Text 10889, 163 rader
Skriven 2009-04-08 07:04:44 av JOHN FITZGERALD (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av DAVE DRUM
Ärende: Obama no Different.
===========================
-

-


-=> JOHN FITZGERALD wrote to DAVE DRUM <=-

DD>   And they haven't been scientifically tested.
DD>   What is the problem with that?

JF>   Again, they claim nothing has been scientifically tested,
JF>   so they are in no position to say what works,
JF>   as they attempted to do.

DD>   I said that they haven't been "scientifically tested".
DD>   Why do you keep hammering on that? Is it an attempt
DD>   to add credence to your otherwise specious arguments?

JF>   No time for your side-winding.  I am addressing what they have
JF>   said... not what you have said.  THEY have said none of the Army's
JF>   techniques have been "scientifically tested".   From that point
JF>   on they can't make claims about what works and doesn't work if
JF>   they are going to stick to that original contention.they

DD>   Now who is "sidewinding"? I qouted what the 
DD>   authors said - so it is automatically MY words? 
DD>   Get a clue, John. 

   "MY words"??   As I said in the very passage you are were responding
to here, I am addressing what they have said... not what you have said. 
Got it this time?  You're arguing with your imagination again. But you
did however post those words AND held them up as gospel concerning
waterboarding and torture.  Did you not?    By saying they are not your
words are you now suggesting you are not in entire agreement with their
account..and if so, what part?   If you are in total agreement, then
that puts you right back where you started, nowhere, because they said
none of the army's methods have been "scientifically tested" and if they
stick by those words they have no platform to stand on regarding 'which'
approach to interrogation is best.  Heh...  Evidently you're just too 
ticked off at me to see it, let alone admit it. 



DD>   Or is your love for the expediency of torture 
DD>   and inflicting pain so great that you cannot?

  That's like saying if you support our troops you enjoy shooting
people.  Your attempt to substitute rank innuendo for an argument is
like waving a flag that you don't really have one.  Hence your
frustration and the resulting (not so) veiled insults.



JF>   And just how do you expect to get any info from these
JF>   characters if they know you will never even make them
JF>   uncomfortable, or 'abuse' them in any way?   By boring
JF>   them to death with silly lectures?

DD>   Why, John, by winning their trust (or at least tolerance).

JF>   You must really think their captives are pushovers and morons.
JF>   If they know you're gonna goo-goo them and place 'nice', 
JF>   and never 'abuse' them, or even take their blanket away, 
JF>   - WHY - should they turn on their fellow men and go against 
JF>   the cause they believe in?   Can you explain WHY??

   Explain how 'tenderness' and 'trust' are going to make these
characters, most of whom are dedicated volunteers, talk.



JF>   If terrorists were looking for your friends, or fellow 
JF>   soldiers, would you tell them where they were held up if 
JF>   they simply tried to win your trust??   Knowing who
JF>   and  what they are, do you think they would EVER win 
JF>   your trust??  No, because you're not a moron or a 
JF>   push-over.  

    Tell me I'm not wrong here.  Obviously you would end up debunking
your own position if you were to put your self in the subject's chair. 
Again, would you talk, knowing what they're up to, and knowing they will
never abuse you, in any way?   And why should you talk?   They are your
enemy, and knowing they have every naive, nanny-brained, PR person
breathing down their neck making sure they don't even take your blanket
away...why would you talk??   Heck, if I knew they were never going to
hurt me I'd recite jokes and make fun of them at every turn.
    You're apparent notion that the people they interrogate are morons
and pushovers flies in the face of the realities our people have to
deal with. 



JF>   You have nothing but empty PR claims that says 'tenderness' and
JF>   'winning their trust' (as if that's ever going to happen) is going
JF>   to make them talk, and if they're protecting friends and the 
JF>   cause they believe in, they're just going to sit there and
JF>   laugh in your face  knowing you won't even 'abuse' them.

DD>   I have the article written by the people who have 
DD>   been there and done that.

  You have a PR piece that even a twelve year old can see through.
No?  Answer the above questions.  Would you talk, knowing they will
never harm you in any way??   Answer the question or do the adult thing
and know when to fold.

  Again, you only have a PR article written by two of Obama's PR people
covering up for the real world tasks they have to deal with.



DD>   And the examples (repeated many times in TeeVee - 
DD>   yes, I know, so spare me) of the "good cop - bad cop" 
DD>   routines. Which have been confirmed to me by real
DD>   live police detectives who tell me that it is the
DD>   "good cop" who gets the information nine times out of ten.

   ...From common criminals and losers.  We are talking about a
different category of individuals entirely...guys out on the battle
field or in a war zone, volunteers, most if not all of whom are
dedicated to their cause.

   Your partisan induced notion that you can get these guys to talk 
with a little 'tenderness',  etc is just too pathetic for words and 
underestimates the intelligence and dedication of terrorists, insurgents,
bomb-makers, kidnappers, etc.



JF>   When it comes down to it, know that these guys are always going
JF>   do  what it takes behind closed doors, just as they've always 
JF>   done long  before Bush ever came around, esp when time is 
JF>   a factor. > Wake up some day, Drum.

DD>   I know enough and am awake enough to know that if I am 
DD>   being tortured I am more likely to tell the torturer what 
DD>   s/he wants to hear in order to make the pain stop and make
DD>   my life easier.

    If you know they want the truth, and you have it, you will be more
ready to give it to them than be caught in a lie, because you know that
will just get you more wet and all chocked up...or worse if you are a
prisoner in some 3rd world POW camp..  If a person will say anything 
under 'torture', he will tell you the truth, regardless of what the 
PR people covering for elected officials try to tell you.

    On the other hand, if you know they won't even take your blanket
away, you will have no reservations about sitting there placating them
with whatever tall tale you decide to feed them.  duh?

   Again, WHY should you tell them anything?  This is the question you
cannot answer without undermining the 'tenderness' and 'trust'
approach.  Sorry guys.


DD>  Take five bucks and go buy a clue, John.

  Keep your five Dave, you obviously need it more than I do.


---
 *   *
 * Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)