mypetjawa v. 2.0 (beta) "<i>Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to ev

December 31, 2005

Embittered Brit Ex-Ambassador Leaks Documents

The land of HAR "Kim" Philby brings us another in a long line of lunatics who somehow managed to worm their ways into government positions. Of course, Philby was supposedly motivated by ideology. Craig Murray, who was fired from his position for cause, seems to have more of a taste for petty revenge and self-promotion.

From the Associated Press via Yahoo!News:

LONDON - A former British ambassador has published government documents he says prove that Britain knowingly received intelligence extracted under torture from prisoners in Uzbekistan.
Craig Murray, who was removed as ambassador to Uzbekistan after going public about his concerns, defied a Foreign Office ban to publish the internal memos on his Web site Friday. The documents include memos to Foreign Office chiefs in which Murray expressed his concern over the use of "torture material."

Common sense is finally invoked in the sixth paragraph of the AP story:

A Foreign Office spokesman said Friday that while Britain condemns the use of torture, it would be "irresponsible" for the intelligence services to reject out of hand information which might protect British citizens from a terror attack. The spokesman spoke on condition of anonymity in keeping with government policy.

Duh. The very fact that this has to be articulated is a dismal comment on the average liberal's IQ.

For hints as to Murray's true nature, one might visit his blog, if one has the taste and tolerance for bug-eyed moonbattery.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 10:17 AM | Comments (142) | Add Comment
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Do some proper research on this, genius, and then you'll actually understand what the issue is here... It's not about some imaginary scenario where torture-tainted evidence might help us save the world from Dr. Evil's ticking bomb. It's about women being anally-raped with broken bottles and kids being *boiled alive*... Or maybe that's the kind of thing that floats your boat? http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2005/10/the_reality_of_1.html Throwing insults at Murray won't bring the dead back to life, or silence the screams of the tortured...

Posted by: Factcheck at December 31, 2005 10:51 AM (rD2AN)

2 Let me make this perfectly clear: Murray is a fool, a self-promoter at the expense of his country, and a gross security risk. Like Kim Philby, Murray pretends to answer to a higher calling. He deserves more than insults; he deserves to be in jail. Playing hear-no-evil with information because you're concerned about its source is beyond buffoonery, it's suicidal. Please return to your July 6-September 10 fantasy world and let the adults handle things from here.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at December 31, 2005 11:05 AM (RHG+K)

3 So, Uzbekistan uses extreme torture and political repression - what's your point? Add them to the list, pal! Oh, there's probably quite a few dozen countries that walk that path - and if you broaden definitions wide enough (and are politically inclined) you can just about squeeze every nation in. "Washing one's hands" as Murray and you imply achieves JACKSHIT 'cept maybe making oneself feel better 'bout oneself. So what! If I thought for a moment you were consistant on this "reality" then I would give you some measure of credibility - but I know you are not. Any useful intel from Uzbekistan - put it in a dirty brown paperbag and slip it under the door - then wash your hands. Reality ain't pretty - just try avoid paying for it - and hopefully deal with it later if one is so inclined - and I don't mean washing your hands thens and looking away!

Posted by: hondo at December 31, 2005 11:23 AM (3aakz)

4 So, the government does business with a dictatorship which, as your previous commenter points out, is beyond barbaric. And then it gets high and mighty and lies to us about this. And your aim is to... what? Go back to the old, and boring debate, about "if it saves x000 lives..."? For God's sake. This is why blogs are so boring. It is a complicated world. Someone who criticises George Bush and Tony Bl;air is not de facto your enemy. How about you oppose lunatic violent terror wherever you see it, rather than this name-calling and pretending that the world is made of Good and Evil? And "Let the adults handle things"? Come ON. It's not the playground here. We're talking about real people.

Posted by: The Big Cod/Hake at December 31, 2005 11:24 AM (QQnhS)

5 Reality ain't pretty This kind of tough talk doesn't play so well in the comments of a blog with a logo featuring characters from a children's film about Good and Evil.

Posted by: The Big Hake/Cod at December 31, 2005 11:28 AM (QQnhS)

6 Setting aside your insipid insults towards a man you know nothing about and have ever met, and focussing for a moment on the actual arguments... Do you really think that our instigating the torture of thousands of innocent Muslims around the world, in the desperate hope that some of them MIGHT tell us something that helps us stop a terrorist attack, is going to make us safe from Islamic terrorism. The apologists for torture are always presenting this as if the torture-tainted information just happens to land at our feet. It doesn't - we actively encourage countries like Uzbekistan to torture people (that means anally raping women with broken bottles). You can call Craig Murray a fool for objecting to that if you like, but most people I know think that anal-broken-bottle-rape is a pretty objectionable thing to do too... If you don't believe Craig Murray, how about Brigadier General David R. Irvine? According to him, the now-discredited claim of a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein rested on a false confession made, you guessed it, under torture, by a guy rendered to Egypt by, you guessed it, the CIA... They tortured him, he told them the lies they wanted to hear, they used those lies to justify starting a war. And people like you went along with it. Who's the fool?

Posted by: Factcheck at December 31, 2005 11:33 AM (rD2AN)

7 Reality ain't pretty - true or false logo???? Actually the Lucas' films were simplistic "childrens' films" for adult children of the 60's who never grew up. Check out those who filled the lines - strange breed indeed ... then they all washed their hands and dreamed soft dreams.

Posted by: hondo at December 31, 2005 11:41 AM (3aakz)

8 Fatcheck demonstrates the typical leftist-traitor (Limey version) style of argument: first assume facts that are not in evidence; as backup, cite the tainted source; try to redefine the argument (we're talking here about using existing information, not "instigating torture"). Fattie, the regular readers of this blog are not the naive, gullible sort you've been hornswoggling at the Democratic Underground. You're going to have to try a lot harder. Note: Big Cod and Big Hake are the same poster. I've changed the comment signature on its posts to reflect that fact.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at December 31, 2005 11:43 AM (RHG+K)

9 Wow! You have discovered the ultimate secret! Without "prodding" from us, the rest of the world wouldn't be doing such bad nasty things to their people! So, if we "stopped prodding" them - then there would be - paradise! Go wash your hands.

Posted by: hondo at December 31, 2005 11:46 AM (3aakz)

10 And for the Big Cod/Hake: of course criticizing Blair or Bush does not automatically make someone our enemy. No one here stated that it did. But publishing classified documents during a war DOES make someone my enemy. Just because you happen to like the traitor's politics doesn't excuse the act of treason. Deal with it.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at December 31, 2005 11:48 AM (RHG+K)

11 I'm with factcheck; anally raping women with broken bottles and boiling children alive is unacceptable. Unless of course it's being done by communists or muslims, then it's okay.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 31, 2005 11:49 AM (0yYS2)

12 Thank you, IM, for bringing in reality. Or if the UN does it, that makes it ok also. Rape and murder children under the blue helmut and ole Factcheck will anty up more money for "piece keeping".

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 31, 2005 11:56 AM (rUyw4)

13 Reading Murray's documents, I don't get the impression that his objective is to reveal the torture of Uzbeks - that's merely the vehicle. His objective is to express his dislike of the US and its supposed goals of "oil, gas and hegemony". He says that the UK government needs to stop accepting information obtained under torture, but other than that there's virtually nothing said about who's doing the torturing, who's getting tortured, where it's being carried out, examples of the useless information being extracted and what the UK government can do to stop it. These documents are a rant against the evil US and its dastardly practices at a diplomatic level.

Posted by: Graeme at December 31, 2005 12:05 PM (o1ojb)

14 Is that the best you can do?! I've heard worse insults from the sparrows in my backyard... The reason you need to go and do your research is because you need to understand that we have, in fact, been instigating torture. It's not just a question of picking stuff and random - we've been actively encouraging the Uzbeks to go out and do their anal-rape thang... And then when things get nasty we play "plausible deniability". I personally find the whole torture thing pretty abhorrent whether it's a Muslim, a Communist, an atheist or a Christian who's doing the torturing - or being tortured. Torture, generally, just seems like pretty bad news. But on the subject of Communists... Islam Karimov actually came to power as a Communist leader in Uzbekistan when it was still a part of the USSR, and has carried on in the same vein despite the nominal collapse of Communism. The Uzbek economy is centrally-planned Stalinist style. There's no such thing as a free market in Uzbekistan. Among the people who started the May 2005 Andijan uprising were businessmen fed up of being strangled by government corruption. These guys are hardly flying the flag for Freedom. But I have a question for you - if you think that instigating torture to get anti-terror intel is OK, how about engaging in a bit of torture ourselves? Isn't that what you people really want? The right for CIA agents to anally rape women with broken bottles in the name of Freedom and Security? It's just a statistical fact, isn't it, that if you anally-rape-with-broken-bottles enough people at random, you're bound to catch onto someone who can tell you something that might be useful. So why not do it? And if that doesn't work, how about raping people's children in front of them (another little habit that the Uzbek secret police like to indulge in). If it stops a terrorist attack, surely that's OK too?

Posted by: Factcheck at December 31, 2005 12:09 PM (rD2AN)

15 >>>Go back to the old, and boring debate, about "if it saves x000 lives..."? what's an "exciting" debate in your world that would make a blog less "boring"? A lot more fun to wait until x000 lives are lost so you can blame it on "Bush" and the "American taliban". Fun! And you, "Factcheck," try CHECKING YOUR FACTS, you moron. Far from "instigating" the torture of "thousands" of "innocent" muslims, we lost the use of valuable air bases in Uzbekistan precisely because Bush protested that country's barbaric record on human rights. That's why Karimov expelled us YOU FUCKING MORON. You people are loathesome. Bring on your goddam revolution already. I want at you so bad, you have no idea.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 31, 2005 12:15 PM (8e/V4)

16 Thanks for bringing in the UN. It really is nice and straightforward. Torture, always bad. Anal rape, always bad. Whether it's a UN peacekeeper, or a Communist, or Muslim, or a CIA agent, or an SAS soldier who's doing it. The logic of both the terrorists and the torturers is that one injustice can justify another. The terrorists say that torture justifies terror. The torturers say that terror justifies torture. Both lots are mixing up a "justification" with a "cause". A causes B doesn't mean that A justifies B... The sad reality is that the more terrorist attacks there are, the more people will get tortured, and the more people get tortured the more terrorist attacks there will be. We have to fight it at both ends.

Posted by: Factcheck at December 31, 2005 12:19 PM (rD2AN)

17 You have an overall opposition to the War in Iraq & against AQ - fine. Your upset because you see yourself as a participant by default - fine. But if you believe the "world" needs us to prod and show it how to "fuck itself", then you are a naive idiot. If the wars ended tomarrow, you would wash your hands and go back to sleep - without any dreams of Uzbekistan or any other similar hellhole. That's why you are not credible to me.

Posted by: hondo at December 31, 2005 12:20 PM (3aakz)

18 When did you condemn the UN for its abuses, Factcheck? Give me a link. I'm waiting.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 31, 2005 12:21 PM (rUyw4)

19 The reason you need to go and do your research is because you need to understand that we have, in fact, been instigating torture. Factcheck is the biggest dumbass on the planet.

Posted by: dcb at December 31, 2005 12:22 PM (8e/V4)

20 Uzbekistan is a hellhole - I may be the only one giving Bush and others in the Admin credit for pissing Karimov off. Fuck him and his kind - and maybe one day we can bury him and his kind. A hope that still must be grounded in Reality!

Posted by: hondo at December 31, 2005 12:26 PM (3aakz)

21 factcheck, retard, tell me how we can both condemn terrorism in Uzbekistan AND also "instigate" it? dahoy!!! I'm waiting for an answer you little chickenshit coward. Don't run away pretending you never read this.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 31, 2005 12:32 PM (8e/V4)

22 Dear Mr. angry "using the Lord's name in vain", I'm sure Jesus wouldn't have used words like that... You really do NEED to check your facts... We could describe the Andijan massacre as the "Uzbek Tiananmen Square", except that many believe the death toll was much higher at Andijan. Under intense domestic pressure, the Bush administration somewhat begrudgingly condemned the killings (minimum 700 dead, according to independent observers), quite some time after they'd happened. For the previous few years, the State Department had been pretending that the human rights (sorry to use a term you despise, but there's no better one for it) situation in Uzbekistan was improving, and encouraging the Uzbeks to torture people for information that might be "useful". This included the use of "extraordinary rendition" (Google it). If the Bush administration hadn't condemned Andijan, the opposition in the US would have had a feel day highlighting the hypocrisy. And moderates like McCain were already raising serious concerns. It's still not clear whether they lost the airbase solely because of the criticism, or whether it was just that Karimov was seeking to realign himself towards Russia/China and used the condemnation as a pretext. And yes, the Chinese and the Russians have a far worse human rights record than the US does. There was an argument that appeasing Karimov was helping deter him from "turning to the dark side" (eg. Russia, China) but that's pretty tenuous. Karimov is basically a psychopath, and arrogant with it - he appears to be a law unto himself. The US/UK tried to do business with him and it didn't work. Murray was warning about Karimov's true nature as early as 2002. It took another two and a half years before the US/UK finally faced up to how much of a nutcase the Uzbek dictator is. He's every bit as evil as Saddam, and doing business with him is every bit as dangerous. This isn't just about "clean hands" - it's about standing up to dictators wherever they rear their ugly heads. I'm not suggesting we invade Uzbekistan, but if we'd cut off military and economic support back in 2002, we could at least have saved a few lives. The Andijan killers had been trained in "marksmanship" by the British army (google it) just months before the massacre. People like Craig Murray believe that we have a responsibility to expose this kind of stuff and try to stop it happening in future.

Posted by: Factcheck at December 31, 2005 12:37 PM (rD2AN)

23 Crapcheck, so Bushe's condemnation wasn't "sincere", and the British army "trained" the soldiers who shot some protesters, and that's how we are "instigating" torture in Uzbekistan. You know what, take your spin and shove it up your ass. There is no serious conversation possible between us.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 31, 2005 12:43 PM (8e/V4)

24 "When did you condemn the UN for its abuses, Factcheck?" Hmmm... "Factcheck" hereby condemns the UN for its abuses, not least all that stuff with peacekeepers raping civilians in Congo, together with this sort of thing: http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=50169

Posted by: Factcheck at December 31, 2005 12:45 PM (rD2AN)

25 President Bill Clinton struck up a relationship with Uzbek strongman Islam Karimov to stave off the common threat from Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban. http://www.slate.com/id/2119311

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 31, 2005 12:46 PM (8e/V4)

26 Little late for you to have any credibility, Factcheck.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 31, 2005 12:46 PM (rUyw4)

27 They shot more than 700 protestors. Seems like a bit more than "some". As for instigating torture, it was the fact that we were "lapping up" the information the Uzbeks were giving us, in the full knowledge that torture is standard procedure in their interrogations, and we were rewarding them for the information they were giving us. It was a systematic process with both sides knowing exactly what the other side wanted, and the means that were being used. Then there was all that stuff with "Extraordinary Rendition" where the US sent people to Uzbekistan for the specific purpose of their being tortured for information. What's sometimes called "outsourcing torture". Sorry if this knowledge upsets you. It upsets me too, but I don't think we do any good by trying to pretend it isn't true.

Posted by: Factcheck at December 31, 2005 12:49 PM (rD2AN)

28 Well hiss boo to Bill Clinton for that. No-one's saying he was an angel, either. I don't care what you think about my credibility. Try to focus on the arguments rather than resorting to ad hominem stuff. What you don't seem to understand is that this works every which way. There are some people on the left who will condemn the US without condemning Al Qaeda, China, Russia, UN corruption etc. and I'm happy to agree that that's hypocritical and stupid. But not everyone who's anti-torture is pro-terror. It's simplistic to pretend otherwise. Most people I know who are anti-torture are also completely anti-terror. Terrorism bad, torture bad. It really is nice and straightforward.

Posted by: Factcheck at December 31, 2005 12:53 PM (rD2AN)

29 Interesting. I don't at all think that either the UK or the US should ignore potentially valuable intelligence, whatever the source. At the same time, two other important points have been all but lost here: The intelligence in question was faulty. Anyone faced with being anally raped by broken bottles or boiled alive is going to tell his or her captors anything they want to hear, whether it's true or not. Relying on this sort of intelligence leads to the executive making bad decisions. The CIA station chief in Tashkent basically just looked the other way while this was going on. Is this the moral image that the U.S. should be presenting to the world?

Posted by: IO ERROR at December 31, 2005 12:55 PM (vhWf1)

30 Our military help to Karimov began during Clinton's regime, as the Washington Post reported back in August 2002: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A64817-2002Aug26?language=printer But you'll blame "Bush" even though he gave up those air bases, because his condemnation wasn't "sincere". hahaha! You people make my skin crawl. I need a shower now.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 31, 2005 12:58 PM (8e/V4)

31 >>>"They shot more than 700 protestors." crapcheck, and so I'm to assume that A) the British trained them for the express purpose of shooting those civilians, and B) but for that training the Uzbek army wouldn't have been able to kill all those civilians? Does the word logic mean anything to you cockroaches?

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 31, 2005 01:01 PM (8e/V4)

32 You can give Bush and Admin blame - but loath to even acknowledge some credit - and expect some measure of credibility from me. Karimov is a psychopath - of the old "Poppa Joe" School. It will get worse with or without us. In fact, without us - the media will follow. And Uzbekistan will fade from memory - 'cept as an occasional NOVA/National Geographic mention of some concerned group attempting to save - snow leopards or something like that. As far as Brit training - we train everybody in everything - soldiers - police - doctors - nurses -engineers etc etc etc. How they use or abuse it - you figure it out. Want a tough one - CDC & Western counterparts provide many "nations" with toxins, germs etc for research - and it is legitimate and necessary - but there is "dual use" - how do you say no?

Posted by: hondo at December 31, 2005 01:02 PM (3aakz)

33 Then why do you align yourself with the terrorists, Factcheck? And again, this was all fine with you libs when Bill Clinton was the master. What hypocrisy! And don't give Bush any credit when he severs the relationship, hell no, never. I'm with you, Carlos, I need to wash the scum off I am covered with just posting with these hypocrits.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 31, 2005 01:05 PM (rUyw4)

34 I'll off to the shooting range. You can say whatever you want about me, I don't give a care. I'll not waste another moment on people like Factcheck, who cannot see past their own agenda.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 31, 2005 01:10 PM (rUyw4)

35 IO "looked the other way" - as opposed to what? Bursting into the room to stop it? Please! Your not one of those who mourn over US immorality - then abruptly on another international issue demand we "show leadership and take the lead"? We are not the world's Moral Beacon! We try the best we can for ourselves (obviously I have faith), but if the World needs look elsewhere to find its "morality" - then the World is fucked!

Posted by: hondo at December 31, 2005 01:13 PM (3aakz)

36 >>>Well hiss boo to Bill Clinton for that. No-one's saying he was an angel, either. Not a peep out of you haters when Bill Clinton was guilty of far worse. Only now because "Bush" wasn't "sincere". Take a hike. You have zero credibility. brb, going to shower off these roach cooties.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 31, 2005 01:14 PM (8e/V4)

37 The true definition of Torture, not the one given by the Left (environmental hardships, psychological stress etc.) has been found over, and over again to be ineffective. Cutting/burning/beatings/etc. have as alluded to by IO Error, caused people to confess / fabricate information they had no knowledge of, and causes unnecessary suffering, compared to techniques the CIA / MIA already apply such as environment manipulation, sleep depravation, simulated drowning) etc. The "Ticking time bomb" scenario, is basically asking American's to ignore one evil, to save us from another: like the question "how many innocents would you kill to save X amount of others" the problem is we have become remarkably cavalier with our answers. The problem with accepting countries like Uzbekistan use of torture, is it taints us, and is incompatible with the ideas of Democracy we wish to create elsewhere, and as stated allows them to torture dissidents in OUR name. This is not the only example, it's like the foreign policy that condemns Iran's human right violations, and ignores our "allies" Saudi Arabia. Thanks to the Left, and their method of trying to condemn our current uses of gaining information, we'll probably have to outsource our information gathering from countries that DO practice REAL torture, and they will be the ones to blame for that.

Posted by: dave at December 31, 2005 01:58 PM (CcXvt)

38 I take idiots like factcheck with a grain of salt, because they're completely inconsequential except as reminders of why we have to remain vigilant against evil and stupidity. They need nothing more than a bullet and a ditch, or perhaps a rope and an overpass, for greater dramatic effect and to send a better message. I can tolerate a difference of opinion as long as everyone knows who the good guys are, but once that distinction is lost, then no mercy is warranted. A good liberal is a dead liberal.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 31, 2005 01:59 PM (0yYS2)

39 Using big bad sweary words doesn't help your argument, just makes you sound like an angry little spoiled child whose comfortable view of the world has been all shaken up. Your use of the term "cockroach" is interesting. That was what the Rwandan Hutu-extremists called the Tutsi minority during the 1994 genocide, when more than 800,000 Tutsi civilians were murdered in 100 days. The extremists carried out that genocide claiming that this was the only way to stop a Tutsi-led insurgency in Rwanda. Ring any bells? It's you who "aligns yourself" with terrorists by accepting the logic that it's OK to deliberately kill and maim innocent people for your own selfish little perverted reasons. How is condemning the torture of innocent people aligning yourself with terrorists?! Terrorists really dig torturing innocent people - look at the way they behave in Iraq! You might not be aware of this, but the human rights community was speaking out against abuses in Uzbekistan, Iraq, China, Iran etc. long before Bush ever got on the case (again, google it - or check www.hrw.org and www.amnesty.org). HRW also did a great report criticising the Iraqi insurgency for all their disgusting abuses. This is the point of human rights - an abuse is an abuse, and politics is no excuse. Suicide bombing is wrong, indiscriminate reprisal attacks against civilians, also wrong... Why would I want to "blame Bush" for everything? Of course Bush didn't start this - but he (under the influence of Rumsfeld/Cheney and the gang) did make it much worse. Happy to agree that anyone, whatever their party or nationality, who merrily does business with killers is thereby complicit. Not forgetting the long and passionate love affair between the Bush family and the Bin Ladens. Please don't think that this is about anyone's "credibility". I don't want you to believe what I'm saying just because I'm saying it. I want you to check this stuff on Google, and then make up your own mind. 1) Have we been instigating torture or not? 2) How sure are we that instigating torture will protect us from terrorism, rather than generating massive grievances that lead to even more terrorism? Happy New Year!

Posted by: factcheck at December 31, 2005 02:08 PM (rD2AN)

40 >>>"Your use of the term "cockroach" is interesting. That was what the Rwandan Hutu-extremists called the Tutsi minority during the 1994 genocide, ...yawn. Could you people possibly be anymore predictable? JJ, where's your shooting range. Maybe we could go shooting together sometime.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 31, 2005 02:11 PM (8e/V4)

41 "They need nothing more than a bullet and a ditch, or perhaps a rope and an overpass, for greater dramatic effect and to send a better message. I can tolerate a difference of opinion as long as everyone knows who the good guys are, but once that distinction is lost, then no mercy is warranted. A good liberal is a dead liberal." Now who's inciting terrorism?! Do you like the idea of torturing and killing people? How would you do it? Would you kill me straight out, Osama, or torture me first like your friends did at Abu Graib? Maybe Al Qaeda have a vacancy for you...

Posted by: factcheck at December 31, 2005 02:14 PM (rD2AN)

42 >>>"I can tolerate a difference of opinion as long as everyone knows who the good guys are, but once that distinction is lost, then no mercy is warranted." agree wholeheartedly. At that point they are really nothing more than an internal enemy. But we still live in a country of laws though, so we should oppose them lawfully. But let's not pretend that makes them any less an enemy. Unless of course they bring on their "revolution", then it's open season on these traitors.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 31, 2005 02:15 PM (8e/V4)

43 "...no mercy is warranted. A good liberal is a dead liberal..." You forgot to add "you love life, we love death"... I'm glad that Jesusland Carlos is prepared to spare my life, at least for the moment. Very nice of you, Mr. C. But if you saw someone trying to torture a Liberal to death, would you intervene or give them a smug little thumbs up?

Posted by: factcheck at December 31, 2005 02:19 PM (rD2AN)

44 FC, a more relevant question to ask is why we despise you Libs so much. If you spend a fraction of the time that you spend trying to "understand" jihadists on trying to understand us, you might learn something new. I won't be holding my breath though, as you have already shown that it's only enemies of this country that you will go out of your way to "understand." You're very selective in who you choose to "understand."

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 31, 2005 02:24 PM (8e/V4)

45 I do not adopt the "torture" makes more terrorists philosophy; the fact that Saddam was torturing his people for decades, vs. many "terrorists" attacks did he endure?

Posted by: dave at December 31, 2005 02:26 PM (CcXvt)

46 factcheck Your not going to get anywhere reacting to/off the reactions - except becoming a similar alt-reaction yourself - and wandering off topic into the all-not-important point scoring phase. If you understand what I just said - take a breather - and get ready to go out tonight and party.

Posted by: hondo at December 31, 2005 02:28 PM (3aakz)

47 >>>Well hiss boo to Bill Clinton for that. No-one's saying he was an angel, either. This reminds me entirely of the moonbats who blame the eeeevil Republicans for "making" Osama by supporting the mujahedin against the Soviets. But then when you remind these history-challenged moonbats that it was JIMMY FUCKING CARTER who iniated our support of the mujahedin it's funny watching them try to spin their way out of that one. hehehe! morons.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 31, 2005 03:08 PM (8e/V4)

48 To all the factchecks and Hakes of the world: Rant and rave about the horrors of torture, blame the west for why it happens, and scream bloody murder if any country has any relations at all with those countries who routinely practice torture. And then turn around and shriek, criticizing those same countries when they invade one of those bastions of torture and sources of instability for an entire region of the world to put an end to it. You can't have it both ways. All you guys want is your little isolationist, peace-loving, hear-no-evil, see-no-evil, wouldn't want to offend anybody, world to live in so it's easier for you ignore what's going on beyond your borders. That world doesn't exist anywhere but between your ears. While factcheck claims to be "balanced" in his view of torture and terrorism he sure spends a lot of his time browbeating this administration and any conservative opinion he/she comes across and will say nothing else until dragged onto the carpet kicking and screaming. I've seen much of this from him/her in other blogs too. Never once has factcheck started a comment alluding to being anything but morally superior by first insulting the host's intelligence. No. Factcheck likes to dive right in with preconceived notions and assumptions on whatever someone says, as noted well in his very first comment castigating Bluto. He wants you to set aside "your insipid isults" for a very public and political figure while he tells you how ignorant you are. Sometimes it's just plain fun to shoot the messenger. Especially when there are so many more out there who aren't so damn smug.

Posted by: Oyster at December 31, 2005 03:14 PM (YudAC)

49 Good question about Saddam - he clearly did manage to keep all resistance (both violent and non-violent) at bay through his vicious repression. But my feeling is (and you may disagree) that the terrible terrorist violence we're seeing now is partly the product of the insane brutalisation inflicted by Saddam on his own people. I'm not with those who blame the invasion for the terrorism that's going on. That was just the trigger, in my view. There was always going to be a terrible knock-on effect for Saddam's brutality. He's created a generation of angry, messed-up, brutalised people, and it was always going to come back to haunt the world in the end. As usual the people suffering most (ie. innocent Iraqis and coalition soldiers) aren't the people who created the problem - eg. Saddam and the B'aathists. I do think that better post-war planning would have mitigated the problems, though, and things like Abu Graib did make things much worse, together with the appearance of cynicism and corruption (Halliburton etc.). I do believe in the basic rule that one injustice tends to cause (not justify or excuse, but cause) another. I agree that Liberals need to much more vocal in condemning China, terrorism etc. and more consistent in "seeking to understand". Happy New Year! Here's hoping it's more peaceful, all round, than the last one...

Posted by: factcheck at December 31, 2005 03:14 PM (rD2AN)

50 Oyster, I think you're being a bit oversimplistic in assuming that all critics of torture think the same way. Don't tar everyone with the same brush. Carlos, Interesting point about Carter and the Mujahaddin. I wasn't aware of that. But the point is that I'm not criticising Bush because of which party he belongs to. I'm criticising him because of what he's actually done. I can't speak for anyone else, but if Dems did the same thing I'd be equally critical. Tony Blair belongs to the nearest British equivalent of the Dems and we've been at least as critical of him as we have of Bush. This isn't about party - it's about policy. The issue is not about having relations with torturers per se. It's about giving money and weapons to torturers, and encouraging them to torture even more, and it's about the fact that our doing this makes us even more vulnerable to terrorism. We should never shy away from doing the right thing simply for fear that it will make us more vulnerable to terrorism. But we could be thinking a bit more carefully before we cheerfully go and do the WRONG thing (eg. Abu Graib), in the assumption that there will be no adverse consequences further down the line.

Posted by: Factcheck at December 31, 2005 03:27 PM (rD2AN)

51 As I suspected - you were here solely for the point-scoring contest. It's a pity 'bout those Uzbeks - no one really gives a fuck about'em.

Posted by: hondo at December 31, 2005 03:41 PM (3aakz)

52 Interesting, I don't believe we should shy away from torture because of the creation of terrorists, regimes like Saudi Arabia and Egypt will create more, than we ever could. We should shy away from torture because it is incompatible with our ideals, and our way of life. Abu Ghraib was not a matter of United States policy, it was a problem with a lack of supervision, and a problem with the people placed there. The same thing goes on all over the U.S prison systems with individuals abusing the prisoners in the system. Last time I checked that wasn't a policy in the Government handbook either.

Posted by: dave at December 31, 2005 03:48 PM (CcXvt)

53 Where did I tar everyone with the same brush?

Posted by: Oyster at December 31, 2005 03:49 PM (YudAC)

54 Isn't the killing of fellow Americans with whom you disagree on political matters a little extreme ? Perhaps simply torturing liberals would be sufficient. I know that some people who contribute here seem unduly fond of hanging all liberals, but they may be converted to proper political thought simply thru torture. Much like what was done during the inquisition to religious heretics. After all the mere threat of torture worked with Galileo Galilei .

Posted by: john Ryan at December 31, 2005 04:00 PM (ads7K)

55 Another meaningless point-scorer/seeker has emerged. God help those Uzbeks.

Posted by: hondo at December 31, 2005 04:06 PM (3aakz)

56 >>>This isn't about party - it's about policy. If it's just about "policy", then I'll have to remind you, again, that it was Bill Clinton who cozied up to Kasimov, and George Bush who distanced himself. This, of course, won't matter to you, because it isn't about policy, it's about Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 31, 2005 04:22 PM (8e/V4)

57 Oh wah you little bitch. I'm not inciting terrorism, I just want to kill you and all other liberals. If it's okay for the muslim pigs to want to kill Jews, then it's okay for me to want to kill liberals, and you're the ones who set the rules about that. Fuck you.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 31, 2005 04:34 PM (0yYS2)

58 >>>If it's okay for the muslim pigs to want to kill Jews, then it's okay for me to want to kill liberals, I see the logic in that.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 31, 2005 04:47 PM (8e/V4)

59 Agent Smith says someone is improbulably bobbing for sausages.

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 31, 2005 06:09 PM (X9zNj)

60 I didn't make the rules Carlos, but I'll damn sure play by them. Anyone who condones the murder of innocents or supports terrorists in any way deserves nothing more than to die, and preferably in as painful a way as can be devised within reason. Liberals supported Hitler. Liberals supported Stalin. Liberals supported the North Vietnamese. Liberals support Osama and Saddam. Liberals support Castro. Liberals support Hugo Chavez. Liberals should all be killed.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 31, 2005 07:05 PM (0yYS2)

61 Agent Smith says to Improbulus Maximus, "catch a sausage yet?"

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 31, 2005 07:30 PM (X9zNj)

62 I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about but I CARE!!!!!111oneoneoneonene From the WaPo article* announcing the rift between Bush and Karimov: "A United Nations report issued yesterday...." Quite a wait, eh? Less than two months after Andijan and one day after the official report. DAMN THAT BUSH! * - Titled "Cold War Rivalry Reviving in Central Asia" by Robin Wright and Colum Lynch

Posted by: Shorter Factcheck at December 31, 2005 10:25 PM (c7rNU)

63 "If it's OK for Muslim pigs to want to kill Jews, then it's OK for me to want to kill Liberals". Your logic is flawless, but of course plenty of Liberals (including this one) condemn anyone who kills innocent people, whatever the religion/ethnicity of the aggressor or the victim. I don't know any Liberals who supported Hitler. But I do know that George Bush's grandfather did business with him (google it). Also, we had a guy in Britain called Oswald Moseley, who reminds me a lot of you, and he actively supported Hitler. Agreed that torture is incompatible with our ideals - but clearly not everyone on this site shares those ideals. So I'd just say that even if you can't agree that torture is wrong, at least try to understand that it's likely to cause more terrorism. Abu Graib WAS the result of US policy - read the Human Rights Watch report. It's sad that you want to kill all Liberals, especially given that 49% of your fellow voters gave their votes to John Kerry. Are you advocating massacring 49% of the US population? You really are a good little terrorist-in-the-making... Osama would be so proud of you! Do you think that the Liberals who died on 911 deserved to die too? Sorry to break the sad news to you, but Bush did not distance himself from Karimov until he was forced to. Between 2001 and 2005 his administration massively extended and developed US support for the regime. If Clinton (hiss boo) began the relationship then sure he's complicit too - but one's man misdemeanour can't excuse another's. Maybe they're both complicit. You may also want to look at this: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushlay12.html I'd have thought that the last thing the US needs right now is another civil war, but that's what you'll get if you start hacking your Liberal neighbours to death simply because you don't like their political views :0) Sorry if you feel that your "Liberal" compatriots have had a double-standard over Clinton, Carter, Uzbekistan, terrorism etc. but that's not my fault or my problem. My beef is that this article makes a number of statements which are just factually untrue, and I don't think that telling lies will help us beat terrorism. Neither will killing your fellow Americans. Please don't do it. Happy New Year!

Posted by: Factcheck at January 01, 2006 05:46 AM (rD2AN)

64 Agent Smith says to Factcheck: don't worry about TJR's resident lunatic's rants. Improbulus Maximus is a harmless little fuzzball. Agent Smith always tortures with steaks.

Posted by: Agent Smith at January 01, 2006 06:19 AM (X9zNj)

65 [yoda] Armchair Generals not real soldiers are [/yoda]

Posted by: The Big Salmon/Cod/Hake at January 01, 2006 08:11 AM (QQnhS)

66 "But I do know that George Bush's grandfather did business with him..." And of course this makes GWB guilty of it. Right? What bearing did that little factoid of yours have on the argument? There were many who supported the Nazi cause in much more forthright manners than doing business with German companies. Even his grandfather's worst detractors don't say that he was sympathetic to the Nazi cause. I personally wouldn't condone it, but let's not make a leading statement. And I always hear the same argument. If GWB does anything right, it was because he was forced to.

Posted by: Oyster at January 01, 2006 08:52 AM (YudAC)

67 >>>Sorry to break the sad news to you, but Bush did not distance himself from Karimov until he was forced to." FC, I think you know as well as I do that Bush does as he damn well pleases and can't be "forced" to do anything (see Iraq). He doesn't govern by polls (not that anybody had even heard of Kasimov), and he doesn't give two rat turds what Libs think about him. That's exactly why you hate him so much (and why we love him). So the bit about him being "forced" vis a vis Kasimov is just more spin. It's easy to spot.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 01, 2006 10:15 AM (8e/V4)

68 >>>And I always hear the same argument. If GWB does anything right, it was because he was forced to. Oyster, and notice that when a Democrat does something wrong it was because they were "forced" to by the eeevil Republicans. And no, Prescott Bush wasn't "sympathetic" to the Nazi cause. He was just one of thousands of businessmen doing business in Germany at the time, so today we can look back and say he was "doing business with Hitler" and score some cheapie points. Whatever. The moonbats really believe that drivel. I don't.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 01, 2006 10:23 AM (8e/V4)

69 WARNINGS: Big Cod/Hake/Salmon - pick a name and stick with it, or have your comments deleted. Agent Smith - either be responsive in your comments, or they will be deleted, and you can get your Seoul-food somewhere else.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 01, 2006 10:59 AM (RHG+K)

70 FC, and another thing, you say it's about "policy" not party, but then you write long comments about motivation, i.e., he was "forced" to. So which is it? policy? or motivation. The fact is, when the party you don't like (evil Republicans) do something you approve of (dissavow Kasimov), all you're left at that point is to criticize their motivations (they were "forced" to). So it does in fact just boil down to party-- not policy.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 01, 2006 11:05 AM (8e/V4)

71 ARABS sympathized with the Nazi cause: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/muftihit.html

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 01, 2006 11:14 AM (8e/V4)

72 Factcheck Before you get bored with the all-not-important point scoring, sometimes peripheral, sometimes irrelevant, sidebar, nobar, bag of often disjointed "issues" ... .. how 'bout those Uzbeks! Don't worry - its a New Year and early too - you will find a new "issue" to seize you with "righteous resolve" and "commitment" for the coming year. And if the oppportunity arises (and you still care)- check out the shish kabab n' the manty ans somsa at the Vostok at 55th & 13 Ave BKLYN - traditional Uzbek cusine and decor - photos of Uzbekistan, and of course - Ronald Reagan. Go figure.

Posted by: hondo at January 01, 2006 11:23 AM (3aakz)

73 Hey smith you fucktard moron, are you ever going to post anything substantive, or can't you take time away from being an idiot long enough?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 01, 2006 11:38 AM (0yYS2)

74 Yep - some Arabs are sympathetic to the Nazis, and those guys should be ashamed of themselves. That doesn't make ALL Arabs evil. If you love Bush, so much for the good. At least there's something in this world that you don't hate. Like every shrewd politician, Bush listens carefully to what the pollsters are telling him. He'd never have gone into Iraq if there hadn't been popular support for it. He'd never have condemned Andijan if there hadn't been a growing outcry over it. I like to take the "hate the sin, love the sinner" point of view. I don't hate Bush - I just think he's misguided and dishonest, and perhaps also criminally corrupt, and for that reason dangerous. He certainly seems far preferable to Cheney and Rumsfeld, who come over as out-and-out fraudsters. Maybe you're right and I'm wrong on this, but that's honestly how things look from here. I'm sure that Bush has also done plenty of good things, policywise. No-one would have voted for him if that wasn't the case. He comes over as a good, personable guy who instinctively understands what his voters want and need. He showed an impressive resolve after 911, and most people I know were happy to support the war in Afghanistan - which was/is after all where the terrorists' head honcho was hiding out. I honestly think that attitudes would be very different if the War on Terror had been more closely focussed on getting the actual guys responsible for 911 rather than attacking a third country that had nothing to do with it. Blair's October 2001 speech also seemed to make a lot sense to me - I think that if things had been done in the way he was then proposing, the overall outcome would have been much better.

Posted by: Factcheck at January 01, 2006 11:44 AM (rD2AN)

75 FC, if it's not about party, then I guess you have to demonize Teddy Kennedy too. You see, Prescott Bush was a businessman doing business in Germany for profit. But Joe Kennedy, Teddy's grandpa, actually sympathized with Hitler IDEOLOGICALLY. "Joe Kennedy, when he was an ambassador to Berlin, the father -- ambassador to England, rather, right before the war in the late '30s, had been known to be anti- semitic and pro-Hitler." ~~transcript of interview with Seymour Hersch http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/Jfk-conspiracy/tl_00.html This, also, from Seymour Hersh via the Jewish News of Greater Phoenix piece is quite unpleasant: "Hersh describes Joe Kennedy's attitude toward Hitler in 1938, while serving as U.S. ambassador to Great Britain. According to Hersh, Ambassador Kennedy "repeatedly sought a personal meeting with Hitler on the eve of the Nazi blitzkrieg" to bring about a "better understanding" between the U.S. and Germany. Hersh details Joe Kennedy's anti-Semitism. According to Hersh, Harvey Klemmer, one of Kennedy's embassy aides, said that Kennedy generally referred to Jews as "kikes or sheenies." Joe Kennedy also allegedly told Klemmer that "individual Jews are all right, Harvey, but as a race they stink. They spoil everything they touch." Hersh also draws on German documents describing meetings with Joe Kennedy and the German ambassador, stating that Joe Kennedy "understood our Jewish policy completely" and "himself mentioned that very strong anti-Semitic feelings existed in the U.S. and that a large portion of the population had an understanding of the German attitude toward the Jews." What do you say, FC? It's not about party, right?

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 01, 2006 11:53 AM (8e/V4)

76 PS - my point about Prescott Bush was in response to the assertion that "Liberals supported the Nazis". I don't know which Liberals were alleged to have supported the Nazis, but whether or not it's true (it wouldn't surprise me) that doesn't make every Liberal a Nazi-lover any more than Prescott Bush's little dalliance makes every Republican businessman a Nazi-lover. My point was not to visit the sins of the Grandfathers onto Bush-the-younger, but merely to point out that many people aided and abetted the Nazis in many different ways. Britain's Neville Chamberlain was a Conservative, by the way. The Nazis were most fiercely opposed in Britain by the Socialist movement, of which Tony Blair's Labour Party was one product. The world is a complex place.

Posted by: Factcheck at January 01, 2006 11:56 AM (rD2AN)

77 Didn't know that about Joe Kennedy - if it's true then of course it's completely reprehensible and there's no excuse for it. This is my point exactly - no party or creed or nation or religion has a monopoly on stupidity or corruption. Happy to agree with you 100% that JK's sucking up to the Nazis was shameful and disgusting. Being Ted Kennedy's grandfather is no excuse!

Posted by: Factcheck at January 01, 2006 12:03 PM (rD2AN)

78 >>>"I don't know which Liberals were alleged to have supported the Nazis, lmao! I just posted on a prominent Liberal who actually supported the Nazis, numbnuts.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 01, 2006 12:04 PM (8e/V4)

79 FC, then you will agree with me that the sins of Prescott and Joe and IRRELEVANT to Teddy and George.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 01, 2006 12:05 PM (8e/V4)

80 How about those Uzbeks! Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Posted by: hondo at January 01, 2006 12:06 PM (3aakz)

81 ...are irrelevant.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 01, 2006 12:06 PM (8e/V4)

82 hondo, this is totally about the Uzbeks, but in a really roundabout way ;-)

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 01, 2006 12:11 PM (8e/V4)

83 Happy to concede that it's never right to hold anyone (Bush, Kennedy or whoever) responsible for what their grandparents (or any other relative) did... Not sure it's completely irrelevant though. Arguably Bush is a financial beneficiary of Nazi collaboration. If the same is true of the Kennedy fortune (maybe you can tell me if Joe was also making money off the Nazis - I'd not be overly surprised) then of course exactly the same would apply. But as I mention above, my main point was to illustrate the fact that plenty of non-Liberals, including the President's grandfather also supported the Nazis.

Posted by: FC at January 01, 2006 12:13 PM (rD2AN)

84 >>>Didn't know that about Joe Kennedy FC, the reason you didn't know that about Kennedy is because that's moonbat tactics, and we don't play that kind of game. Maybe not you, but moonbats pull the "Prescott Bush" card ALL THE TIME. Drawing on Prescott Bush (or Joe Kennedy) is just about cheapie points, and I was just reacting to it because of how often moonbats resort to that gimmick. I couldn't care less about Joe Kennedy or Prescott Bush.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 01, 2006 12:24 PM (8e/V4)

85 Back to the Uzbeks... (responding to Hondo) I think my point about the Uzbeks is that we shouldn't be encouraging their government to torture them, even those who Karimov claims are terrorists. I guess the basic rule of thumb would be that if we can't do anything to make the situation better we should at least stop trying to make it worse. Thanks for the restaurant recommendation - if I'm ever there I'll check it out. During the Reagan era, Karimov was a rising star in the Soviet Communist Party, which Reagan worked tirelessly to defeat. Just a few years later, Reagan's own party was merrily doing business with this barely-reconstructed Communist killer. Go figure! As to what we (ie. Western civilisation) can/should do now - well it's good that we've distanced ourselves from Karimov, although the Germans do still seem to love him. I guess we then have to do everything we can to support the pro-democracy movement, as we did in Ukraine and elsewhere. "Regime change" definitely seems like a good policy objective, though I honestly don't know how this could best be achieved.

Posted by: FC at January 01, 2006 12:36 PM (rD2AN)

86 (Responding to Carlos) Well down with the moonbats then! I only heard that word for the first time yesterday so I'm still not entirely sure what it means, but they sound like a pretty bad bunch.

Posted by: FC at January 01, 2006 12:37 PM (rD2AN)

87 OK, now I know what "moonbat" means, and I also learned about "wingnuts" at the same time. Great words. "Moonbats and wingnuts" - soundss like a kind of blogging equivalent of the "Bloods and Krips" (one using blue and the other using red). Or else two different kinds of candy... Off topic discussion point - is it better to be a wingnut or a moonbat? Could there be such a thing as a wingbat?

Posted by: FC at January 01, 2006 12:46 PM (rD2AN)

88 Bottom line 1: Fatcheck would allow people to die in order to avoid using "tainted" information. Bottom line 2: Craig Murray is a bottom-feeding scumbag who has betrayed his country by exposing classified documents in time of war, most likely to achieve personal notoriety and exact petty revenge for his sacking. He has also conspired with likeminded bloggers to aggravate his original crimes. Bottom line 3: If we allow people like Murray and Factcheck to influence decisions in the GWOT, we will either convert to Islam or be exterminated. Those who cannot wrap their minds around this grim fact and continue to conduct politics as usual are "moonbats". For historical perspective, compare "quisling", "appeasement", "Vichy France".

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 01, 2006 01:00 PM (RHG+K)

89 Bluto, I would say that about sums it up.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 01, 2006 01:04 PM (8e/V4)

90 Bingo, Bluto!

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 01, 2006 01:07 PM (rUyw4)

91 Chill out, no-one's going to "exterminate" you. If using a random piece of torture-tainted info could stop a particular terrorist attack, then I'd not have any great issue with it. But that's not how the real world works, and that's not what's been going on. What's been going on is systematic US/British-sponsored torture for political purposes - eg. the "intelligence" claiming a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda was manufactured by the Egyptians, torturing an Al Qaeda suspect on our behalf. The Russians and Chinese, Syrians, Iranians, North Koreans etc. and many other countries also sponsor and carry out horrific acts of torture. We shouldn't be emulating them. The more people you torture, the more terrorist attacks there will be. Think of it as a kind of karmic rule... Fighting terror with terror just causes more terror. That's the bottom line.

Posted by: FC at January 01, 2006 01:14 PM (rD2AN)

92 Factcheck, Hmmm...I have to assume the terrorists will do exactly what they say they will do. If they can, and I say if, they will explode a nuclear device in a Western city. Will it be London? NYC? Paris? LA? Chicago? I don't know, but I firmly believe the terrorists have a better than 50/50 chance of obtaining a nuclear device, and I know they will use it. When a mushroom cloud rises over NYC, what do you think we will do? If you don't see a world-changing event here, bud, you are delusional.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 01, 2006 02:01 PM (rUyw4)

93 Factcheck has obligingly displayed exactly the mindset I predicted. FC: "Chill out, no-one's going to 'exterminate' you." FC can't wrap his mind around the concept that we could lose. It's tempting to regard this as a UK imperial blindness holdover, but, at its core, it's really simple racism. "Of course the little brown third world worshippers of Allah can't really harm us". Then FC attempts to update the old saw, "violence never settles anything," the most ignorant weapon in the liberal arsenal: "Fighting terror with terror just causes more terror." - also an example of the chronic disingenuity that infests liberal "debate". FC has upped the ante; now interrogating terrorists isn't merely "torture", it's "terror". Moral equivalence raises its ugly head. But let's examine at FC's philosophy. Dropping the emotionally laden word "terror", we can derive from FC's assertion: "Fighting violence with violence just causes more violence," - a completely ridiculous position wholly invalidated by world history. Finally, from FC's original purpose in coming here we know that FC believes that treason is inconsequential if FC agrees with the ideology of the traitor. Laws are for those wrong-thinking individuals who disagree. So, what have we learned about Factcheck? He/she/it is an anarchic, traitorous, racist with little or no knowledge of world history. Quite likely a university student, given the shabby standards of liberal arts education these days.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 01, 2006 02:11 PM (RHG+K)

94 The gonzo "we love death" Islamist brigade would, I'm sure, love to exterminate us all - but I still don't think that they have the manpower or the capability to carry it off. I'm not saying there isn't a threat, or that the threat isn't serious. If they got hold of one nuke the consequences could be catastrophic, but they'd need a whole bunch of 'em to be able to exterminate us, and I don't think they have that capability. Of course I know that this would be no great consolation to the citizens of London (where I live) or New York if they ever managed to deliver a nuke there. I acknowledge that there is a risk, but I don't think anyone really knows how much of a risk it really is, and having grown up living in terror of getting nuked by the Soviets, I'm sure as hell not going to live in constant fear of Al Qaeda. Maybe the nuke-scenario is inevitable, in which case my city would, I guess, be high on the list of targets, but if there's any chance of stopping it, we have to win over "hearts and minds" where we can, and fight smart where we can't. Torture is not fighting smart, nor does it win over hearts and minds - it's a propaganda gift to the extremists and I honestly think that it's only going to boost their manpower.

Posted by: FC at January 01, 2006 02:21 PM (rD2AN)

95 Terrorism isn't just violence - it's illegitimate violence, and that's the problem. Fighting illegitimate violence with illegitimate violence causes more illegitimate violence. Or to put it another way, fighting injustice with injustice causes more injustice.

Posted by: FC at January 01, 2006 02:25 PM (rD2AN)

96 I hope you're right in your belief that the allegations of systematic US/British-sponsored torture are untrue. But it's looking harder and harder to defend that position. I guess history will be the judge in the end. I'm happy to say that I don't think the terrorists can "win", in the sense that I don't believe they're capable of destroying our civilisation. But of course I could be wrong about that. So could you. We just don't know for sure. But I honestly don't think that torturing thousands of "suspects", many of whom inevitably will be innocent, is going to make us safer overall.

Posted by: FC at January 01, 2006 02:47 PM (rD2AN)

97 Now we are "torturing thousands of suspects" according to FC. Man, you are delusional. Where are you getting your information?

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 01, 2006 02:54 PM (rUyw4)

98 Craig Murray's a whistleblower, helping to expose government fraud and corruption which is putting us all at risk - you can call that treason if you like, but personally I'd call it patriotism. On the subject of treason - sending thousands of your own soldiers to die on the basis of lies seems like treason to me. So does fuelling global hatred against your own country by torturing thousands of "suspects" who've never been tried or convicted of any crime, to justify an endless war, the true objective of which has nothing to do with freedom or democracy and everything to do with fat profits for Halliburton and Aegis. The American middle class pays billions of dollars in taxes to Cheney and Rumsfeld, who transfer the money to their upper-class friends in the arms industry, who supply the weapons to the poor guys in the army, most of whom are from the American underclass, who have to go off and get killed in wars which only fuel the terrorism they're supposed to be stamping out... The only people who really "win" are the terrorists and the tiny elite of the American upper class. A more efficient way of managing this process would be for you middle class Americans to cut out the middle man and just to hand your cash straight over to Cheney's upper class arms industry pals. There'd be no need for any WMD lies and no need to send the underclass off to the Middle East to get blown up by roadside bombs every few days. And you'd probably have less terrorism. Have you ever wondered why Canada, Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Switzerland don't get attacked by terrorists when Britain, Egypt, France and America do?

Posted by: FC at January 01, 2006 03:12 PM (rD2AN)

99 Where am I getting my information? It's all on www.craigmurray.co.uk !!! Extraordinary Rendition and all that.

Posted by: FC at January 01, 2006 03:13 PM (rD2AN)

100 Comment #100 How about those Uzbeks! What a wasted thread!

Posted by: hondo at January 01, 2006 03:17 PM (3aakz)

101 ...I honestly don't know how many people have fallen foul of our torture network, but some estimates do range in the thousands. But the general point is that if you really follow the pro-torture argument through to its logical conclusion, you would end up torturing thousands of people, because there are thousands of potential suspects out there, any of whom might have "useful" information to reveal if we tortured them...

Posted by: FC at January 01, 2006 03:17 PM (rD2AN)

102 See previous posting (about four or five back from this one) for comments on "the poor Uzbeks". Sorry if you feel this is a wasted thread - I've just been trying to answer all the well-put and challenging questions that your fellow commenters have been raising. If you don't think I'm doing a good job maybe you could "even up the sides" and help me out? ;o) I'm sure you'd be an excellent Devil's Advocate.

Posted by: FC at January 01, 2006 03:21 PM (rD2AN)

103 Your more than capable of floundering and drowning on your own.

Posted by: hondo at January 01, 2006 03:26 PM (3aakz)

104 Awww... I'm flattered that you credit me with something, even if it is only the ability to flounder and drown. But anyhow, Hondo - back to the topic. What do YOU think about those poor Uzbeks?

Posted by: FC at January 01, 2006 03:29 PM (rD2AN)

105 Ha Ha Ha Your way too late - play with the others - Agent Smith is keeping score (NOT).

Posted by: hondo at January 01, 2006 03:34 PM (3aakz)

106 FC's entire argument boils down to bushitlerburton and shilling for Murray. [yawn] What a waste of bandwidth.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 01, 2006 03:34 PM (RHG+K)

107 FC, the fact that you flounder and drown says less about you, FC, than about the worldview you've chosen to support. It must be incredibly tiresome for you. My worldview, on the other hand, is a pleasure to defend. And I do a great job at it too, not because I'm particularly clever, but because my worldview is sound and easily defensible. Being conservative just makes so much more sense.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 01, 2006 03:59 PM (8e/V4)

108 JC, For me "liberal" is a flag of convenience. It seems to mean different things to different people, so I'm not sure if that's how I'd necessarily label myself, but I guess it's a close approximation. I guess if Human Rights Watch was a political party I'd probably vote for them! And I don't think human rights are incompatible with any mainstream political philosophy, except maybe Blairite "socialism" (he does still technically call himself a socialist, by the way). It's not Conservatism I'm taking issue with. People like McCain (who I take it still counts as a conservative?) strike me as thoroughly decent guys. I'm not under any illusions about the infallibility of my own views, and I'm always happy to have them rigorously challenged and tested by people like yourself. I'm glad you enjoy the discussion. I'm always interested in hearing a different take on things, which is why I come to places like this. What bothers me about the current administrations in both the UK and the US is this specific torture issue and the appearance (of course nothing's yet been solidly proven) of endemic corruption. On the subject of Murray, you might find this interesting. I'd be interested to know your comments: http://www.chris-floyd.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=376&Itemid=1

Posted by: FC at January 01, 2006 04:24 PM (rD2AN)

109 FC, Your drowning in a sea of bullshit. Thousands of people tortured by the US and GB you say, and your only proof is the rantings of a madman. You've lost it, dude!

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 01, 2006 05:26 PM (rUyw4)

110 Murray had a nervous breakdown during his time as an Ambassador to Uzbekistan - I suspect that many of us would have done too if we'd seen what he saw. That doesn't make him delusional. Obviously the Uzbeks, Egyptians, Moroccans, Gambians etc. would still have been torturing a certain number of people even if we hadn't been asking them to do it on our behalf. But there does seem to be growing evidence of additional "torture by proxy" at our instigation. Whether these additional cases number hundreds or thousands I don't honestly know. I hope you're right that the torture-count estimates are way too high. Like I said, it's probably going to take time before hard figures emerge. But it's not just Murray who's painting this general picture - check this: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/11/21/usdom12069.htm There are also a few ex-CIA guys saying similar things.

Posted by: FC at January 01, 2006 06:39 PM (rD2AN)

111 Some interesting stuff here too: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/11/21/usdom12071.htm

Posted by: FC at January 01, 2006 06:43 PM (rD2AN)

112 So making the guy just stand in place is torture now? Whatever.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 01, 2006 07:05 PM (8e/V4)

113 FC, You seem like an intelligent guy, but dude, throw the al-Guardian away and open your mind, as you have been brainwashed. Read Jihad in the West by Paul Fregosi, read The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam by Robert Spencer, or go to Daniel Pipes website and get another view of the World. Tim Blair is a great blogger from Australia, Fjordman from Norway, or the Daily Ablution in GB are all great blogs that you should spend some time on. Throw that liberal suicidal crap away before it is too late, and quit being ashamed of what GB has done in the past. As Winston Churchill, the greatest of all Britons said, " Arise and take your stand for freedom as in the olden times".

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 01, 2006 07:36 PM (rUyw4)

114 FC, Go to Powerlineblog.com, scroll down to Mark Steyn's story under Threats to Democracy and read it. Everything I could tell you about Britain and Western Europe is in his article. If you never do anything else in your life, do this.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 01, 2006 08:27 PM (rUyw4)

115 Agent Brown dug through the archives and quoted Churchill, the greatest of all Britons, "I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes". Agent Jones says Churchill was talking about Iraqis.

Posted by: Agent Smith at January 02, 2006 06:37 AM (b1Uko)

116 Well, hell, Agent, gas was used against the Britons by Germany, so what's your point? That you are stupid. Good point!

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 02, 2006 08:52 AM (rUyw4)

117 Smith, and the Brits used poison gas right back at the Germans, so yeah, what exactly is your point.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 02, 2006 09:17 AM (8e/V4)

118 Agent Smith's point is that Churchill was racist because he called them "uncivilized tribes", no matter the fact that that's exactly what they are/were.

Posted by: dcb at January 02, 2006 10:21 AM (8e/V4)

119 And like I said, the only point he proved was his stupidity. It abounds in the West where education has been eskewed in the name of politically correct suicide. I am here to try to correct that in my small way. And to fight if need be.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 02, 2006 11:20 AM (rUyw4)

120 JJ, he must have learned that in college where Winston Churchill is considered the "neocon" of his day. They hate him. Naturally, they'll overlook white folks using poison gas against each other in WWI, that way they can prove what a bunch of racists these giants of Western civilization were. It's all part of the plan.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 02, 2006 11:53 AM (8e/V4)

121 Agent Smith, you there? Neo got your tongue?

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 02, 2006 11:57 AM (8e/V4)

122 Carlos, All that western style dancing to the music of my Socom II has him all tired out. Poor guy! Hahaha!

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 02, 2006 12:01 PM (rUyw4)

123 Agent Smith Being a bit disingenious today? I am fully familiar with the full text - a rather poor lift out of context - particularly in light of the full statement. Your starting to sound like .... some of your adversaries.

Posted by: hondo at January 02, 2006 12:04 PM (3aakz)

124 Agent Smith Something for your Agents research team - a row in a similar vein 65-67 Vietnam - sometimes people argue over the strangest things - dancing angels on pins.

Posted by: hondo at January 02, 2006 12:17 PM (3aakz)

125 yoohoo, Smith.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 02, 2006 02:45 PM (8e/V4)

126 Agent Smith must be stuck in a phone booth.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 02, 2006 02:58 PM (rUyw4)

127 Perhaps Agent Smith stepped out for some Seoul food.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 02, 2006 04:50 PM (RHG+K)

128 Bluto So it is your believe that our friend Agent Smith is of the Asiatic persuasion. Well, hopefully, he is not too close to lil' kim. I have it on poor, half-ass authority that sometime in the future .. lil' kim, his sons, & close associates will all accidentally choke to death at a Beijing Banquet in their honor on eggrolls purchased at the local Walmart. President Hu will be heard to remark ... mournfully ... Il relativo personale, commercio giusto! A Russian Doctor in attendance named Ivan will valiantly attempt to perform the Henlich manuver, but at 6'8" and 300 lbs - the neck is a poor position to work with. Japanese in attendance will continue to smile as they always do. And the American's off in the corner on his cell phone talking about the weather to his wife home in Langley Va. Roh is home - unsure if he should be upset or grateful he wasn't invited - and fretful of store-brought eggrolls.

Posted by: hondo at January 02, 2006 06:37 PM (3aakz)

129 hondo, I can log in and look at the comment IPs. Sam Spade dot com does the rest.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 02, 2006 06:57 PM (RHG+K)

130 Common re-route point for proxies - with skill easy to link proxies - beyond Spade - and why bother?

Posted by: hondo at January 02, 2006 07:16 PM (3aakz)

131 What is it with Korea, and retards + this website. Wasn't "Bush Lied, Soldiers died" and that "Son of Sogun" (?) from Korea? They sure breed a lot of moonbats, for a country that uses the U.S armed forces as a meatshield against Nth. Korea.

Posted by: dave at January 02, 2006 08:10 PM (CcXvt)

132 Server farms, proxies - could be anywhere - just happens Korea & Japan are the biggest locations with excellent service and relative security.

Posted by: hondo at January 02, 2006 08:17 PM (3aakz)

133 hondo: possible, but I don't believe Smith has the skill. I think DSM bought a new computer and is trying out a new schtick.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 03, 2006 01:32 AM (RHG+K)

134 Hmmm...DSM, I thought that moonbat told me he was going to Venezuela. A convenient lie no doubt so he could resurrect himself as an agent in the matrix. The matrix crap is wearing thin on me if you know what I mean.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 03, 2006 10:32 AM (rUyw4)

135 I would love to know exactly why liberals are willing to excuse mass murder and torture of men, women, and children, including burning alive, gassing, running over with vehicles, feeding alive into shredders, etc., yet they scream and cry when those who commit those acts are brought to justice. The only answer that I can come up with is that liberals support tyrants and murderers, and thus should all be killed, because there is no excuse for them. Liberals have supported every psychopath from Hitler to Saddam, and expect us to believe that they're the ones with the moral high ground? Liberals are scum and deserve to die, it's just that simple.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 03, 2006 01:18 PM (0yYS2)

136 Proxies are easy to detect, they will have open access on one of several ports 1080 (socks) 3128 (squid) 8080 (various) here's an example on one of my servers: $ telnet localhost 3128 Trying 127.0.0.1... Connected to localhost. Escape character is '^]'. GET / HTTP/1.0 400 Bad Request Server: Squid/2.XXXXX you can do the same just telnetting to the IP address, on the above ports, and issuing a GET /

Posted by: dave at January 03, 2006 01:33 PM (CcXvt)

137 Is a Get the same as a UNIX PING?

Posted by: hondo at January 03, 2006 02:36 PM (3aakz)

138 No. GET is web server syntax, you can do it to any webserver for example if you do: telnet mypetjawa.mu.nu 80 GET / HTTP/1.1 Host:mypetjawa.mu.nu You will get the HTML source for the main page, as rendered by your Browser. Proxies work on the same syntax, and principle but using a malformed request (GET /) makes it spit out an error page instead that identified the proxy software as shown with: HTTP/1.0 400 Bad Request Server: Squid/2.XXXXX You can also tell the server software used by web severs like so: $telnet mypetjawa.mu.nu 80 Trying 69.72.215.227... Connected to mypetjawa.mu.nu. Escape character is '^]'. HEAD / HTTP/1.1 HOST: mypetjawa.mu.nu HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 21:08:40 GMT Server: Apache/1.3.34 (Unix) mod_auth_passthrough/1.8 mod_log_bytes/1.2 mod_bwlimited/1.4 PHP/4.4.1 FrontPage/5.0.2.2635 mod_ssl/2.8.25 OpenSSL/0.9.7a X-Powered-By: PHP/4.4.1 Content-Type: text/html X-Pad: avoid browser bug It is a common technique, usually referred to as 'fingerprinting'

Posted by: dave at January 03, 2006 03:10 PM (CcXvt)

139 It is a PING - 'cept there is another Cmd that goes with it to achieve same purpose (don't remember) But all that brings you to the proxy - what about the internal re-routing? But why all the bother - this is just a public blog board?

Posted by: hondo at January 03, 2006 04:05 PM (3aakz)

140 Ping, as you're referring to, is the command line interface that uses ICMP (Internet Control Message Protocol ) or sometimes UDP in the case of UNIX to determine if a destination host is reachable. I am actually using the 'telnet' command (available on both Microsoft Windows, and UNIX) that is often used to login to a remote host over a TCP/IP connection, however it works in the method I showed with web servers too. There really was no point, but to show the mods they can check manually if someone is posting using an anonymous proxy, rather than just guessing.

Posted by: dave at January 03, 2006 04:43 PM (CcXvt)

141 Typically, I pay others for this information and skill - but currently I'm broke.

Posted by: hondo at January 03, 2006 04:52 PM (3aakz)

142 Not to worry, It's all part of my job