Thursday, May 05, 2005

    Becoming Civilized

    They call this coward turd "al Qaeda No. 3", a.k.a. Abu Faraj al-Libbi. He was a big catch for Pakistan and the Pakistan government deserves well earned praise.
    Sources told CNN that al-Libbi will likely undergo a joint interrogation by U.S. and Pakistani officials. A source who has witnessed Pakistani interrogation methods said extreme psychological pressure was a hallmark of the intense sessions.
    I would hope that more than just psychological pressure be used. A wishy-washy civilization will have put upon itself some guilt complex that limits the effectiveness of obtaining critical information and puts the lives of innocent people at grave risk. The hallmark of an advanced society would use any and all measures necessary to extract every piece of information as required. The advanced society is analytical and can accurately weight the near and far term implications of action vs. inaction. Unfortunately much of the modern world lives in some guilt-driven emotional state of being and are afraid to advance.
    As these Islamic thugs are gathered up wouldn't it be nice to see these bomb-love'n cowards that live in caves like disease infested rats be spread out - small explosives placed strategically on various locations of their bodies - then detonated one-by-one? Such a public execution really should be carried out by Muslim women, don't you think? Think CBS would cover it?


    Pundit said...

    It is Ironic that we purport to have gone to Iraq to promote democracy yet seem intent on violating all the principles that democracy claims to stands for, including a raft of Geneva Conventions from 1949. You remember, those procedures that were implemented not long after the Nuremburg trials, when we tried the leaders of a foreign government for just such the type of excesses that so many seem to be infavor of today. The United States was a signatory to the Geneva Conventions in 1953 and have been ever since. How can anybody be suprpised at what has been termed as American Arrogance or American Hypocrisy when we topple another government in the name of Democracy and then set about doing the same things that we accused the former leader of Iraq doing? Maybe the fact that we continue to trumpet the word "democracy" makes it okay. After all, We're a Christian Nation. The things we agreed to in the past do not apply to us. The rest of the world needs democracy. And we will torture and kill anybody we have to in order to ram it through one way or another.

    : JustaDog said...

    Hmmm - I'm not sure what that comment about democracy has to do with this post, but I'm talking about cold blooded killers whose sole purpose is to kill innocent people (cutely called terrorism).

    If you like to refer back to our beginnings then perhaps quote how criminals were appropriately treated back then.

    we purport to have gone to Iraq to promote democracy - please check the documented history of why the USA went there, along with the full history of resolutions in the UN. "Promote democracy" was not a "why". Also, I'd hope the hell the protection of our citizens do not rest on the principles of the Geneva Conventions from 1949. Our Constitution includes in the very first sentence the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.... So the question is - what are we willing to do to accomplish that security? Should we allow any other documents, especially foreign documents even if someone representing the USA at the time signs them, over ride the security and blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity? It seems like this is what you are trying to argue for - or perhaps I misunderstand your comment?

    Pundit said...

    The documented history is loaded with references to democratizing Iraq--after the bogus "weapons of mass destruction" issue fell apart. IN a Speech to the Carnegie Institute In November of 1993 Condoleeza Rice made the same pronouncement as the WMD issue was beginning to fall apart, as justification for why the war over there was commenced in the first place. And because no threat to the United States on the basis of WMD or delivery systems has ever been found, there was not threat to our liberty. This raises questions, from a standpoint of democratic legitimacy, of why we are over there in the first place and how, after toppling a regime on the basis of its brutal nature, we should be party to the same conduct. It doesn't add up. And this affects our national security probably more than anything else because the contradictions are evident to not only allies, but potential allies. Not only do they lose confidence in what we do, they begin to wonder if they may be next. After all, many of our "allies" or other "third parties" are regimes that are no better. We could find ourselves without allies in the future, and with a far-flung empire and troops all over the world, that poses a problem. That's the real issue about securing our liberty.

    : JustaDog said...

    I'd rather have this debate on a post that pertains to the "we found none so there must never have been any" topic - it has nothing to do with this post, sorry.

    Pundit said...

    It has elverything to do with this post. The reason we are promoting the capture and torture of former Iraqi leaders is because of the war we are in; torture, according to Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity on Fox News that is important to discover information to protect our boys fighting in that war; a war that is being waged over what was never found. As to whether or not it existed in the past is the part that is irrelevant. If possession and testing of weapons and the development of delivery systems for those weapons constitutes a crime worthy of invasion, then we open ourselves up to invasion based of the amount of deadly weapons we possess that are far deadlier than any other nation in the world.The fact that they were not found is not relevant to whether or not they existed, which is true. However, the fact that they were not found means we were not under the threat our administration said we were as a result of going to war. And if we never should have gone to war, we surely shouldn't be over htere torturing people to get information that is critical to protecting our interests which were never threatened, and our soldiers, who shouldn't be there in the first place. You are right--this issue desrves its own post. I'm working on that by the way.

    Cao said...

    Take the focus off of what the terrorists do and put it on EEVVVIIILLL capitalists.

    I am starting to agree with the book that's entitled Liberalism is a Mental Disorder.

    Try to focus. I think there are medications for not being able to focus, like Ritlen. You should have it looked at because people generally have difficulty functioning in life who can't. Great post, Maddie.

    Cao said...

    Oh and BTW, all this focus on WMD and ignoring what Saddam's regime did for over 35 years is another function of that mental disorder. Saddam deserved to be dethroned and the whole area needs a reality check. This is much more than about WMD. This is about opposing terrorism, and if you don't know about Saddam's connection with funding terrorists, you should go here and have a read.

    The President said: We will not only deal with those who dare attack America, we will deal with those who harbor them and feed them and house them.

    Saddam Hussein was doing that. Nuff said.

    Ogre said...

    I love it when people bring up the Geneva convention. Can someone show me the signatures of the various terrorists groups on that document? No? Then shut up. The Geneva convention is an agreement between civilized peoples in the event of war. Terrorists are not civilized and barely qualify to be people.

    Oh, it's so bad that the US would dare to use psychological torture -- things like sleep depravation -- but apparently Pundit and others have no problem with terrorists raping, beheading, burning, and other types of physical torture. Pundit, your posts here show that you clearly hate American and Americans, and love terrorists. Why? Because you actually believe that it's worse for Americans to deprive someone of sleep to save American lives than for terrorists to bomb and gas tens of thousands of people. You are sick.

    I'm with JustaDog -- the Americans are being too nice to this scum if they're only using some mild psychological torture.

    : JustaDog said...

    Thanks for the posts and support Cao and Ogre. I do know Pundit personally and know he is very much an American. I think it is more the airwaves are permeated with the common thread that America is responsible for anything bad. I think the Geneva Convention crap got an upsurge with the prison exploits in Iraq - fully exploited by (mostly) democrats in an attempt to embarrass our country and to make us look worse than the terrorist we go after.

    There are many in this country that has their focus on “reality” TV programs (or some other trivial focus) and not on the reality that is happening in the world. Treaties are worthless as well, since I know of no treaty with terrorists. Treaties are not to over ride the very basic principles of our Constitution: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. No where in the Constitution does it mention any limitations to achieve those basic principles, nor does it specify any portion can or will be over ruled by a treaty with a foreign power.

    Many still have so much to learn.

    Pundit said...

    The narrow minds masquerading as democratic truth seekers never ceases to amaze me. In the name of Democracy we need to overthrow dictators who commit all sorts of evils and in the same breath we defend our use of those same methods under the justification that it is because we are spreading democracy but the other people that do it are ogres. I'm not defending the slime of the world. I'm questioning the shallow logic that pops up from time to time. The following is a quote from L. Paul Bremer on the BBC June 30, 2003 during an interview about our efforts in Iraq: "WE ARE GOING TO FIGHT THEM AND IMPOSE OUR WILL ON THEM AND WE WILL CAPTURE OR, NECESSARY KILL THEM UNTIL WE HAVE IMPOSED LAW AND ORDER UPON THIS COUNTRY." Brothers and sisters, it ain't democracy if we kill 'em and impose our will! Do I hear an Amen? How about a God Bless America? Now seriously, those of you who fly the American flag on your websites and claim to promote truth and democratic ideals, what kind of impression do you think that leaves on a world that already believes the United States has overstepped its bounds? And unfortunately, as much as I dislike both the Geneva Conventions and the UN, those are both a product of the U.S. international efforts (The U.S. signed on to them in 1953 and 1945 respectively) at the end of world war two. They exist because we wanted them to exist, and signed on voluntarily. By violating them, what does that say about democratic examples? The greater threat to our national security is to alienate all of the other countries totally and force an alliance among people who already hate us and are developing nuclear weapons. Diplomacy backed up by a strong military is the only diplomacy that works. But a military that is not supported by diplomatic efforts--which we will not have if we continue to alienate everybody--leaves no other option but a perpetual state of war. That, by the way, was the main ideology of communism,(the ideology that war with the west was inevitable and all efforts toward war were the goal of the soocialist nations) which CAO did not get into her website. It appears that is one that has happened here as well.

    Pundit said...

    BTW--OGRE seems to miss the point, and JUSTADOG might lose his good reputation by defending me. They will think you went soft!