to gain control. They are the worst and they would not be in power if it were not for the continued US occupation . They will now be consolidated in their power by further US occupation This will and is taking extreme brutality. The old torture centers are operating with the same horrendous reputations and that is how it will continue. The Iraqis have been killed in hundreds of thousands, poisoned by Depleted Uranium and other Illegal Weapons and now with a smashed infrastructure which has been given over to private companies to own and control. They have an even more oppressive regime in power and you are talking about staying there until things are stable.
If you think the Iraqis are going to put up with that situation you are mistaken. they are and they will fight to stop it. So while you are “Supporting” the regime you have forced upon the people, all you are doing and it can be seen in the rising violence, is making the situation worse.
My point is that since the Majority want us out, it is the Democratic choice. To remain is to remain against the majority will of the people. They are not children they are not inferior.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 17, 2005 at 2:39 AM It’s all good, David. I was laughing then and I’m laughing even more now. I hope Mobius Jay is getting a good laugh out of it, too. I have a feeling he didn’t really believe you until I started talking about my draft status. Can’t explain it. Like woman’s intuition or something. I can picture the light going on over his pointy little head.
You did a good thing, David. You pricked his conscience in a way he felt the need to apologize. Unfortunate that I should so cruelly throw it back in his face, but he has much more serious errors to apologize for, unfortunately.
Posted by luminous beauty on Nov 17, 2005 at 2:47 AM As an addendum to what Rabbit said:
If we were to apologize sincerely for our mistakes, and commit ourselves to open negotiations with all factions of the resistance with the only caveat of expediting our speediest withdrawal in the most peaceful manner we might give the Iraqis the example and the confidence to resolve their hostilities in a less vengeful fashion.
As long as we are aggressively going after the ‘bad guys’ and innocent Iraqis are caught in the crossfire the cycle of grief, anguish, and revenge is replenished. It really makes zero difference what any of us in our safe and comfortable homes believes about which side is ‘morally’ culpable.
Posted by luminous beauty on Nov 17, 2005 at 3:17 AM Thanks ... hoped it would be received this way.
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 17, 2005 at 3:19 AM Hi again Jay C,
Maybe all I’ve expressed is my own angst. I hate what 9/11 and the War on Terror have done to my country. I hate the security obsession, the hunker-down mentality. I detest the openness with which unconstitutional detention centers formed and the relatively easy acceptance of them by the public, who seem by and large to go along uncritically with whatever the administration or the 24-hour news channel shovel out, turning back to their reality shows as a narcotic.Perhaps I should have just listed my fourth reason as the one that carries the day with me. Acting crazy in an insane world, that’s how all the justification sounds to me. Well, it just adds to the insanity.
It’s an emotional reaction more than a tight logical argument, I guess. But in my mind I transfer the things that I criticize about the administration to an imaginative, fictional country, and then I ask myself: How do you feel about that country? How would you feel about it if it were a real country on Earth?
Proud and loyal aint the answers. More like disdainful and alienated.
I realize that as a debate partner all this right-brain shit doesn’t fit in, perhaps it’s annoying or viewed as irrelevant and maybe for some this will disqualify the things I say from serious consideration. Whatever. All I can tell you is what my thoughts are.
As much as I know that deadly force will be a tool of statecraft for as long as it’s used by people against other people, I want that force restrained. Just get the biochemists to work on a serum that breaks down the will to lie while not fucking up the mind permanently (because of the certainty that innocents will be interrogated); that’s an unsavory solution too and has its own perilous side, but maybe I could live with it.
Do you see? I’m not asking “What’s the logic of doing it?”, I’m asking, “What the hell are we becoming?”
What can I say. I’m not a rhetorician.
Posted by Kuya on Nov 17, 2005 at 7:31 AM As for warheads going off downtown, some concerted international efforts to account for the radioactive material would help, with strict and multiply-redundant accounting systems. It’s not like the stuff grows on trees.
But we know, don’t we, that none of that will take place, and even if it did, some corrupt mf’r would sell a warhead or some radioactive waste in order to get the downpayment for a home in Malibu.
Posted by Kuya on Nov 17, 2005 at 7:59 AM lb - you’re missing the point. The apology was one of consideration, not embarrassment.
David - nothing to be sorry for.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 17, 2005 at 8:08 AM lb - still waiting. Abusive behavior is not a rebuttal.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 17, 2005 at 8:09 AM kuya,
I do hear you. I don’t like it either. I think we are just holding different people to blame. You primarily believe we should be above it all (we should), I primarily believe those who dragged us into this should get exactly what they asked for.
Neither point is probably a good start for rhetoric, but there it is.
But, I certainly respect your views, and your reasons for them.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 17, 2005 at 8:13 AM Allow me the privilege of explaining the point of debate.
To the extent possible of doing a comparative valuation of morality, I contend that torture is not more immoral than killing. Even in killing, we morally differentiate between murder and justifiable homicide. That differentiation is based on the intent and justification of the act. If torture is used to save the lives of an entire city, if the intent is no different than that of justifiable homicide and torture is at least not worse than killing, then what is the difference between killing and torture.
Except, of course, there is never a worldly reprieve after death.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 17, 2005 at 8:59 AM I really don’t think it is fair to call David, who also made the same gender assumptions, misogynist.
I have seen absolutely nothing in his commentary that would justify that slur.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 17, 2005 at 9:10 AM Mr. Cline,
Torture has been around for thousands of years and to my knowledge, kings, pharoahs, ceasars, or presidents, never did it in order to save cities. Most of the time it is used to promote fear. Can you comb through the past and provide historical examples where something great has come of it?
You have thousands of years worth so the task should provide little difficulty.
Posted by beowulf on Nov 17, 2005 at 1:53 PM JayDecline.
You have never looked at any sources posted by Rabbit.
You have never referred to any fact or even the author of any source posted by Rabbit. You have consistently failed to repudiate anything anyone has ever said, even other Trolls have bested you on occassion.
You have never done anything to support your own endless, unreadable bombast, except to puff yourself up like ill adjusted adolescant, and your personal boasting, and posing has become less of an amusement over time and of late it could be said to be just plain disgusting. Rabbit has Called You Out the first time he met you my little worm. Rabbit called you a particularly nasty and stupid little Troll the moment he set his big, inscrutable Rabbit eyes upon your wizened up husk of a profile.That is what you achieve via your posting, we all do, A Profile. You have made your own an obnoxious, know nothing, loud mouth, space wasting, pompous, cowardly Troll. You were given the chance as Court Jester, and you even managed to Fuck that up, by being so horrid, even when you self destruct you dirty little troll, you go off with a foul puff of brown smoke annd a gross stink.
You know nothing, and can prove it, because you can’t prove anything you are a deluded waste of carbon and water. If you have indeed bred, and produced offspring, thanks to your total failure to recognise truth and reality, they are unlikely to see your line survive the catastrophe that some even more profane humans than yourself are bringing on all our heads. This is in itself one of the few brighter points in an otherwise fairly dismal outlook.
If the world gets better and we all survive the next decade or two, it will be without your help, and in spite of scum like you.
You know nothing, and can prove nothing except that you know nothing, and this you have done with outstanding success.
You are a Troll You were just given an opportunity to face a simple thing, and could at least have made a simple statement on the topic, yet chose to post pages of crap, avoiding it like you always have. Who are you to carry on like an angry ant “calling people out, like some kind of freaking gunslinger. Boy if you had to do anything more than tap your fingers on that keyboard to stand up for yourself you’d be as likely not to stand up a second time with a mouth like yours and the lack of genuine brains to go with it. You’d be a sure bet for a sucker punch or the first mine that presented itself. Your sudden viciousness towards Lume, due to your own Patent Failure to read the Posts on a thread in which you were “supposedly” involved, is unbecoming, and yet so telling.
Jay DeCline is a foul malodorous little Demon Troll, who lies lower than a slug and is twice as slimy.
.......................................................................^^< ..............................................
says Rabbit
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 17, 2005 at 3:30 PM Up early this morning, Jay-Jay.
Nothing abusive about my reply to your ‘challenge’. I apologize if you find my criticism harsh. Every word is sincere and, I believe, perfectly true. This is a matter that you have displayed consistently and unerringly over time. If you wish to gain my trust you are going to have to make an effort. I am willing to offer you the opportunity.
The misogynist reference was to your ‘teats on a fly’ remark. Was that not abusive? Was that not an attempt to insult me after I made a friendly effort to warn you that you were wandering into facile sophistry? Did I not offer an analogy for your better understanding of the issue? Did I cry foul? Did I accuse you of ‘killing the messenger’. No. I can handle your poor attempts at wit. Easier to take than your abuse of logic. What led you to write that I was accusing David of misogynism? Was it mere misapprehension or a sophomoric and dishonest deflection?
One misapprehension under which you have clearly fallen is that I am subjecting you to ridicule for my own aggrandizement. I do really like you, Jay. You are the source of much joy and mirth for me. I am only sharing. I am doing it openly for all the world, or at least the readership of ITT’s comment threads. It’s a pity that you do not appreciate the humor. It is understandable as you are necessarily the butt of my jokes, but they wouldn’t be humorous if there wasn’t a kernel of truth in them. This is the internet, Jay. It is not a high school debate hall. It is rough and tumble and Robert’s Rules don’t apply. You take advantage of that when it suits you, and complain when it works against you. It is a pathetic performance.
The ball is in your court.
Posted by luminous beauty on Nov 17, 2005 at 3:32 PM We all found out Lume is a bloke, while you just skipped over everything being said by others at the time because as always you were just so in love with your own postings.
You babble on and Rabbit for one is glad you have chosen to ignore most of his postings about issues, because then Rabbit would have been forced to read all of your self stroking cods-wallop. It can be seen that others who have not been so fortunate are having a hard time of it, and Rabbit would advise Dave, who has exercised kindness and perhaps a little overindulgence towards the Jay, to not feed it anymore. Now you may have taken pity on it once, but can you see what that produced. An even more offensive creature. Am I right? Is the old Rabbit not right and was he not right, it is a nasty and stupid Troll, throw it back was Rabbits first thought when he saw it. Yuck, too horrible to touch. Just wack it hard and be nasty to it. Maybe it will go away. But, NO. Not our Curious Monkey. The Monkey Soul, saw Rabbit’s reaction to it, and being the Monkey, just had to know what made Rabbit shy away, and drop it quick like a hot potato. Well Mr Dave, what say ye now to this Troll?
No pussy footing around, no equivocations, out with it.
Is it Man or Troll? Is it Troll or Demon troll?
By the way, Rabbit has not yet set foot in the Dungeon of Trolls, Dave. It is rather scary, they are all Trolls, every one of them. .........................This is not wherever you abide JC which is of no interest to Rabbit, it is another Dungeon of Trolls.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 17, 2005 at 3:45 PM Hi Lume
Just working late here and wacking the Troll, for a bit of exercise. It is about ready to pop thinks Rabbit.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 17, 2005 at 3:46 PM P.S. David didn’t really make any gender assumptions. He was unsure so he asked me up front. I answered him obliquely but obvious to anyone with half a mind. You were busily pontificating on that thread, so the only thing you have to blame is your own obliviousness.
Posted by luminous beauty on Nov 17, 2005 at 3:55 PM That’s some pretty nifty synchronous posts and within range of a similarly aimed blow upon the JC, you’d expect the combination to raise a welt.
Just out of the blue, Rabbit and Luminous Beauty pitter pattering away on their respective electron interface (Keyboards), and jabbing the send button almost simulatneously from either end of the planet. To land ping, on the net, in glowing electron dances. Black shape dancing for them, language for us.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 17, 2005 at 4:03 PM No Rabbit, Mobius Jay won’t pop. He’ll just twist and squirm in his oblivious fashion. Odds are he will try to accuse me of avoiding the point of his nerf ball ethical ‘argument’. The very last thing he will do is confront the reality of his well established profile. In this he is merely human, all too human.
I know Jay-Jay doesn’t like quotations, but I think Bobbie Burns said it well and most appropriately in his poem “To a Louse”
O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us
An foolish notion:
What airs in dress an gait wad lea’es us,
An ev’n devotion!
Posted by luminous beauty on Nov 17, 2005 at 4:18 PM What can I say, Rabbit? Great minds think alike. Though separated by the Earth’s solid bulk, Soul brothers meander in their consanguine ways.
Posted by luminous beauty on Nov 17, 2005 at 4:29 PM Kuya, Your rhetoric is fine by me. Clear, elegant and to the point.
Posted by luminous beauty on Nov 17, 2005 at 4:40 PM Rabbit can but agree with both your last posts.
So many boats, so few Rabbit.
The people
Give us the little boats, give us boats Rabbit.
Rabbit cannot make littloe boats quick enough, he is cooking them as quick as brownies, but still they want more.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 17, 2005 at 4:55 PM Actually Lume
Rabbit believes there are on a higher plane, a very small number of souls, “archetypal souls” so to speak. I think it is this dimension which is reflected in astrology, both eastern and western seem to be just different cultural expressions of their observations of something the same for all.
Rabbit has noticed how when moving around, and Rabbit has moved around a lot, he always seems to form a new group of “Connections”, relationships or friendships and aquaintainces. This on three continents, always the same pattern of personalities would gather around in Rabbits life, and it would be so uncanny that many times Rabbit is want to use the name of another person of this relationship to himself in “another life” (In the temporal sense,) By that I mean another lifestyle. The characters have changed names, languages or nationalities, but they are essentially the same role in my life. Very often it turns out they are the same astrological sign as the last representative of that role.
It is one of those things that can have Rabbit feeling the Oneness of it all if he thinks about it too much. Also speculating about being crazy and the whoe universe just being inside his crazy Rabbit head.
Maybe all the universe is the last dying thoughts of a Rabbit on the side of the road
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 17, 2005 at 5:05 PM lb - come come. Must we track back and find out who started the mud fight?
I have postulated a logic argument and you dodge the issue with high school sophmorics.
Let me break it down a little and see if we can find a starting point.
Morality is not in the act. It is in the intent and the justification
Rebuttal or agreement?
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 17, 2005 at 5:06 PM I really like your little boats, Rabbit. I’d like to make one myself, someday. I took a heads-up from your rotational moulding technique. It may be useful for a project I’m working on with some compadres for a little event we hold up here in the Northstate. If we can fabricate molds cheaply enough.
Posted by luminous beauty on Nov 17, 2005 at 5:10 PM beo,
Yes, torture has been used mostly to inspire fear. Yet the issue is, is there a place in civil society, as it defends itself against barbarism, for its utility in saving lives?
While lb struggles with a coherent rebuttal to the source of morality, perhaps you could tell me how torture is worse than killing someone? And if not, and we allow lawful use of deadly force in the preservation of life, why is extreme interrogation qualitatively worse than death?
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 17, 2005 at 5:11 PM lb - not sure why any blame is being assigned for the gender confusion. I object to your stereotypical assumptions that because I mistook gender based on a handle of Beauty, that somehow that proves misogyny?
All it really proves is your own biases.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 17, 2005 at 5:15 PM In an attempt to demonstrate the alleged ineffectiveness of extreme interrogation, Rabbit has posted this:
Dave Debatto. a former US Army Counterintelligence Special Agent who was assigned in 2003 to Iraq, said he took part in thousands of interrogations in Iraq. He said his orders and those for his colleagues were never to lay hands on anyone, let alone torture anyone. Consequently, Debatto and other interrogators received a lot of intelligence through their cooperation with Iraqis at the outset of the U.S. occupation. However, he said when new tactics were employed in June 2003, things “went south” quickly.
...
Ford said at the outset of his assignment in Samara his unit was witnessing 105-100 walk-ins of intelligence sources per day. The only problem was recording and reporting on all the intelligence being provided. After the May 2004 “Wedding Day Massacre” by US troops of a wedding party in the village of Mukaradeeb in western Iraq, near the Syrian border, Ford said things “went south real fast.”Now, the obvious conclusion being made by the principles in the story, as well as the original author (and, I presume also Rabbit), is that extreme interrogation was the sole direct cause of intel gone south. However, this alleged causality is not all that certain.
What is not discussed is the fact that at the times mentioned, when new tactics were employed, the insurgency and the operations of the jihadists increased dramatically. It is just as easy to argue that the increased interrogations were in response to the attacks, not the other way around, and that the dramatic decrease of “walk-in” intel is a result of the walk-ins’ fears of the explicit threats of retaliation that the insurgents and jihadists were already bombasting to the Iraqi people if they helped the Americans or the duly elected Iraqi government.
To assume that anger at the American forces, and not fear of local reprisal, drove away the walk-in intel, you have to also assume that the support among the Iraqi population for the insurgency is universal. Most Iraqis, in fact, do not support the minority Sunni insurgency and most Iraqis want the insurgency and the foreign jihad stopped.
Again, this is a perfect example of assigning blame to American forces for the consequences and activities of the Sunni insurgents and foreign jihadists.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 17, 2005 at 5:32 PM To the extent possible of doing a comparative valuation of morality, I contend that torture is not more immoral than killing. Even in killing, we morally differentiate between murder and justifiable homicide. That differentiation is based on the intent and justification of the act. If torture is used to save the lives of an entire city, if the intent is no different than that of justifiable homicide and torture is at least not worse than killing, then what is the difference between killing and torture.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 17, 2005 at 5:33 PM Rabbit is certainly right in asserting we are all responsible for our own, how dies he put it? Profile
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 17, 2005 at 5:43 PM What did I tell you, Rabbit?
For the record, Jay, I disagree. One cannot wave one’s hand and divorce the act from the intent. What you call justification is mere rationalization. If one intentionally kills in self-defense one is just as culpable as if it were over a donut. It may be excusable if it is the only option available, but that doesn’t make it morally right. If death or suffering is the result of one’s actions, even if is not one’s specific intent, one is still culpable. No amount of self righteous posturing will alleviate the consequences of one’s actions. A moral being is one who accepts responsibility for one’s errors and seeks to rectify them. See my post of Nov 16, at 9:17 PM.
So that is what I think. What do you think about my argument vis~a~vis your disingenuousness? I repeat, it is not mud-slinging, but a sincere criticism, meant for your illumination, not mine. Are you man enough to address it?
Posted by luminous beauty on Nov 17, 2005 at 5:59 PM A simple answer to your question to beowulf, Jay. You kill someone and their suffering is arguably over. You torture someone and the suffering is with them for life.
I am not making this up out of some abstract ontological cloth. It has been my vocation in the past and may be yet again to deal personally and directly with the suffering of those who have been tortured and also the suffering of those made into killers by misplaced loyalties. I’ve learned through hard lessons there is nothing I can do to minimize their suffering except give them the space to work out their own salvation. I offer you this same space.
Posted by luminous beauty on Nov 17, 2005 at 6:13 PM 1) LeRoy is playing touch football. As he rushes the quarterback, he trips over a lineman and his shoulder impacts the QB’s right knee, breaking the kneecap.
2) LeRoy is walking down the street with his lady and they get jumped by an armed mugger. As she distracts the assailant, LeRoy kicks the guy in the right knee, breaking the kneecap.
3) LeRoy is a cop. He is interrogating a serial rapist who is uncooperative. To elicit a little cooperation LeRoy kicks him in the right knee, breaking the kneecap.
4) LeRoy is walking home late that night, really pissed off. Coming down the street is another man. LeRoy screams a racial epitaph and kicks him in the right knee, breaking the kneecap.
How many counts of aggravated assault is LeRoy morally guilty of?
If the source of morality is in the act, alone or inconjunction with the intent, then four.
I disagree. The first is an accident. The second is self-defense. And I believe there is nothing immoral about self-defense.
I count two.
For me, morality is in the intent.
Apologies for not seeing the reference from last night earlier, but it got lost in all the sophomoric rhetoric.
As Rabbit says, we all bear responsibility for our own profile.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 17, 2005 at 6:23 PM You kill someone and their suffering is arguably over. You torture someone and the suffering is with them for life.
So, a variant of “better dead than Red?”
I disagree. With life, there is always hope. Death is still final.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 17, 2005 at 6:25 PM But, that’s cool.
At least we have a clear understanding of our differences, and as I have said to others, I do respect those differences.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 17, 2005 at 6:26 PM A moral being is one who accepts responsibility for one’s errors and seeks to rectify them.
I agree completely. I just disagree that actions taken in self-defense are “errors”.
If someone puts my into an extreme situation where there can clearly be only one of two outcomes, a) he kills me, b) I kill him, I feel no moral ambiguity over his death. I am responsible for my actions, not his.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 17, 2005 at 6:34 PM (proofread, proofread, proofread….)
If someone puts me into an extreme…
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 17, 2005 at 6:35 PM Rabbit just had a post he’d worked hard on go kaput because it was 6322 characters long and got eaten on the return. Fuck it.
Rabbit is too pissed off to say more tonight.
You really are an Arse wipe Jay. You don’t deserve any better response for your last bit of crap. You got a whole heap, too bad you didn’t get top read it. You don’t deserve crap.
Just one final observation before Rabbit hops off.
If you run around as the troops are doing and imprisoning everyone who is a potential insurgent. Then you mistreat and torture them until they either admit they are an insurgent or you decide they were telling the truth all along.
At what point do you decide the guy is telling the truth Jay?
When he is just a bit uncomfortable and lost some sleep and naked has a nasty dog biting his nose off? His balls?
Can you be sure he is telling the truth when he is near death and has not changed his story for a while?
When he still yells his innocence while some perverted sargents cock is up his backside?
When his wife or child is spread out naked on a vomit stained floor about to be raped by six marines?
When would Jay tell the truth? The Truth you will stop lying and admit you are a Muslim terrorist and you hate our freedoms and way of life. Admit the truth JC you are a Muslim Terrorist.
Ok says Jay I am, just don’t hit me with the fly swatter again. Ia m a muslim terorrist and I’m fighting jihad to destroy your freedoms because I hate Mickey Mouse.
Good now tell us where the hideout for Osama Bin Laden is located, or we will have to gang rape you until you do.
Think about it you stupid prick.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 17, 2005 at 6:39 PM You lack empathy Jay, you are due a terrible lesson. Rabbit assumes you are of a similar vintage to himself, only because you say so. It would be a puzzle to one such as Rabbit to see so many and there are a few like you, who have come so far with their heads planted in their rectums. The balancing factor is of course on its way, and that is why you make a kind of sense. But not, unfortunately in the way you think. the only sense you make , is as an object. An Anthropological artifact.
Put simply and bluntly. You’re really fucked big time man.
It seems obvious to those who watch the ebb and flow that something really nasty must be on the way for there are some arseholes who are really deserving of it and their lives are so empty and meaningless, so inverted for their own or each others’ well being and advancement, that it seems logical that their prime purpose for existence must be as some form of sacrifice.
Does that make sense to you Lume?
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 17, 2005 at 6:48 PM Only you are responsible for putting yourself in an extreme situation, Jay. If you had ever been in an extreme situation you would know there is nothing but ambiguity, uncertainty and confusion. One will consider himself lucky to get through it physically unscathed, but one is a fool if one doesn’t realize the price one has paid with one’s innocence. You can plead ignorance, you can say you were misled, but it is only an excuse. It is no remedy.
Still waiting to hear your response to my questions.
Posted by luminous beauty on Nov 17, 2005 at 7:02 PM Rabbit,
Those are indeed all examples of egregious and unnecessarily violent forms of behavior. The point of extreme interrogation is to gather intel, not to amuse bored troops.
Those who have committed the abuses you listed should, and I believe have been, properly punished. It has already been established that those abuses were not for intel, but for the sadistic amusement of the people involved.
But the current debate over torture has put a wet blanket over every form of extreme interrogation.
Under certain extreme circumstances that I have already described, I do not see why isolation techniques should not be allowed. I do not see why certain psychological stress techniques should not be allowed.
Yet, these techniques are wrapped up in the same wet blanket with the very real examples of abuse that you have listed. To tie the hands of interrogators by limiting interrogation to merely asking questions and, maybe, threatening the detainee with the ire of the interrogator mad (“Tell us what we want to know or we will be mad!”) is ridiculous.
Clearly, if we allow extreme interrogations, we need proper guidelines, just as there are strict rules of engagement for police officers who find themselves in the position of having to use deadly force.
The exposed abuses highlighted a generational failure in defining those guidelines. The failure has been in not recognizing the need for the proper training in extreme interrogation. Society can’t just throw people into a situation and tell them to make up their own rules, to develop their own training, just because society failed to provide that itself. We were thrown into this war against barbarity with an intelligence gathering community that had been castrated and emaciated.
It does not make the abuses right. But in no way is it an indictment against extreme interrogation or valid intelligence gathering efforts. It is, however, an indictment against a society that does not properly prepare itself for war.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 17, 2005 at 7:11 PM Oh, I don’t know Rabbit. I think Jay has the normal human quotient of empathy. He is just fearful and jealous of it. He keeps it concealed behind the armor of what he believes is his objectivity. It is just a strategy to protect his self from the subconscious guilt and fear he is repressing with his unwillingness to admit his complicity in the general suffering of the world around him. He doesn’t want too appear soft, lest he be taken advantage of while in the same instance making himself infinitely gullible. Same old crap we all have to deal with, really.
I agree Jay and those like him are running up a terrible account we all will have to pay. I can’t hate him for for it. He’s too pitiful in his ignorance.
As my favorite preacher always says; “when we get all wrapped up in self we make a very small package”.
Posted by luminous beauty on Nov 17, 2005 at 7:17 PM Only you are responsible for putting yourself in an extreme situation, Jay.
That is no different that telling a rape victim that she is brought the rape upon herself by her own behavior and dress.
When someone shoved a .45 in my face, was it my fault simply because I stepped out of my house for milk and orange juice?
My response to your questions was that you and I disagree on culpability.
But, to elaborate, if even justifiable homicide is immoral, then I take it you believe all soldiers who kill in battle are immoral? That any country that maintains a standing army is immoral?
Again. My response is I disagree with your precepts of morality.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 17, 2005 at 7:18 PM God, I hate it when I change tenses in the edit and forget to proof…
That is no different than telling a rape victim that she brought the rape upon herself by her own behavior and dress.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 17, 2005 at 7:21 PM You cannot prove that torture saves lives. This is the real world, not an episode of 24. 70 to 90% of detainees are innocents being housed due to lack of having their papers in order. This figure was published by the pentagon. So we are torturing innocents for information they cannot possibly have and many are tortured to death. Your argument rests on a comparison of apple an oranges. If we can kill in self defense, then why can we not torture people, if we believe they may have knowledge that we can use? Your argument is based on a hypothesis with no historical foundation. My father worked on projects of nuclear deterence in the ASA in the 60s. The only way we can be nuked, suitcase or otherwise is through self infliction. You are unaware of how it is done and therefore believe in the plausability of such an attack being carried out by radical sub-elements.
It is this naive caveat of disinformation and lust for big government that fills your mind with the trash you use to justify your ruined thought processes. Torture is done for torture’s sake. It is what it is, and to believe otherwise is a public display of how far down the hole we have descended as a society. I do not know if I should be angry with you or pity you. You have made an active choice to remain uninformed and to support the descent of America into an abyss that I am afraid they will not climb out of. Do I expect to change your mind or that you will experience an awakening? No, I do not. Even if your children were to be tortured for the information you claim they may know, you will still support it. Do not believe you will be immune to it. Just remember…you asked for it.
Posted by beowulf on Nov 17, 2005 at 7:21 PM The only way we can be nuked, suitcase or otherwise is through self infliction. You are unaware of how it is done and therefore believe in the plausability of such an attack being carried out by radical sub-elements.
I am only too well aware of how a dirty bomb can be smuggled into the country by a small group of people.
People are successfully smuggled into this country every month in shipping cargo containers in our ports and in pickups across the Mexican border. Drugs are dropped in-country without detection.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 17, 2005 at 7:25 PM We disagree with your lack of considered morality. You have none. Your whole world is divided up between those you see as the same as you, and everyone else who wants to stick a gun up your nose or rape you. You are as Rabbit has repeatedly remarked a cringing coward. If you manage to wipe out evrone you will coem to fear, you’ll be left with nothing but your own shadow, and then you’ll be afraid of it too.
Anything you a told to be afraid of you are, like a good little puppy. The problem is whenever you get afraid of something you need to destroy it.
Wonder what Bushs real approval rating is? We know it is at most 36%. AND falling FAST…...................
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 17, 2005 at 7:27 PM JAY
I am only too well aware of how a dirty bomb can be smuggled into the country by a small group of people.
People are successfully smuggled into this country every month in shipping cargo containers in our ports and in pickups across the Mexican border. Drugs are dropped in-country without detection.
Of course, the boy has it, shit if the terrorists get wind of how easy it is we’re done for.
Drugs, people, even plants are smuggled in all the time, so obviously if the terrorists realise that, we’ll be seeing that mushroom cloud any day. Hell it’s only a “suitcase” Nuke. If they could find an Arab with a suit, he could carry it in a plane and deliver it anywhere in the USA within hours. No way he could be stopped. But wait, the hero will be in to save the day. Yes Hollywood will ahve him scripted in there somewhere.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 17, 2005 at 7:36 PM Rabbit imagines it must be hard for JC to sleep at night, with all these terrors looking up from every quarter.
Suitcase Nukes, Arabs with nail clippers, Suicide Bombers under every headscarf.
No wonder you need to know those nasty Muslims are being tortured and killed, so long as they are getting every scrap of intelligence that might help make your crappy little world feel a bit safer.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 17, 2005 at 7:39 PM SACRIFICE
.You are one of the sacrificial multitude. The semi aware, splintered souls, who are here almost as extras. No lines are assigned you, just a loud and long horrified scream as reality dawns on you, too late. One of the millions of extras, just in the picture to fall dead with the rest. No need for you to have talent, or a fine costume, though you try hard to make your plastic sword shine like the real thing, but to what avail? When you are cued to die suddenly and horribly, possibly in the first real Muslim Terror Wave of modern history. This is what the beastmen you cravenly worship have in mind, they are trying to provoke something here and you are helping them while telling us you are contributing to a safer more peaceful world.
Boy have you got a hell of a shock coming your way.
Should be pretty soon too.
Rabbit knows you will never show your face around here again when you see, how could you. Just knowing the reality doesn’t make you a better person. It works the other way round.
You and people like you are just not worthy, that seems to be the honest truth. You really are a lower form of Spiritual evolution. You are a dinosaur boy your age is past, it is going out with a bang but when it’s gone, your type will be extinct, Rabbit predicts..
Maybe the Rastafarians are right, this will be heaven on Earth. The Mormons and some others have versions of this too actually.
A cleansing, a self imposed cleansing of the old breed.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 17, 2005 at 7:53 PM Well, you are right.
I am a scaly lizard in a world of furry mammals, but that is an occupational joke.
I’m curious if anyone gets it?
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 17, 2005 at 7:57 PM Goodnight to the real people who may be about, and stuff you JC.
Rabbit hopes you get arrested by mistaken identity and sent to GITMO where they will torture you until you tell them where Bin Laden is hiding.
You’ll get the standard beatings and roughing up, which most people who’ve done jail or prison know about, which would be enough to make a coward like you admit to being Bin Ladens ‘wife’ if you thought it would get you a few privelages. Then as said, the next shift comes on and wants to knwo why Bin Ladens wife Jay, doesn’t know where the old man is.
That’s it Jay, it will be electrical testicle for you brother. that’s just an informal introduction while your torture regime is being considered.
Don’t worry Jay, you’ll tell them what they want to know or die trying.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 17, 2005 at 8:07 PM We can detect ALL nuclear material on the surface of the earth at any given time. Nothing is missing or out of order.
Suitcase nukes are where they want them to be…possibly in the center of any one of our lovely cities.
Since you brought up the border… if, in fact the war on terrorism and the attack on civil liberties are real, then why not secure said border? Four million illegals cross every year. ie. The war on terror is a fraud.This is yet another example from a GOP memo:
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7639.shtml
Posted by beowulf on Nov 17, 2005 at 8:10 PM Jay:
It is the sad hard truth that only when a rape victim confronts and takes responsibility for her/his vulnerability, can he/she can begin to heal from her/his experience and begin to take steps to minimize and overcome that vulnerability. I’ve learned this from experience, Jay. Not from gas bag arguments.
We do not disagree on moral precepts. You believe that you can argue morality based on naive abstract truisms. What are ultimately only imaginary inventions that bear at most the dimly seen and grossly distorted reflections of truth.
I have learned that moral behavior arises from the reality of suffering. When you finally recognize your own fundamental and near infinite ignorance and your basic inability to reason yourself out of a paper bag, then you will be ready to take your first faltering steps toward becoming a moral being. None of us living have made it all the way there, yet. We must rely on each other. I’m really on your side, Jay.
Posted by luminous beauty on Nov 17, 2005 at 8:31 PM We can detect ALL nuclear material on the surface of the earth at any given time. Nothing is missing or out of order.
You do understand the properties of lead with regards to radiation, no?
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 17, 2005 at 8:35 PM No, we really don’t agree.
You hold people totally responsible for their lot in life. I certainly agree that people are responsible for what they do in that situation, but that is a far cry from saying the rape victim put herself in a position to be victimized.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 17, 2005 at 8:40 PM It takes six feet of lead encompassed on all sides you dimwit in order prevent detection
Posted by beowulf on Nov 17, 2005 at 8:40 PM No, it doesn’t.
The proximity of the detection device is very relevant. As you double the distance between source and detector, you quadruple the difficulty in detecting the source.
The sensitivity of a detector rated at x rads will fail to detect a source emitting 16x rads at just over four times the rated distance.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 17, 2005 at 8:45 PM Once again you display your penchant for profound misunderstanding. I have said most clearly that there is absolutely nothing I can do to force anyone into taking responsibility for themselves or for their actions. All I or anyone can do is encourage them to do so for themselves. Assigning culpability, holding them responsible, does nothing to bring that about. Assigning culpability is what you substitute for moral behavior, not me.
Still waiting for you to reply to my first response. I’ll repeat it in case you forgot:
I’ve learned from experience how pointless it is to attempt to cut through your sophomoric inadequacies and intellectually dishonest cluelessness and converse with you in a rational manner. I’m merely content to point out to others the fabulous self-ironies you commit to these pages. For example; how above you boast of your superior abilities to think independently and form coherent thoughts for yourself, blah, blah, blah. You then proceed to present rote regurgitations of the most banal conventional opinions imaginable and defend them with the weakest, most supercilious rhetoric it has ever been my dismay to witness. If you weren’t so oblivious to the bald faced reality of what I have just said, you’d be no fun at all
You haven’t said a thing to dissuade me from this experientially acquired bias.
Posted by luminous beauty on Nov 17, 2005 at 9:02 PM Of course I haven’t. I respect your right to hold opinions.
I know you have made judgements of me, of my credibility. But they have no relevance to the question of morality I posed, except to permit you to argue the messenger, rather than the message.
But you have protested that is not the issue, that you are not engaged in such low-brow rhetoric, so I have honored that request and not gone there.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 17, 2005 at 9:20 PM To defeat radiation detectors, it is not necessary to block all radiation from a source. Just enough to reduce the radiation reaching the detector to a level below its sensitivity.
You can do that by increasing the distance between the source and the detector, by providing limitied shielding between source and detector, and by reducing the quantity of radiation source from passing by the detector at any one time.
You do not need to ship an intact dirty bomb. Break it up into small enough shipments to keep the radiation level at the detector below the detector’s rating.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 17, 2005 at 9:23 PM lb says,
If one intentionally kills in self-defense one is just as culpable as if it were over a donut.
lb says,
A moral being is one who accepts responsibility for one’s errors and seeks to rectify them.
lb says,
Assigning culpability is what you substitute for moral behavior, not me.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 17, 2005 at 9:29 PM lb says,
One cannot wave one’s hand and divorce the act from the intent. What you call justification is mere rationalization. If one intentionally kills in self-defense one is just as culpable as if it were over a donut.
jay says,
Morality is not in the act, but in the intent and the justification.
lb says,
We do not disagree on moral precepts.
lb doesn’t understand the inherent contradiction of his own statements.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 17, 2005 at 9:33 PM Jay, It is one thing to accept your precepts for the sake of argument. It is another to accept them on principle.
Posted by luminous beauty on Nov 17, 2005 at 9:46 PM Notice I didn’t make any hard and fast judgments about culpability in the example you quote.
Posted by luminous beauty on Nov 17, 2005 at 9:51 PM No, no jay, your dishonesty is very much the issue. I make no bones about it. What judgment I privately make about how that affects your credibility is moot. The sarcasm I use to point it out is entirely deserved. The fact that you have blatantly displayed that characteristic over and over for anyone to see is a matter of record in the ITT archives.
Posted by luminous beauty on Nov 17, 2005 at 10:02 PM We do not disagree on moral precepts.
on principle or for the sake of the argument?
lb - One cannot wave one’s hand and divorce the act from the intent. What you call justification is mere rationalization. If one intentionally kills in self-defense one is just as culpable as if it were over a donut. It may be excusable if it is the only option available, but that doesn’t make it morally right.
jay - if even justifiable homicide is immoral, then I take it you believe all soldiers who kill in battle are immoral? That any country that maintains a standing army is immoral?
So, yes or no?
Or, did I miss another contradiction that really isn’t?
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 17, 2005 at 10:22 PM If you read carefully, I don’t have any moral precepts to disagree with. Morality arises in due proportion to one’s honest appraisal of the actual human condition. Not as a consequence of intellectual argument, but from the organic growth of one’s personal realization of one’s own intrinsic empathic awareness. Accepting this as a rational argument is totally insufficient.
Killing another human being is always a failure of moral responsibility. We all share in every such failure. Each of us are capable of taking personal responsibility for making what efforts of which we are capable in overcoming such failures.
Didn’t we go over the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle recently. Perhaps you should review.
Posted by luminous beauty on Nov 17, 2005 at 10:52 PM As a simple thought experiment, Jay, ask yourself this question. Are you sincerely attempting to understand a mind that works differently from yours, or are you just superficially scanning what he writes for what you percieve as argumentative weaknesses in order to attack his position?
Posted by luminous beauty on Nov 17, 2005 at 10:59 PM As was said by John Donne, ever more so eloquently than I:
“Any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”
Posted by luminous beauty on Nov 17, 2005 at 11:13 PM http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/masint/mti.htm
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/masint/mti_taurus_launch_000312.htmNuclear detection through satellites, not hand held devices by some port yard monkey. The above articles are from what has been made public, not what remains classified. Friends and family have worked on projects that would blow your mind which leads one to extrapulate greater abilities from mentioned technologies. As for lead remaining dense enough to block the particulates from detection. This is just not true. The lead that surrounds the particle accelerators I maintain do perform as a safety mechanism to shield me from harm, but the radiation still emits a detectable signature.
As far as missing soviet suitcase nukes from the 1990s:
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/020923.htm
“Without detailed knowledge of the design of Soviet warheads, it would be impossible to know which components needed replacement at what time intervals. Two potential candidates are tritium and the neutron generator, which may use radioactive materials that decay over time. It seems possible, for example, that Soviet designers balanced on the threshold, using only just enough plutonium to achieve critical mass and relied on tritium to generate required yield. In that case, even modest degradation of tritium could have resulted in a significant drop of yield. Thus, it would be safe to assume that without proper maintenance, portable nuclear devices might still produce chain reaction, but yield would be minimal, and with time, possibly non-existent. “
They require a great deal of maintenance at regular intervals and would pose little or no threat to us today. The sophistication of labs to produce or maintain this hypothetcal weapon is far greater than any lab of the middle east. Therefore, the use of one today would denote sophisticated facilities (the US), or one stolen from a first world lab. China, USSR, and the USA have labs of this quality to produce a miniturized nuke. When I listened to a former pentagon nuke expert speak on the matter, I was amazed at the technology required to produce a weapon of that size and payload. Fearmongerers produce false testimony as to the possibility of an outside agent developing and penetrating the US with such a weapon. That is why I would look internaly at any possible detonations in this country….no different than the anthrax attacks that came from a military lab. This stuff is not produced in caves and basements and we would detect it if it were. Head out of the clouds Cline.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007478
“As for the small size of the weapons and the notion that they can be detonated by one person, those claims also been authoritatively dismissed. The only U.S. government official to publicly admit seeing a suitcase-sized nuclear device is Rose Gottemoeller. As a Defense Department official, she visited Russia and Ukraine to monitor compliance with disarmament treaties in the early 1990s. The Soviet-era weapon “actually required three footlockers and a team of several people to detonate,” she said. “It was not something you could toss in your shoulder bag and carry on a plane or bus”
Posted by beowulf on Nov 17, 2005 at 11:21 PM I repeat, morality is in the intent. But whether it is in the intent or in the act, as you have alluded to in the inseparable nature of action and moral responsibility, you are asserting moral precepts. You are defining morality.
Nor have I said morality is a merely a “consequence of intellectual argument”. But intellectual argument is a valid methodology for testing hypothesis, whether those hypotheses arise empirically or rationally.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 17, 2005 at 11:22 PM I am unable to respond to your “simple thought experiment” since it falsely presupposes two and only two possible mutually exclusive truths.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 17, 2005 at 11:24 PM With regard to nuclear detection from satellites, that is great for detecting immovable large scale production facilities, as described in the article, and large cooling ponds or emissions from uranium ore processing plants, but we are talking about much smaller point sources that can be disbursed across a wide field until the moment of assembly and detonation.
The laws of physics still apply. Detectors have a threshhold level of detection. Detection is greatly dependent upon distance, and we are talking detectors in space at a minimum 90 miles distance directly overhead. At sweep angles of even 30 degrees we are talking 130-150 miles distance, and the detector is never over a single area for more than a few minutes. Orbital precession moves the swath path hundreds of miles each orbit.
This is great for monitoring production and transport of large quantities, but that is about it.
As far as carrying it in a “russian suitcase”, that is your scenario, not mine.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 17, 2005 at 11:35 PM What is your scenario of probability that a small tactical nuke can be maintained and then detonated here in the US, and what kind of facilities do you imagine are required to do so? Your theoretical scenario involved torturing men to obtain information on hypothetical weapons.
As a sidebar: if Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, then the above technologies would have detected them. ie. the government lied.
Posted by beowulf on Nov 18, 2005 at 12:23 AM Sorry, my mistake. I was talking dirty bombs. Conventional bombs stuffed radioactive materials. Tactical nukes would certainly be a terrorist’s wet dream, but the complexity of manufacture, delivery and implementation would be orders of magnitude more difficult.
Not impossible, though.
Sidebar: I would only add an IF to the if the above technologies were in place, and IF Saddam had active production facilities, as opposed to merely hiding the materials spread out through out the country similiar to the disbursal technique I described for delivering the components to a dirty bomb.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 18, 2005 at 3:41 AM Jay-Jay:
I repeat, morality is in the intent. But whether it is in the intent or in the act, as you have alluded to in the inseparable nature of action and moral responsibility, you are asserting moral precepts. You are defining morality.
Alluding to the inseparability of the two precepts of your provenance, which I again must remind you I accept only for the sake of argument, is not even making a distinction between them, much less making any moral distinction based on any principle that I have asserted. By saying that morality is not the exclusive domain of either of these precepts is scarcely a definition of morality except possibly in the negative. As in not adequately defined by them. A most blatant example of sophistry. Good you recognize that I am merely alluding and not asserting, though. Really. Good for you.
I agree about the usefulness of reason and logic for testing hypotheses. It may be useful in creating reasonable theories of moral development, determining the level of one’s moral development or the differences in moral development between individuals and groups. I just don’t believe it is solely adequate for discovering the existential root of one’s own personal moral sensibility. One’s true moral center cannot be the same as one’s hypothetical moral center. It may be useful for establishing ethical rules, but the underlying moral judgments of those rules are necessarily conditional judgments and not personal truths. It is a lot like being in love. There is no adequate way to rationally convince oneself into being in love. All hypotheses about being in love are adduced from the simple fact of it.
I am unable to respond to your “simple thought experiment” since it falsely presupposes two and only two possible mutually exclusive truths.Ha! Ha! Very funny. It would be a lot funnier though, if it were true. If my question really did ‘presuppose two and only two possible mutually exclusive truths it would be simple to disprove it by responding with a third possible scenario. I’d be happy to hear any confession of your intentions if it is sincere.
Posted by luminous beauty on Nov 18, 2005 at 4:06 AM Rabbit asks : Well Mr Dave, what say ye now to this Troll? No pussy footing around, no equivocations, out with it. Is it Man or Troll? Is it Troll or Demon troll?
Jay is a man. I appreciate his participation here on this forum. It would not be the same without him.
Rabbit would advise Dave, who has exercised kindness and perhaps a little overindulgence towards the Jay, to not feed it anymore.
If a brother shall ask bread of any of you, will you give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will you for a fish give him a serpent?
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 18, 2005 at 4:12 AM Everyone should be baking bread and catching fish. Then sharing the bread and fish with others. Then teaching others to bake bread and catch fish.
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 18, 2005 at 4:21 AM The technologies were in place and had been for years causing many members in attendance to colonel Powells presentation to ask where are the color photos. The satellite credited with the presented photos displaying where WMDs are in production was out of operation for years. Hence, he lied. He knew that satellite was out of use.
We do have technologies not displayed on the net. I am familiar with technologies from 1965 that still cannot be found in print today. One can find how we can reprogram our own Tomohawks, but nothing else. I will tell you, we cannot only reprogram our missiles, but that of other countries. That was then, in 1965, so what can we do today? This is straight from a member of the Army Security Agency that participated in the program…who was my father. Based on technology then and what has made the public forum today are light years apart. I believe we know where all surface uranium is on the planet. Can I prove this. No, I cannot. I am sorry, for it is by word of mouth only. Rense hase a story on it, but it is a single undocumented source just as my word that the technology exists is. Therefore, it does lack credibility. I understand that.
With a government providing undocumented and unsourced intelligence pertaining to WMDs, then who do you believe? I never lied to you Jay… I called you names, but I never lied. That should lend me greater credibility.
I understand the thread was leaning on the torture issue, but the argument was that it would be used to find said weapons. We do not need to revert to the dark ages to gleam this information from anybody, because we already have it with 21st century methods.
Posted by beowulf on Nov 18, 2005 at 4:44 AM By saying that morality is not the exclusive domain of either of these precepts is scarcely a definition of morality except possibly in the negative
True. Very true.
But true to form, you again contradict yourself. You did not say morality is not the exclusive domain of either precept until after you were challenged on it. You did posited, however, from the start a very positive precept on what is moral.
A moral being <u>is</u> one who accepts responsibility for one’s errors and seeks to rectify them.
That is not a denouncement of the existence of morality, but a pronouncement of it. How can one be moral if there is no morality?
A precept is a rule that prescribes a course of action. If being moral is accepting responsibility for one’s errors and seeks to rectify them, then that is clearly a prescribed course of action to becoming a moral being.
Alluding to the inseparability of the two precepts of your provenance, which I again must remind you I accept only for the sake of argument, belays the point that you claim to accept the distinction of my precepts for the sake of the argument yet proceed to argue against them. You have not even attempted to demonstrate if, for the sake of the argument, act and intent can be divorced from one another, why LeRoy has committed only two moral transgressions.
If LeRoy is a moral person, and act and intent cannot be divorced (your words, not mine) then he must accept responsibility for four separate moral transgressions. I maintain because act and intent are separate, that he is guilty of only two.
This is not a logical fallacy. Two or four? One set of precepts says two, the other says four. As you say, a very good example on how the usefulness of reason and logic (is) for testing hypotheses.
Yet you fail to apply it.
Of course, this all flies in the face of the very straightforward comment, We do not disagree on moral precepts. No amount of sophistry can wash that away, unless you were wrong in making that statement. You have made moral precepts, you accept mine only for the sake of the argument. Your precepts lead to one answer; mine lead to a very different answer.
That is not agreement.
As far as the third scenario, that is entirely accurate. But also completely false.
You posited two answers. Certainly there is nothing that explicitly calls for an exclusive-or.
Except.
As Rabbit has aptly argued, and as I repeat myself for the second time, and as you yourself have chided me on, we are all responsible for the persona that we build for ourselves here.
You have a great history of asking such questions, and when the third option is offered, you jump like a little boy pulling wings from a fly, decrying disingenuity and dishonesty. You past behavior demanded the exclusivity.
Please clear up your inconsistencies before we can proceed.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 18, 2005 at 4:55 AM I believe we know where all surface uranium is on the planet. Can I prove this. No, I cannot. I am sorry, for it is by word of mouth only
I can certainly understand and accept your beliefs to be sincere, and if I have in any way implied you were lying, it was not a conscious intent.
But surely, you can understand, that I cannot just accept your assurances on simply your word, as good as that word may be.
Until I can feel safe from a threat easily imagined, I cannot accept it simply doesn’t exist because people who claim secret knowledge says it doesn’t.
That, in my opinion, is ultimately how 9/11 came about. Blind assumptions that two oceans would keep the terrorism of Europe and the Middle East of the 60s and 70s and 80s and 90s at bay.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 18, 2005 at 5:02 AM I appreciate your response and understand at the moment you are fighting on two fronts on this thread. You also must understand that the official story of 911 flies in the face of physics as the physics profesor from BYU was kindly enough to point out. We definitely disagree on the cause of the event. I am fully emersed in your ideology at every turn and have tried to believe the story at large. But I ask that you approach it from my vantage point and attempt to disprove what you have been told. Just give it a moments notice and see if I am out on a limb. If you do, be prepared to also find every crackpot on the planet with a ridiculous, unsubstantiated story of the event. My appologies. Just look at the many facts that have been kept from you that are easily sourced and then decide. You obviously have the intellect to decide for yourself, which I can tell by how articulate the formation of your arguments are. I just believe they are misguided. I am not as gifted with the written word, but that does not mean I am wrong. The evidence, readily available, discredits what we have been lead to believe.
This is why I question the motives of the war on terror and where it may lead. Our country has declared wars on poverty, on drugs, and now on terror with abysmal results.The torture issue is only an expected sympton of a greater disease. Strike at the truth and find the cure.
Posted by beowulf on Nov 18, 2005 at 6:02 AM ..............................................................^^............. ..................................................................
Say nothing Rabbit watch the Troll…....................................................................
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 18, 2005 at 12:36 PM Dave
Some people can bake the bread, and if we are not to be wandering around looking for grass all the time, some others may be convinced to grow the grain so we can harvest it and then more still can mill the flour.
Others, and there will be others, may reasonably be expected to perfect the art of fishing and thus provide our scaly cousins in abundance that fish too, may be shared among the already quite substantial populace.Shall we go without Game? Without Pork? at least until we have Pig Farmers in the community? Thus it may fairly be said that the hunter, may yet have a role to play.
Shall it be said that the Warrior has no home in this land of peace and plenty? The enfeebled fighter from days of yore? or his progeny? are we to to be free of monsters? Criminals and Rogues?
Feed the multitude, but when times are tight, and we stand on the verge of The fight, Trolls should be tracked and wacked then shared round in rolls made of bread.
Not toasted but baked instead.Finally the Bakers will be fully employed David.
What will they do in the meantime?
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 18, 2005 at 12:55 PM beowulf,
I will be honest that I am leery of taking another crack at the controversy surrounding 9/11. I went there once before when I first started frequenting this site and the references I was directed to were not all that conclusive. Most relied on one ‘expert’ allegedly contradicting another, and the logical progression from conjecture to conclusion left gaps the size of the Grand Canyon, filled with derisive epitaphs.
Not to mention it got rather heated with claims of squatters’ rights over this website and name-calling, the latter of which I admittedly and shamefully succumbed to myself.
But, I do believe in truth. And you have made a fair and honest plea for consideration. As long as you accept two (well, it looked like it mushroomed to four or five) conditions, which I in turn will also agree to:
1) Just because Joe Blow says it is so, doesn’t mean it is
2) if I don’t find the argument convincing, then it is not convincing, at least to me.
3) (ok, I know I said two) I do get passionate about what I believe to be truth. And I sometimes get a little sarcastic (which I will be careful of). It is not a reflection on you. I have nothing but the highest regards and respect for someone who honestly and passionately holds certain beliefs.
4) If we get at loggerheads, let’s back off from that point and hold it in abeyance if and until cooler heads prevail. My boss has imposed a “net” rule on me which might be appropriate. If a particular point gets passed back and forth three times without progress, we call “net” and cease comment on that issue for 24 hours.Finally, (ok, ok) I may not respond promptly, but with ITT’s Notify checkbox, we should be able to avoid blog death.
Like I said, I do believe in truth. It is the artificial potholes that get in the way that stymie me.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 18, 2005 at 4:40 PM I accept your offer, and will try to appeal only to scientific details that I believe derail the official story. I will start with the demolition hypothesis:
I provide an overview that aired on C-Span with David Ray Griffin first approaches many of the questions I ask. It at least sets up the debate an is preserved here on information clearing house. I will try to avoid sight s that carry views that I do not endorse, and try to stick to accsessible footage.http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8765.htm
This is the statements from the BYU physics instructor.
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html
His analysis appears to rely much on the evidence that can be witnessed in these clips
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html
This is a fair start in which to begin a constructive debate or analysis. These are the sights I found the video footage, but they still may not be the most authoritative. I will avoid those that fail under proper scrutiny.This sight claims authority on the building 7 matter.
http://www.wtc7.net/
Again, I appologize if these are questions you have addressed in the past. I am interested in your opinion of them though and I hope they remain credible sources that can be fairly debated. I will then offer my personal assessment as to why I support the demolition hypothesis.
Posted by beowulf on Nov 18, 2005 at 7:26 PM A lot to look at. But I’ll approach this with the same attitude as you are, from a clean slate.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 18, 2005 at 8:59 PM Jay-Jay, We have very different moral philosophies, based on very different precepts, yet the one precept I put forward you are in total agreement with, so you say. Pardon me if I believe you possess less than total understanding.
I am only saying that the precept you are championing provides a less than adequate description of morality. I certainly am not saying, as you seem to imply, that morality doesn’t exist. I’m saying that its existence is not dependent on your nor my nor any particular philosophical hypothesis.
My understanding is that human moral development and our limited understanding of that development are ongoing interactive and unfinished works in progress. Intent and action are just two of many mutually interdependent factors one can postulate as contributing to the process of moral development. Indeed, each and every discerned and as yet undiscerned aspect of all of our individual and shared experience in ways little and large effects our moral development and understanding. Our minds are not linear operating mechanisms, but swirling galaxies of intricate and inter-penetrating and often chaotic complexity. The importance of any particular aspect is variable and reliant on the particulars of any given momentary situation. Every individual’s stage of moral development and level of understanding creates a broad range of differences changing over time, depending on how and how well development and understanding are integrated within a person’s own consciousness and within that of the multiple communities in which he/she lives and interacts. It is through the agency of both personal introspection and the countless interactions of those different individuals and communities that the developmental process proceeds.
You want to fit what is a complex and multifaceted problem into a naive and simplistic boolean box of your own invention, based on a pack of false dichotomies. Sorry I can’t buy into it. I am just insufficiently gullible.
You are cherry-picking statements taken out of context and presenting them in a fashion that assumes your insubstantial logic box is the only way in which to interpret them. Dishonest is as dishonest does. If you don’t understand my view and why I find yours somewhat less than robust, just admit it. Twisting de-contextualized pieces of it for your self-gratifying ends does nothing to resolve anything.
I hope this helps to clarify any perceived inconsistencies.
Again I have to thank you for the oblique and inadvertent fashion in which you admit my barbs have had an effect. It’s for your own good, Jay-Jay. Don’t be offended. Show us some of that famous fearlessness.
Posted by luminous beauty on Nov 18, 2005 at 9:57 PM The article from the BYU physics professor raises a lot of questions, and I am not dismissing them yet, but there are at least two statements that immediately raise my own questions.
With (a) non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a piling up of shattering concrete. But most of the material in the towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling, he says. “How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives?
It is one thing to question this, but there is more than a little bit of apparent preconceived conclusions that seem to be sneaking in. Namely, the notion that there must have been explosives, therefore the facts must fit the conclusion.
The alleged intent of the alleged explosions was to sever steel columns. Yet these explosives would have been used as controlled demolitions. Why would, or even how could, they be set up to “convert to (a) flour-like powder” most of the material in the towers? Wouldn’t that require more than a little overkill in the amount of explosives utilized? There were over 100 floors in each building. Has anyone calculated how much explosives it would take to reduce nearly all the material in the tower to a fine powder? And then compare that to the quantity of explosives that would normally used to pull a building of that size down?
Now, this is merely conjecture. But intuitively it seems to me the difference between the concrete-pulverizing required quantity of explosives and the controlled-demolitions required quantity of explosives is many orders of magnitude difference. If the secret controlled demolition theory is correct, and the logical corollary to that is the demolition team wants to keep it all a secret, why would they use so much demolitions, so many many times more than necessary?
Yes, you would want to use enough to make it work and then pad it a bit for insurance. And yes, not all the energy of the explosives would go into severing steel towers. But controlled demolitions is exactly that. Controlled, directed energy. The energy of the blast is specifically directed at the steel towers, not in crushing nearly all (most) of the material to a fine powder.
In my previous engagement on this issue, I did come across a similar point and one of the explanations for the fine powder was simply the tremendous crushing weight of the building while it fell, but I’d have to look around again for that reference.
And maybe I am putting too much weight (no pun intended) on the accuracy of the statement But most of the material in the towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling, but that is a tremendous waste of energy at the expense of the whole secret plot being exposed, or even merely failing.
The other statement is, in my opinion, just ridiculous,
Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in any given location
Here is where my sarcasm kicks in.
I’ll be sure to tell the fire chiefs in our major cities that they don’t have to worry about skyscraper fires anymore. Even with a jet fully loaded with fuel crashing into the building, no fire will last more than 20 minutes, long before you can even get your people in place.
That is just plain silly.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 18, 2005 at 11:22 PM Again I have to thank you for the oblique and inadvertent fashion in which you admit my barbs have had an effect. It’s for your own good, Jay-Jay. Don’t be offended. Show us some of that famous fearlessness.
As long as you recognize it as sufficiently oblique and inadvertent that it exists in your own mind, my pleasure.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 18, 2005 at 11:24 PM Ah, Jay-Jay, but my mind is an open book, and yours is your exclusively private domain. Or so you would like to believe.
Posted by luminous beauty on Nov 18, 2005 at 11:33 PM You still don’t get it JAY.
Nobody Rabbit knows got heated. You looked at nothing as awlays and you know nothing about 911. You said you looked at one reference, which I doubt even, and judged them all by that one. What a moron. You just defined yourslef as a moron.
Rabbit keeps telling you to stop being apologetic for being rude or whatever. You cnnot ever have offended anyone, JC because you are not taken seriously. We all know you are a pathetic moron. You are so deluding yourself if you think anyone cares how you carry on. In fact all of us would rather see you engage some actual critical thinking, use some intelligence for a change and you can be as rude as you wish.
Frankly although Rabbit has been fairly restrained, as has been noted by some, Rabbit has been the most rude and sarcastic to you, and Rabbit is neither sorry nor does he intend to stop it.
You are a revisionist of even recent thread history. You ran away from the 911 argument, just like you run away from them all. You are incapbale of following an argument which involves Facts and proper conclusions JC.
The 911 issue was conclusively dealt with and even the opposition gave up. No doubt because so much info is currently coming out that the whole government lie is about to topple for good.
Jay you do not honestly and passionately holds certain beliefs
You dishonestly and desperatly hold certain beliefs. The dishonesty comes from being unable to back them up with anything. The desperation comes from ignoring reality even when it directly confronts your beliefs.
There is no need for people who have well supported beliefs and facts to back it up, to havbe any cooling off time on an issue you idiot. You want to leave something alone so you can forget how challenged were your stupid ideas and so you can practice your denials. You are braindead JC.
You are a joke. You are the lone clown trying to tell everyone else they are nuts. You have a closed box, and everytime you are challenged, you say the proof is in this closed box, but I won’t show it to you, you could not understand it.
You are the sddest person Rabbit has ever met on the net.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 19, 2005 at 12:49 AM How can Jay say
But surely, you can understand, that I cannot just accept your assurances on simply your word, as good as that word may be.
Jay you wacko, that is all you’ve ever done, and when others post sources you say they are useless and won’t check them. It doesn’t occur to you that you are being inconsistent?
Jay it occurs to Rabbit that you hold only one belief in your head. The belief that you are a great sage or pundit. Thus the fact that it came out of your mouth makes it sacrosanct. You contradict yourself regularly and on everythread as you twist and turn in the wind trying to slip out from defeat more than actually gaining anything. It doesn’t matter to you if you say two opposing things in two posts, because you just say whatever p[ops into your head, at the time.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 19, 2005 at 12:57 AM Scorp
Incredibly, there are still some men who actually believe the main purpose of going fishing is to catch fish.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 19, 2005 at 1:02 AM The day was warm, and the beer was cold, and we both put out a line.
Posted by scorp on Nov 19, 2005 at 1:14 AM Heh, Lume, talk about synchronicity.
Rabbit just got down to your post and read “insubstantial logic box”. Rabbit was just independantly thinking of Jay’s reasoning as being locked up in a box, see above post.
Rabbit probably needs say no more, for you have doubtless noticed these things before too. It is I believe a distant echo of Telepathy. Rabbit’s first wife, a French girl, was strongly telepathic. We were able to commune quite freely, from earliest days. Rabbits wife of twenty years and he have about a quarter the level over the years, but with Claire it was supported by here sheer sensory power and Rabbits reasonable ability. Now with Mrs Rabbit, it is all Rabbit’s awareness, Mrs can see it but has never learned to trust and thus enhance it.
Its really easy with animals by the way. Many of them are very aware and alert in dimensions where most people appear to be sleepwalkers.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 19, 2005 at 1:15 AM The Day was warm and the Beer was cold, we laid out a couple of lines, baited up and cast away, then packed a cone and enjoyed the day.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 19, 2005 at 1:23 AM Unless Trolling,
then we stick to a beer or two, someone must steer after all and we could otherwise end up blue.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 19, 2005 at 1:25 AM The day was warm, and the beer was cold, and we both put out a line.
We didn’t actually catch anything, but the fishing was really fine.
We stayed on the water ‘til way after dark, at least a half past nine.
We spit, and scratched, and farted, and belched, and had a wonderful time.
One stanza from an original long narrative poem.
Posted by scorp on Nov 19, 2005 at 1:32 AM Heh Scorp
That thing about esp and Fish, seriously, you know those people who always catch the fish? the one who is usually a bit odd, has a couple of crazy ideas, uses the wrong rod and reel maybe but otherwise doesn’t seem to do anything different to you, and yet catches the biggest, most, or weirdest fish at least?
Rabbit is such a one. Everywhere he goes. Rabbit catches the fish. Rabbit catches European Eels in late Autumn, supposedly impossible and also in early Spring.
Maybe you too are one, and don’t know exactly what it is?
It is Telepathy. True.
Don’t scof, in case you are tempted. Ask and Rabbit will say more, he is ambivalent about being cast as a Moonbat. It does not weaken his position on anything, since these have been gained via logic, and words alone, not via any “Authority” as such. Rabbits don’t carry much authority, so no one can claim Rabbit has pretended anything.
Does Scorp the Fisherman know this?
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 19, 2005 at 1:36 AM Actually that was a promise Rabbit cannot keep right now, since Rabbit has a trade show to go to, and must away. Return he shall in a working day’s time. Will be happy to reply and compose a rhyme. In the meantime Rabbit would leave this thought in mind, Mark Twain. If we could live back then, in his books again.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 19, 2005 at 1:41 AM I have absolute confidence in your ability and willingness to say more, with or without input from me, or anyone. And I only scoff at your weird opinions, I never scoff at anyone’s honest talents and abilities, of which you might say I have a few of my own. So go for it.
Posted by scorp on Nov 19, 2005 at 1:47 AM Mention fishing and suddenly Scorp and Rabbit have something in common. I like fishing too. I liked the little poems. Yours especially Scorp.
Sturgeons were the catch of the day for me and my Dad and Grandfather until they became protected species around here. Now I am mostly after trout and salmon.
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 19, 2005 at 2:18 AM Henry “Ragtime Texas” Thomas
Fishing blues
Bet you’re goin’ fishing all of the time
Your baby’s goin’ fishing too.
Bet your life that your sweet wife
Will catch more fish than you.
Many fish bites if you got good bait
Here’s a little tip that I would like to relate
Many fish bite if you got good bait.
I’m a-goin’ fishing
Yes I’m goin’ fishing
And my baby’s goin’ fishing too.I went on down to my favorite fishing hole
Baby, grabbed me a pole and line
Pulled my pole on in, caught a nine pound catfish
And I brought him home for suppertime
Proving any fish bites if you got good bait
Here’s a little tip that I would like to relate
Many fish bite if you got good bait.
I’m a-goin’ fishing
Yes I’m goin’ fishing
And my baby’s goin’ fishing too.Baby brother ‘bout to run me out of my mind
Saying ``Can I go fishing with you?’‘
I took him on down to the fishing hole
Now what do you think that he did do?
Pulled a great big fish at the bottom of the pond
Now he laughed and jumped ‘cause he was real gone.
Many fish bite if you got good bait
I’m a-goin’ fishing
Yes I’m goin’ fishing
And my baby’s goin’ fishing tooPut him in a pot, baby, put him in a pan,
Honey, cook him till he nice and brown
Make a batch of buttermilk hotcakes, mama,
Chew him fast and chomp him on down
Saying ``Any fish bites if you got good bait
Here’s a little tip that I would like to relate
Many fish bite if you got good bait
I’m a-goin’ fishing
Yes I’m goin’ fishing
And my baby’s goin’ fishing too’‘
Posted by luminous beauty on Nov 19, 2005 at 3:50 AM Rabbit has delegated the Trade show to someone, and come back to the cool office a bit early.
Scorp. You shall have no more. The clue was there if you were interested but Rabbit has no need to cast pearls before anyone if they say “you are always chucking things about, so whatever” Rabbit can keep them in his pocket.
Rabbit only offerred an observation It is not because he had needs to say more. Does Scorp know the fisherman Rabbit means at least? Or do all Americans always catch fish?Has Rabbit jumped to the wrong conclusion, and Scorp is not a fisherman? Have you no favorite lures or small ceremonies which you slip quietly into the process and which somehow you just “feel” have an influence? Superstitions maybe but not quite, cause we’re smarter than that aren’t we Scorp?
Rabbit has had a few, and has seen many more, but finally figured out what they all had in common. Also Rabbit is the Lucky Bastard. If no-one else catches bugger all off the rocks all day, Rabbit will still manage to nab a few nice herring and a one meter shark.
Or when everyone is pulling in silly little flathead, Rabbit will haul a couple of big flappy flounder on board and then add a pile of whiting before pulling anchor. Or the Big eels, when others getting only small eels, the couple of good trout when others throwing tiddlers back all day. Rabbit is one of these, and it isn’t a boast, especially here when we can’t even prove it. It is nothing to boast about. It is sort of just luck, except with a pattern to it, Rabbit figured out what does it.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 19, 2005 at 8:43 AM Actually Dave, Rabbit and Scorpy agree mostly about China too. Rabbit puts this down to Scorpy being truly informed about China.
It could also be Rabbit is just wrong about China.
Sorry Scorp. (I really do feel we have China right.)
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 19, 2005 at 8:50 AM http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=12165
Posted by beowulf on Nov 19, 2005 at 11:33 PM Beowulf
Have you seen Prof Jones’ report yet? It is the clearest and most irrefutable case for the explosive demolition Rabbit has seen. This professor may be the final straw. We know there are so many other unanswered questions, serious anomalies which deny the likelihood, eve th possibility of much of the official story.
It has been said by many, that since the explosive demolition is the easiest to prove, outright, and is still the most damning evidence of official involvement. Rabbit is tending more and more to that opinion. If then one wants the latest and most well presented report on the collapses, this is it.
Only a complete moron in utter, irreversible denial and mental lockdown, could read the following report and still argue anythinmg but explosive demolition. Rabbit says this with absolute confidence, and has no hesitation in declaring anybody who reads that report, and who wishes to say anything in refutation, as braindead.
Notice that when he presented the paper in front of staff from two universities, the agreement with his conclusions was unanimous. One only who held out over night, only to make up his mind the next day. That person was clearly as thick a being as they come. Will JC be even more thick? That is the question.
Actually JC would have been down the back of the room with his fingers in his ears all through and is bound to have said, “I heard nothing which convinces me of anything”
Odd that…............
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 20, 2005 at 12:43 AM Beo,
Thanks for the links. Those are far and away more reputable than the sites I was referred to last time (one of them even advocated that the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami was actually the result of the deployment of an artificial weather weapon, among a dozen or so other nutty conspiracy theories!)
I certainly agree there are questions, serious questions, that need to be answered. No less than questions surrounding other engineering disasters, ie Three Mile Island, Challenger and Columbia, etc.
I just don’t accept the answers so far being offered without adequate research and testing.
I still don’t get the innuendo about WTC 7, though. The links you provided quoted people on the scene that it was deliberately and openly brought down by the FDNY late in the afternoon of 9/11 because it was believed to be insecure and unstable. So, if it was openly brought down with demolitions, why the outcry over the fact that it was brought down with, gasp!, demolitions?
The only sane comment I could find was that there was no way the demolitions could have been prepared and set in one day for WTC 7.
Yet the same argument doesn’t seem to be applied to both of the Twin towers, with a total of four times as many floors. Could all the demolition charges required for the demolition (and how many truck loads would that require??) of the three towers really have been brought on site, unloaded, ported up through each of the three buildings, set and armed, all in the space of one night?
No sarcasm here.
I really don’t know how long it would take to accomplish that. I don’t know how many demolitions teams it would take to accomplish that. I don’t know how many truckloads of explosives and detonators and explosive cords, etc, etc, etc it would take to accomplish that.
What I do know is that the responsibility for providing that info should fall on the people making the accustations.
Else, they are as guilty of sloppy stories as they accuse others of.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 20, 2005 at 5:03 PM Good point, Jay.
I will say that there were numerous evacuation drills leading up to the day in question as well as power outages that knocked out security cameras. Bomb sniffing dogs were also banned two weeks in advance. The company I believe carried it out was Controlled Demolition incorporated due to there past government contracts as well as expertise. We are not trying to be sloppy though. To buttress my arguments I suggest searching also for photos of the towers as they were being built. I have a plethora of photos that fail to illustrate the trusses so heavily touted in the media and only show a massive web of steel beams. This may be why the blueprints were cassified shortly afterwards. At the time it was built, the towers were considered some of the strongest buildings in the world. I will provide a link when I find it of the World Trade center construction manager where he states they could handle multiple plane strikes.
I doubt I can conclusively fill all the holes though. The official story, in my estimation, leaves more to be desired.
Posted by beowulf on Nov 20, 2005 at 9:45 PM I introduce Al-Queda:
http://thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3836
Posted by beowulf on Nov 20, 2005 at 11:36 PM OK JC
How about you tell us which site you found so weaird, before.
Because dickwad, the sources posted by Beowulf have been given before, you just ignored them, and as for thr Indian Ocean Tsunami, you do not know anything about the story to which you refer. There is enough in fact, that several countries involved think this may have been the case and the FACT is that it is possible. So don’t demonstrate your ignorance on yet another issue by jumping without knowing shit. You “know” that the Tsunami was natural becaue it says so on TV. Others know about Geology, seismographic charts, Indian Ocean plate and weather activity etc. It just so happens you dense little twerp, that the Indian Ocean is where Rabbit lives, he was on the ocean, about five kilometers offshore in a little Kayak when the Tsunami wave passed under him. FACT
So don’t write sites off just because they have information you do not.
The information you have been given by Beowulf is not new, it has been presented repeatedly, to your scoffing, and what is more there have been close to two hundred different sources posted on this topic, and you actually RAN AWAY, chickemed out, and you are going to lie, sqirm, and worm your way out on this thread too, before it is finished, I predict.
By The Way, Jay. The Professor Jones report is the end of the planes and fuel did it case, which is why the government Shill, Natalie, gave up when that came out.
You are the most craven lying little worm Rabbit has ever met. Rabbit is preparing a special Jay post. In this we will be quoting some of Jay’s previous howlers and comparing them with each other.
Rabbit promises you are going to hate it.
Take note that the more people and evidence which emerges about 911, the more what WE suspected all along is being proven. The official LIE has long since ceased to even be a possibility.
Oh and GWB is now down to 34%
That means you and all the other insane conspiracy theorists, are very much a minority. One of the first things that people learn when the BUSH spell is finally broken, is the truth about 911, which is why everyone who turns on Bush and the JUNTA, becomes more and more strident in their hatred. they turn away reluctantly only to suddenly have their eyes open to the full horror. You are still in the dark, and are seeming more pathetic and deluded with each passing day.
Since our conclusions abouit 8911 are based on examination of the facts and science, and yours are based upon a serious of assumptions most of which have been disproven or discredited via hard science, you are the conspiracy theorist along with the remainder of that shrinking one third.
You are a minority JC.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 21, 2005 at 12:57 AM By the way little man, tell us how <i>Freedom4um,<>/i> which links incidentally to the same sources as many of the previous sources given on the God Squad thread, but is in itself a fairly anonymous site, is more reputable than:
“The Idaho Observer”
911ResearchSorry to come around wacking JC Beowulf, you are doing fine, and it is understandable if you are convinced Jay is actually looking and thinking here, but you would be mistaken.
Jay has been around the blackberry bush lots of times and we know his game. He is floundering a bit, because out of spite to Rabbit especially, he is pretending that you are now showing reaon and honesty where others have all been mad and just trying to trick Jay. Soon enough he will show how NOTHING has gone past those eyes and into his brain. The trip down to his arse is just too much for most ideas to survive. Note he is only saying in a generic sense those sources are more credible, which no offence they arne’t. they are fine of course, but there is so much more that has been posted, and JC has answered that he does not have to see them even to know they are crap. Yet they say nothing different and include as Rabbit says links to exactly the same source for the facts that are available.
In truth all the weazel has done is claim that he needs to research more to say more, sure he will.
He will come back with his usual crap and refute them out of faith alone, and proceed to call you a crazy like others too. All the time proclaiming that he is giving you a right royal bashing in the process. See if he doesn’t. Then after he has demolished everything you say in his mind, he will henceforth boast to everyone he meets about how he has thrashed you in debate already. If you challenge him to explain when and where he will ignore you, pretending he heard nothing.
Rabbit enjoys taunting him, he is a turdbrain, and he is as close to the sort of ratbags who are responsible for the mess America is in, as you will get.
By all means try to light a fire in his mind, but just remember, he is sitting on his brain.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 21, 2005 at 1:16 AM In due respect and consideration for our resident expert in metaphysicotheologicocosmolonigology, the Hon. Dr. Dr. Prof. J. Clinebottle, I present:
Allan Uthman’s latest essay:
ETHICS 666Guaranteed to illuminate, elucidate, educate and amuse.
Posted by luminous beauty on Nov 21, 2005 at 2:06 AM Rabbit admires the brave souls who smuggled this recording out, it is certainly the real thing, one can recognise the beast. They probably would have Richard bumped off anyway, since he was allowed to hear even that much. Off to Guantanamo.
Does anybody want to join Rabbit and we can form a cabal, we shall ring the Terrorist Hotline, and nominate Jay as a possible suicide bomber? If three or four of us did this it should be enough to have him arrested and sent off to GITMO, where they will apply the approved methods of truth extraction.
When JC has finished his course in ethics courtesy of the electric jolt, the dog and the trucheon, and has been “Proven” innocent, he can come back and tell us how good an idea torture and patriot acts are and how bad an idea human rights and fair laws are.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 21, 2005 at 4:09 AM Apologies for the absence.
I have been attempting to fulfill my promise to Beowulf and give his arguments fair hearing.
Rabbit: The links have already been provided by Beowulf.
Try to keep up.
However, the next post will be my last. I was about to post it now, but having just read the very intelligent discourse since my last posting, I have to say that what I am about to post has just been completely vindicated.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 22, 2005 at 11:55 AM This will be my Swan Song.
If only for my own sake, I need to complete my argument on the Morality of Torture.
Is torture immoral?
Absolutely.
Is that not in direct contrast to what I started with?
Ever since the Greeks invented Western philosophy, it has been a time honored technique to posit apparent contradictions to expose where true contradictions lie. My failure to utilize it properly in no way diminishes its utility.
In this case, it is not the issues of morality that are in contradiction, but in the definition of torture.
Whether we are debating that now, a hundred years ago, or a hundred years from now, the divisiveness of the debate is reflective of the differing “lists” that people maintain on what act is torture and what act isn’t.
Is it torture when a police officer doesn’t read the Miranda rights of the accused? A few say yes. Is it torture to threaten someone with incarceration to illicit a confession? A few more would say yes? Is it torture to isolate a detainee to gather intel? Is the “third degree” interrogation torture? What is the “second” degree? The “fourth”?
Torture is not merely the act. It is in the intent.
Abusive, brutish behavior, whether in the field of armed combat, within the four walls of an interrogation cell or in academic debates, is torture. Regardless of any rationalization like “we do this for your own good” or “it’s a rough and tumble world out there”, torture cannot be divorced from the sadistic intent of the torturer.
True, there are some acts that most would agree is torture. Gang rapes (real or allegorical), inducing extreme physical pain, etc. It is difficult to believe that such extreme behaviors could come from anything but a sadistic mind. But it is when we get in to the middle ground that action alone is not sufficient. I have already given four examples of the same mere act that leads to very different assessments of torture.
When we come into the debate with differing definitions, we end up demonizing our opponents. Vice President Cheney’s attempts to exempt civilian intel services from DOD restrictions is the poster child of that dilemma. The guidelines of the Army Field Manual on the treatment of prisoners are not the end all and be all of what is torture. They are there to get former enemy combatants off the field of battle as quickly as possible and detained for the duration of hostilities as humanely as possible.
Certainly, the guidelines are there to prevent torture under the less than ideal conditions of combat, but they do not define torture. If anything, they draw the line of acceptable behavior in combat sufficiently far enough from torture so that even if the rules get bent in the heat of combat, torture is still avoided.
Since this is my swan song, I want to thank those who have been willing to engage me in honest intellectual debates. But there is an “ownership issue” here that I do not care to contest. The heat of a rational debate burns away idiosyncrasies of bias and stereotypes and that is why I willingly engage in debate. The clean edge of the sword can cut through the crap, whether the scat is mine or others, but the bludgeon of the bully club is merely the weapon of choice for bullies.
Fare Well.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 22, 2005 at 11:55 AM -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Dennis Kucinich
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
