WOW!
I know. My eloquence and persuasiveness is simply awe inspiring 
Updike: still a waste of carbon.
Evidently wanting to hop onto the Coulter bandwaggon, Uppy, whose name I am considering changing to Lumpy, has argued that making the claim that
.
Never mind that fact that if one has honestly done the reading and come to a conclusion based on the evidence, then malice is certainly far from a null hypothesis.
Never mind that the army has said that Army has said that some of those cases of death by ‘abuse’ may involve more than one prisoner death, suggesting that current estimates, ignoring the coverups which have gone on, might actually be low.
Never mind that the military has itself admitted that 18 of the 26 were already determined to be criminal homicides and refered to other agencies for prosecution or further action. This is important, by the way, as Iraqi personel are not bound by US agencies, so if they thought that Iraqis were behind it, they would not have been refered to other agencies, but to the Iraqis.
It is also worth noting that these were not isolated incidents, as the Military itself admitted.
With the pattern of torture at various locations and by various organizations, of coverups, of investigations which are never really begun let alone completed, I don’t think it’s at all beyond the pale to draw conclusions.
Mind you, these cites were provided in the thread at least twice. Uppy has again shown himself to be an intellectually dishonest piece of shit. I wonder how he’ll dodge the charge this time. Is it that we hate Christians, or Republicans, or that we prefer Coke to Pepsi? I’m not quite sure, but I anticipate that Uppy is, as always, too fucking stupid to read and understand the English language.
This is, after all, the monkeyfucker who got militant when he was whooshed about 'excessive light killing people" and got downright hillariously dense when he tried to argue that anybody, ever, had claimed that making a typo was intellectually dishonest.
Why Uppy, why oh why is the Army slanderous and malicious towards the Army??? Oh, the shame, the humanity! What ever are we to do!?! Surely you can tell us, if you’d stop taking such an interest in those monkeys. Remember, they’re supposed to be writing your posts for you, not providing ‘favors’.
Oddly enough that’s not a typo, but it made a hell of a lot more sense to me before I tried reading it out loud. (Should’ve tried reading it out loud before I previewed it, and not after.)
I was attempting to make something of a joke that Uppy is blabbering about how such claims have not been proven to be true. I was trying, evidently in a rather hamfisted manner, to point out that the Army itself was satisfied enough that these things were proven to refer people to other agencies or for prosecution. I was trying to point out that the army had ‘claimed’ the same things that civilians have. By setting up the statement of “the army has said that the Army has said…” I was trying to draw a parallel to “civilians have said that the facts support the conclusion of…”
However, it seems I failed and was rather unclear.
My apologies.
Sorry for the tripple post, I just want to make something totally clear:
It is perfectly acceptable for people to have differing standards of proof. It is perfectly acceptable to interpret the data differently.
What is not reasonable, at all, is to claim that someone’s conclusions are ‘malicious’ without first proving that. In general, psychoanalysis via the internet is a slimey activity.
What is not reasonable is to say that people should not accept what “things that have not been proven to be true” when the entire point is that someone has done the research and found evidence which they believe supports a conclusion. By casting the debate in honest terms, (eg. discussion over degrees of proof and personal interpretations), one can have a reasonable debate between people. But to couch the debate in terms which simply deny that there is evidence which rational people might very well decide points to a conclusion is just plain dumb and intellectually dishonest to boot.
The same applies to calling someone’s conclusions ‘lies’. Someone who, for instance, thinks that O.J Simpson killed two people may be wrong, or may be correct, but to call them a liar is simply gradeschool level bullshit. Besides, I seem a remember a certain national leader who some folks have bent over backwards in order to claim that he was merely ‘mistaken’. Interesting that there are two standards at work, no?
And again we’re back to the last lines of Uppy’s most recent bout of brain diarrhea; one of the most moronic strawmen I’ve ever seen on the Dope.
There is a wealth of information available detailing such events ranging from coverups on the part of the military to evidence that even an American soldier participating in a training exercise was beaten so badly that he now has seizures. There is evidence of systemic problems, of at least one autopsy report claiming ‘natural death’ as a cause when non-military doctors found blunt force trauma a far more likely cause. There is, of course, also the fact that deaths due to ‘natural causes’ due to “Arteriosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.” are somewhat frequent for folks our forces tend to pick up. Some facts on that.
Now, if you had a prisoner who had heart problems and you used our ‘torture-lite’ tactic of making them exercise past the point of exhaustion, sometimes literally to the point of unconsciousness, do you think you might have some form of moral complicity if they happened to die from massive heart failure?
While we’re on the subject, let’s do a small comparison, shall we?
According to the US DOJ’s first findings from the Deaths in Custody Reporting Program, in 2002:
[
](http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/shsplj.htm)
And The same data in graphic form.
In the prisons in which we hold the citizens of other countries,
108 people have died. With 18 deaths being confirmed criminal homicides and another 8 strongly suspected.
There are an estimated 50,000 prisoners, or if you prefer ‘detainees’, who we have been holding since the wars began.
For a statistical comparison, we’ll need to assume a few things. First, let’s say that all of those 50,000 prisoners were present in our prisons during the timeframe for the 26 deaths which were most likely homicides. Further, let’s say that the homicides/suspected homicides occured evenly spaced through time. We’d get roughly 8.6 homicides a year in a population of 50,000 prisoners.
Compare these two figures.
An average of aproximately 1.75 homicides per 50,000 prisoners in America’s prisons.
An average of aproximately 8.6 homicides per 50,000 prisoners in American run prisons in Afganistan and Iraq.
Even if we work with only the 18 criminal homicides which have been refered to other agencies or for prosecution, we still get 6 homicides per 50,000 prisoners.
Does this, perhaps, indicate that something just aint right?
And, of course, this doesn’t even get into the ‘contractors’ who have been above the law in Iraq and thus couldn’t be refered to anybody for prosecution.
Even the very limited ‘wiggle room’ really doesn’t solve matters. If we assume that we took people into our custody with injuries that were already life threatening, then it seems clear that we denied them medical treatment and that lead to their deaths. I think that ‘cruel and inhumane’ treatment of a wounded man would be to let him die of his wounds instead of taking him to a doctor.
I would also point out that the Geneva Convention, even though we claim it doesn’t apply, does indeed demand that prisoners receive medical attention.
If we assume that it’s the inmates killing each other then we have failed to provide proper protection and order for those who we have captured. That, too, is our responsibility. Especially considering that many of those we imprison were captured in order to get a bounty, and many are simply innocent.
And let’s not forget that most of those at Abu Graib were innocent, in any case. Estimates put the percentage around 80%. Eight out of ten prisoners, innocent. Just like at least one man at Gitmo was found innocent, by our own military tribunal. He was still locked right back up even once they found out he was innocent.
And while we’re working on not forgetting things, let’s not forget the innocent Canadian citizen who we captured and sent off to Syria to be tortured, and from whom we got one of the bogus pieces of intel Bush used to sell the war even when he was being told that there was no way Arar could have any information on Iraqi terror camps.
And of course let’s not forget our program of “extraordinary rendition”
And then we have Cheney campaigning for the ability to engage in “Cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment of our prisoners.
Let’s not play word games here either. One can either be cruel and inhumane, or humane . There is no ‘grey area’ between torturing the fuck out of someone, and not torturing the fuck out of someone. By campaigning for there to be no prohibitions against “Cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment, he wanted to keep those as options.
So, putting all the pieces together, one might indeed conclude that given some among our forces are indeed guilty of ‘torture’ or ‘abuse’ or ‘beating the fuck out of prisoners’ until it becomes a homicide.
One might, of course, also draw different conclusions. But to cast the debate in terms of ‘lies’, ‘malice’, and ‘no proof’ is simply intelletually dishonest wankomancy. Jerk jerk splat.
FinnAgain, that last one was a fine piece of postin’ there. A bit unfortunate that, like a cascade of neutrinos, it’ll probably zip right through the heads of Uppy and Isky without interacting with anything along the way.
I’m waiting for him to say The Army hates America. :eek:
Thank you kindly.
Unfortunately also true. Uppy in particular seems totally immune to the English language when it comes to conveying information. It’s a talent.
You win the prize for cluelessness!
You will go to Sweden, where you will pass your time snacking on frozen reindeer turds and discuss the subtleties of taste with the local expert, Mr. Svinlesha.
No, expenses not covered. Also, you will pay a nominal charge for using our directory services.
No. Not really. That’s a brand of solipsism. What you are referring to is “opinion.”
It is perfectly acceptable you you to hold any opinion you want for any reason (or lack thereof) you wish.
When you assert something is a fact, a different standard applies. Facts are not so malleable, or else they are not facts. Facts are hard and demonstrable. Facts can be checked and proven.
If they can’t be checked and proven, they are not facts whether or not they are true.
Let me give you two examples:
George Bush was apparently of the very strong opinion that Saddam posessed WMDs. This is perfectly fine.
Bush also asserted that he knew for an indisputable fact that it was true.
Bush did not know this. He was lying.
You stated for a fact that our forces have tortured dozens to death.
You do not know it to be true.
You have lied. The result of that lie is that you have slandered and betrayed those soldiers who serve honorably by besmirching unjustly and irresponsibly.
Shame on you.
I just did.
What you beleive is your opinion and you are welcome to it. You are responsible for the integrity of what you state is a fact.
Your personal fucking opinion of something does not make it a fact.
Your personal fucking opinion does not alter reality.
Nice try. Nobody’s complaining about your opinions. When you misrepresent your opinions as facts without knowing them to be facts, you are lying.
Everybody seems to agree with this logic when we apply it to GWB and WMDs. If it works then, it works now.
Or, do you assert that neither Bush nor yourself were lying to claim a personal opinion as fact?
Scylla you appear to be having problems. You’ve agreed with me that we will not discuss this topic. And yet here you are, trying to discuss it with me. I have to get back to hating America and plotting treason, so I’ll have to leave you to discuss this with other people.
Ciao ciao.
Ummm, no. I didn’t. You posted cites and then rather peevishly stated that that was your final post, and you wouldn’t disccuss them.
I said I wouldn’t waste my time delving into the cites then. I don’t know where you come up with this “I agreed not to discuss it,” thing. I guess you think truth is malleable in all kinds of contexts.
Have fun storming the castle.
For someone who likes calling everybody else a liar, you sure are a lying piece of shit. Where I informed you that I would not longer be engaging you in discussion, but would indeed continue to make posts on the topic. And is where you agreed. But awfully cute that you’re going to accuse me of lying when I can quote your own words. That sure is smart.
Now, as I said, I need to go incite hatred in local immigrant populations and figure out how to subvert the Republic. These things take time. So, kindly, stop posting to me. Or continue knowing I won’t be responding.
Buh bye.
Hah, FinnAgain, you finally admit it, you realize of course this means **Scylla ** wins. 
Jim
[Quote=New Iskander]
You will go to Sweden, where you will pass your time snacking on frozen reindeer turds…
[Quote]
Why? If I ever feel a craving for frozen reindeer turds, there’s a Taco Bell right down the street.
Oh, and thanks for comparing me to Mr. Svinlesha. It’s very flattering but wholly undeserved. If only I were up to his level of discourse. And if only you were as well, frankly.
It is all very confusing to me.
If Bush lied, then he lied for a important cause.
Therefore, ultimately it is acceptable to lie for a cause. And BeginAgain does have a good cause (anti-torture). Therefore, he has nothing to be ashamed of.
But Bush might not have lied. As Sen. McCain said,
Perhaps Bush simply overstated his case, which is not be a lie. Therefore, overstating his case doesn’t make FinnAgain a liar.
Extremely confusing.
One can be a liar and have nothing to be ashamed of, or one can be not a liar even if one has,- technically,- lied.
So what’s the bloody point?
Well, because of Bush’s cause, thousands of people died.
Now, if Bush was telling the truth ( WMD were non-existant, so it would have to be a case of intelligence being flawed and him having no knowledge of this ) then it was a false cause. But Bush could not be blamed for this, though I imagine he would, privately, be sorry, while still having to keep up appearances in public in order to not appear a “flip-flopping” president, a label he (and the Republican Party) have used quite often on those that oppose him ( Democrats and other Republicans alike).
On the other hand, if Bush was lying, then those thousands of people died for a false cause. A false cause because there would be no justification for it (Bush lied about that). No justification means that doing a wrong act (invading another country, engaging in armed warfare) has no “good reason” behind doing it. Thus, it is a wrong act, and by lying about it Bush should be ashamed for himself, and the actions of his government.
Now, i’m not a great debater (there are others on these boards far better than me, thankfully) on both sides, and it’s up to them to put their case as to whether Bush lied or didn’t lie. If he did, though, it would be something to be ashamed of.
Oh, and i’m pretty suspicious of your quote, there. It’s pretty consistent with your use of english, and i’m sure Senator McCain is usually careful to use correct grammar. I think an actual cite may be in order, here.
Whoops! Wipe that awful third paragraph from your minds, and substitute this:
Now, i’m not a great debater; there are others on these boards far better than me, thankfully (on both sides), and it’s up to them to put their case as to whether Bush lied or didn’t lie. If he did, though, it would be something to be ashamed of.
Luckily I think we can now add “coward” to “moron” and “intellectually dishonest shill.”
Will Uppy debate in this thread? No.
Will Uppy debate in another thread? No.
I should’ve known by now that he simply refuses to address any actual issues that’re raised. Call my failing an excess of faith in humanity, if you will.
A devestating factual rebuttal, exactly what we might expect from Uppy.
How’s this. Quote the part where I say I agree not to speak to you again about this topic.
It ain’t there.
You are having big problems with reality.
This is …like the third? fourth? time you said you weren’t going to respond to me.
I wonder if this time is yet another lie. Whaddaya think?