Bush alters rules for CIA interrogations

[helomech]

Let the beatings and nekkidness begin!



WASHINGTON - President Bush breathed new life into the CIA's terror interrogation program Friday in an executive order that would allow harsh questioning of suspects, limited in public only by a vaguely worded ban on cruel and inhuman treatment.
The order bars some practices such as ****** abuse, part of an effort to quell international criticism of some of the CIA's most sensitive and debated work. It does not say what practices would be allowed.
The executive order is the White House's first public effort to reach into the CIA's five-year-old terror detention program, which has been in limbo since a Supreme Court decision last year called its legal foundation into question.
Officials would not provide any details on specific interrogation techniques that the CIA may use under the new order. In the past, its methods are believed to have included sleep deprivation and disorientation, exposing prisoners to uncomfortable cold or heat for long periods, stress positions and — most controversially — the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding.
The Bush administration has portrayed the interrogation operation as one of its most successful tools in the war on terror, while opponents have said the agency's techniques have left a black mark on the United States' reputation around the world.
Bush's order requires that CIA detainees "receive the basic necessities of life, including adequate food and water, shelter from the elements, necessary clothing, protection from extremes of heat and cold, and essential medical care."
A senior intelligence official would not comment directly when asked if waterboarding would be allowed under the new order and under related — but classified — legal documents drafted by the Justice Department.
However, the official said, "It would be wrong to assume the program of the past transfers to the future."
A second senior administration official acknowledged sleep is not among the basic necessities outlined in the order.
Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the order more freely.
Skeptical human rights groups did not embrace Bush's effort.
Tom Malinowski, Washington director for Human Rights Watch, said the broad outlines in the public order don't matter. The key is in the still-classified guidance distributed to CIA officers.
As a result, the executive order requires the public to trust the president to provide adequate protection to detainees. "Given the experience of the last few years, they have to be naive if they think that is going to reassure too many people," he said.
The order specifically refers to captured al-Qaida suspects who may have information on attack plans or the whereabouts of the group's senior leaders. White House press secretary Tony Snow said the CIA's program has saved lives and must continue on a sound legal footing.
"The president has insisted on clear legal standards so that CIA officers involved in this essential work are not placed in jeopardy for doing their job — and keeping America safe from attacks," he said.
The five-page order reiterated many protections already granted under U.S. and international law. It said that any conditions of confinement and interrogation cannot include:
• Torture or other acts of violence serious enough to be considered comparable to murder, torture, mutilation or cruel or inhuman treatment.

• Willful or outrageous acts of personal abuse done to humiliate or degrade someone in a way so serious that any reasonable person would "deem the acts to be beyond the bounds of human decency." That includes ******ly indecent acts.
• Acts intended to denigrate the religion of an individual.
The order does not permit detainees to contact family members or have access to the International Committee of the Red Cross.
In a decision last year aimed at the military's tribunal system, the Supreme Court required the U.S. government to apply Geneva Convention protections to the conflict with al-Qaida, shaking the legal footing of the CIA's program.
Last fall, Congress instructed the White House to draft an executive order as part of the Military Commissions Act, which outlined the rules for trying terrorism suspects. The bill barred torture, rape and other war crimes that clearly would have violated the Geneva Conventions, but allowed Bush to determine — through executive order — whether less harsh interrogation methods can be used.
The administration and the CIA have maintained that the agency's program has been lawful all along.
In a message to CIA employees on Friday, Director Michael Hayden tried to stress the importance and narrow scope of the program. He noted that fewer than half of the less than 100 detainees have experienced the agency's "enhanced interrogation measures."
"Simply put, the information developed by our program has been irreplaceable," he said. "If the CIA, with all its expertise in counterterrorism, had not stepped forward to hold and interrogate people like (senior al-Qaida operatives) Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the American people would be right to ask why."
For decades, the United States had two paths for questioning suspects: the U.S. justice system and the military's Army Field Manual.
However, after the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration decided more needed to be done. With Zubaydah's capture in 2002, the CIA program was quietly created.
Since then, 97 terror suspects are believed to have been held by the agency at locations around the world, often referred to as "black sites."
The program sparked international controversy as details slowly emerged, with human rights groups saying the agency's work was a violation of international law, including the Third Geneva Convention's Common Article 3 protections, which set a baseline standard for the treatment of prisoners of war. In September, Bush announced the U.S. had transferred the last 14 high-value CIA detainees to the military's detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where they would stand trial. The CIA has held one detainee since then — an Iraqi who the U.S. considered one of al-Qaida's most senior operatives. He was also eventually transferred to Guantanamo.

[JJC]

Still leaves the option of using important tools of enhanced techniques, but makes it unlawful to use immoral methods such as ****** abuse. To me psycological and physical breakdown is acceptable, but ****** abuse or pouring acid onto people is a no no.

[Bitogno]

Does that mean that such way of interrogating were used before ?

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Still leaves the option of using important tools of enhanced techniques, but makes it unlawful to use immoral methods such as ****** abuse. To me psycological and physical breakdown is acceptable, but ****** abuse or pouring acid onto people is a no no.

Why should it be allowed?

I know people that have had mental collapses and they are ruined for life. Can no longer work and be productive. If this is allowed they are only going to be more of a threat to national security.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

This seems to be political window dressing more than anything else. The only new item that sticks out to me - is that we can't make fun of people's religion. Of course South Park can do it on TV to millions of people every day in an effort to boost corporate advertising revenue - but we mustn't do it to save lives. Other than that, all this other stuff is already on the books.

[JJC]

Why should it be allowed?

I know people that have had mental collapses and they are ruined for life. Can no longer work and be productive. If this is allowed they are only going to be more of a threat to national security.

As if now they're not such a great threat to our national security?

It all comes down to how can we prevent the flow of rivers of blood of innocents.
Me worrying about Haled Sheik Mohhamed having some mental collapse would be the least thing on my priority list, if my job is to make sure that no elementary school, night clubs, buses, or air ports are bombed by human bombs. The best way to get isightful intelligence from close knit "professional" terror machines like AQ is through HUMINT.

If you're the man in charge of preventing the next Beslan how would you gather intelligence through interrogations of plotters who have no qualms, or moral conscience in planning and executing mass murder, or beheadings of children? Do you think we can make them talk by giving them some nice star bucks coffee and let them know that beheading a child or blowing up an airport is immoral, evil, and illegal?

[Xaito]

we can't make fun of people's religion. Of course South Park can do it on TV to millions of people every day in an effort to boost corporate advertising revenue - but we mustn't do it to save lives. Other than that, all this other stuff is already on the books.
In Germany the first article of the basic law says that "Human dignity is inviolable. To respect and to protect it is the duty of all state authority" and I really like and support it.
Comparing a satirical comedy show with the attempt to break a person by humiliating him and everything he believes in is realy far-fetched.

[Zoomie]

Comparing a satirical comedy show with the attempt to break a person by humiliating him and everything he believes in is realy far-fetched.
So what do you suggest doing then? Going in with kid gloves and asking "Mr. Terrorist, could you please give us some information on your current plans and associates? You really don't have answer these questions if you don't want to, no pressure at all." :cantbeli:

[Xaito]

So what do you suggest doing then? Going in with kid gloves and asking "Mr. Terrorist, could you please give us some information on your current plans and associates? You really don't have answer these questions if you don't want to, no pressure at all." :cantbeli:

I suggest interrogation without torture and unnecessary humiliation.
Just because the one to be interrogated is a suspect it can't be a free ticket to forget all basic human rights which our countries always vow to respect and protect.

[Zoomie]

I suggest interrogation without torture and unnecessary humiliation.
Just because the one to be interrogated is a suspect it can't be a free ticket to forget all basic human rights which our countries always vow to respect and protect.
Please point out where the right to not be offended is a basic human right.

[Thom]

So what do you suggest doing then? Going in with kid gloves and asking "Mr. Terrorist, could you please give us some information on your current plans and associates? You really don't have answer these questions if you don't want to, no pressure at all." :cantbeli:

Personally I think we (as developed nations) should strive to be better than them and rise ourselves above torture. Sure it's not easy, but then no one said it was gonna be. Democracy is tough for leaders, they have to provide the public with what they want and can't rule with an iron fist (in theory), but it's a better way of doing things.

As soon as you start giving into the terrorists and becoming more like them then you have lost. Those who curb civil liberties and rights of citizens and fellow humans just because they are afraid of someone else I think are fools and cowards.

I also question the effectiveness and reliability of torture on people like this. They believe they're going to heaven for what they're doing, it's fundamentalist religious instanity, sure you might crack one or two but at what cost? Too high I say. Use other methods to gather intelligence and interrogate suspects or terrorists - don't sink to their level of inhumanity.

[Zoomie]

Use other methods to gather intelligence and interrogate suspects or terrorists - don't sink to their level of inhumanity.
Again, what kind of interrogation would you suggest? List off some ideas instead of just saying something other than what's going on.

[Xaito]

Please point out where the right to not be offended is a basic human right.


in the "United Nations Convention Against Torture"


The Convention Against Torture is one of a series of UN agreements that seek to protect human rights.


Article 1
1. Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.



The USA is by the way member of this convention.

[Thom]

Again, what kind of interrogation would you suggest? List off some ideas instead of just saying something other than what's going on.

Interrogation that doesn't violate human rights.

Use interrogation that doesn't require torture. As I said, I don't believe torture is effective enough to warrant its use.

If you can't get anything out of them with the methods at your disposal then you simply have to find other means.

[Snoshi]

Interrogation that doesn't violate human rights.

Use interrogation that doesn't require torture. As I said, I don't believe torture is effective enough to warrant its use.

If you can't get anything out of them with the methods at your disposal then you simply have to find other means.

Yeah...What about he keeps quite while hes buddies are on the way to blow themselves up?
Good that you are not in charge of British secret service..

[Zoomie]

in the "United Nations Convention Against Torture"

The USA is by the way member of this convention.
Funny how you forgot to bold the word "severe". That whole thing is silly as it's totally up to one's interpretation as to what "severe pain or suffering" might just be.

Interrogation that doesn't violate human rights.

Use interrogation that doesn't require torture. As I said, I don't believe torture is effective enough to warrant its use.

If you can't get anything out of them with the methods at your disposal then you simply have to find other means.

Still waiting for examples........ :roll:

[Thom]

Yeah...What about he keeps quite while hes buddies are on the way to blow themselves up?
Good that you are not in charge of British secret service..

Who says calling him names and kicking him in the face is gonna make him talk? More than likely he'll send you off on a wild goose chase.

Oh and as far as i'm aware, we don't torture people in this country, so i'd have thought that the british secret service is currently inline with what I said :)

As I said in the previous post, interrogation is by no means the only method of getting information on suspects and their plans.


Still waiting for examples........

Well i'm not an interrogation or intelligence expert? Why do I have to give specific examples?

Look the police does okay interviewing suspects of crime etc, via investigation etc. Intelligence services do a ****load more than interrogate prisioners (which doesn't mean torture in the least). Do you want me to list ways that the intelligence services collect data?


I just dont see how humiliating and beating the **** out of prisioners is supposed to get you good results, all the while breaking basic human rights.

If you have to sacrifice the very tenants that your country was built on and lower yourself to your adversaries tactics then I feel pretty sorry for you.

[Xaito]

Funny how you forgot to bold the word "severe". That whole thing is silly as it's totally up to one's interpretation as to what "severe pain or suffering" might just be.


these articles are supposed to prevent torture and also define what torture is - if somebody wants to insult a religion to make the suspect talk then he does it because he expects it to cause severe mental suffering which means its torture.
There are several ways to make somebody talk like persuading somebody, tricking somebody etc but forcing somebody through suffering mental or physical is torture which infringes human rights.



Yeah...What about he keeps quite while hes buddies are on the way to blow themselves up?
Good that you are not in charge of British secret service..
You're not allowed to drive in the wrong direction in a one-way street even if youre late for work and it would be a convenient shortcut right?
What makes you think that its ok to violate human rights just because its convenient for you? Because you think it will always hit the others and not yourself?
You have human rights too - would you like it if somebody decides to take them away from you?

[Snoshi]

You're not allowed to drive in the wrong direction in a one-way street even if youre late for work and it would be a convenient shortcut right?
What makes you think that its ok to violate human rights just because its convenient for you? Because you think it will always hit the others and not yourself?
You have human rights too - would you like it if somebody decides to take them away from you?

I am not talking about torturing everyone who gets caught..
But in clear cases that i described above all methods should be allowed to get information to save human life's..

[SBL]

Ok Susumu, your answers have piqued my interest so I'm going to put you in the driver's seat and let you interrogate a known terrorist for answers that will save the lives of X number of people. Somewhere there's a bomb set to go off in 30 mins. How do you extract the information and save the lives of your countrymen in a timely manner? Please note: no physical, verbal, or otherwise damaging methods of pressure may be applied as per your own convictions/statements. It is your job and duty to extract this information, so you have to try or else you'll be fired, tried for treason, and/or have the lives of X innocent people on your conscience.

[Xaito]

you have to try or else you'll be fired, tried for treason

Article 2
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
;)

Im no interrogator - you need to learn how to interrogate and have some experience so its up to real interrogators to find methods that work best without breaking laws and human rights and not up to me.
My problem is that human rights are broken and that other people think its ok - I don't care much about the reason all I need to care about is that they are broken - I have the same human rights after all and won't ever support giving somebody the authority to break them if he thinks its convenient - not because I care much about what happens to a terrorist - because I don't - but because I think these human rights are a great thing and because for them to work how they were intended (everybody has the same rights) everybody has to respect and follow them no matter if its sometimes inconvenient.

something different: Christopher Whitcomb (ex FBI agent, Sniper in the HRT and later instructor for new FBI agents) for example writes in his book "Cold Zero" (book's about his FBI time not fiction or something) that convincing suspects, tricking them and/or using psychological tricks worked best (worked better then shouting at them etc).
While he has worked with criminals and not with terrorists I thought it was worth mentioning anyway.

[WarriorMonk]

If anyone's ever read the New York magazine (?) about the interrogators that broke some of Zarqawi's men (Gator story), you can see that good psychology is just as good as beating up someone to get an answer.

Preferably, just to keep people happy, we need to train more of these "gators."

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I suggest interrogation without torture and unnecessary humiliation.
Just because the one to be interrogated is a suspect it can't be a free ticket to forget all basic human rights which our countries always vow to respect and protect.

Your constant harping makes me question your ****** preference. Even your selection of avatar practically screams "please, please let me have goat ***". That's what you want, isn't it? The content of your posts belies a broken personality that's bent on self-punishment, no doubt a result of the conflict that arises between what you've been trained to think is proper, and the deep-seated shame you feel for wanting to bend over the nearest 4 legged creature.

There now, have I just tortured you? Nothing personal here, I'm just trying to make a point. Because you'll find lots of folks who will tell you that what I just did would in fact be an intolerable affront to human dignity. You'll shrug off my words as being meaningless and empty - yet others will claim it's torture. No doubt, you're now scarred for life - most likely entitled to a large cash settlement.

I really do wonder if large segments of our population have grown so complacent, so comfortable, have such a misplaced sense of security that they've become unable to cope with the reality that allows them such luxury.

Seriously though, nothing personal. Not that there's anything wrong with goat ***.

[Xaito]

There now, have I just tortured you? Nothing personal here, I'm just trying to make a point. Because you'll find lots of folks who will tell you that what I just did would in fact be an intolerable affront to human dignity. You'll shrug off my words as being meaningless and empty - yet others will claim it's torture. No doubt, you're now scarred for life - most likely entitled to a large cash settlement.


well you know first of all when you'd tell me something in personal it would have more effect then over the internet ;)
second: what is an insult to one man is not always one to another - I don't know how your average islamist would react to your "goat ****er!" accusation but if somebody said me what you have said straight in the face I think I'd start laughing ;)
But hey they wouldn't want to insult the religion if it didn't have effect on the people.


I really do wonder if large segments of our population have grown so complacent, so comfortable, have such a misplaced sense of security that they've become unable to cope with the reality that allows them such luxury.
I think that a lot of todays problems that threaten our "security" are caused by us in the first place - and some methods to deal with these problems could cause even more problems in the long run - accepting the infringement of human rights and accepting more and more loss of personal liberty etc will destroy our way of life that we all like more effectively in the long run then suicide bombers ever could.

[SBL]

Article 2
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
;)

Im no interrogator - you need to learn how to interrogate and have some experience so its up to real interrogators to find methods that work best without breaking laws and human rights and not up to me.
My problem is that human rights are broken and that other people think its ok - I don't care much about the reason all I need to care about is that they are broken - I have the same human rights after all and won't ever support giving somebody the authority to break them if he thinks its convenient - not because I care much about what happens to a terrorist - because I don't - but because I think these human rights are a great thing and because for them to work how they were intended (everybody has the same rights) everybody has to respect and follow them no matter if its sometimes inconvenient.

something different: Christopher Whitcomb (ex FBI agent, Sniper in the HRT and later instructor for new FBI agents) for example writes in his book "Cold Zero" (book's about his FBI time not fiction or something) that convincing suspects, tricking them and/or using psychological tricks worked best (worked better then shouting at them etc).
While he has worked with criminals and not with terrorists I thought it was worth mentioning anyway.

This answer is not acceptable.

[Xaito]

This answer is not acceptable.

ran out of arguments?

[SBL]

ran out of arguments?

Hardly, I'm still waiting to hear how you would handle such a situation, though. You don't need any training to answer a question on an internet forum- especially on MP.net. You've been around here long enough to know that.p-)

According to your professed stance on the issue, how would you extract info from a detainee?

[pascalywood]

According to your professed stance on the issue, how would you extract info from a detainee?

Make him believe that one of his detained buddy tries to put the blame on him? I know cops do that but i doubt it would work on a motivated jihadist

[Xaito]

Hardly, I'm still waiting to hear how you would handle such a situation, though. You don't need any training to answer a question on an internet forum- especially on MP.net. You've been around here long enough to know that.p-)

According to your professed stance on the issue, how would you extract info from a detainee?

how I would do it is different then how I expect professionals to do it ;)
Personally I'd go for physical torture if I had to because I haven't learned how to do it otherwise - I don't know how to interrogate and I don't know any psychological tricks - but thats why I'm neither an interrogator nor in law enforcement or something similar. :)
I do expect law enforcement and secret services to follow the laws though - otherwise what would give them the right to punish others for breaking laws when they do it themselves?

Like I said before I think when our own people start to take away our rights and liberty they will harm us all more in the long run then the potential few more attacks that can't be prevented.

[SBL]

how I would do it is different then how I expect professionals to do it ;)
Personally I'd go for physical torture if I had to because I haven't learned how to do it otherwise - I don't know how to interrogate and I don't know any psychological tricks - but thats why I'm neither an interrogator nor in law enforcement or something similar. :)
I do expect law enforcement and secret services to follow the laws though - otherwise what would give them the right to punish others for breaking laws when they do it themselves?

Like I said before I think when our own people start to take away our rights and liberty they will harm us all more in the long run then the potential few more attacks that can't be prevented.


That's exactly what I wanted to know. Thanks for playing.

[JJC]

Make him believe that one of his detained buddy tries to put the blame on him? I know cops do that but i doubt it would work on a motivated jihadist

This is technique is called "prisoner's dillema", and trust me I'm not an expert but this will NOT work on any brainwashed, motivated Jihadi. The reason prisoner's dillema works with your street gang member, or drug dealer is because they care about their freedom; they want to get out fast and enjoy the money that they make by selling crack etc...
A Jihadi is driven by different psycology, a Jihadi has no fear of sacrificing his life because to him it's a noble cause to sacrifice for Allah. For that trained AQ Jihadi snitching to a Western infidel would be a biggest sin. That's why force is ndeeded in these situations.

[Guggenmauer]

This is technique is called "prisoner's dillema", and trust me I'm not an expert but this will NOT work on any brainwashed, motivated Jihadi. The reason prisoner's dillema works with your street gang member, or drug dealer is because they care about their freedom; they want to get out fast and enjoy the money that they make by selling crack etc...
A Jihadi is driven by different psycology, a Jihadi has no fear of sacrificing his life because to him it's a noble cause to sacrifice for Allah. For that trained AQ Jihadi snitching to a Western infidel would be a biggest sin. That's why force is ndeeded in these situations.

Following that logic, how is it any different wether they use force or psychological methods?

Not to say that cutting someones legs off with a chainsaw doesn't sound more effective than holding their hand and asking them politely.

[JJC]

Following that logic, how is it any different wether they use force or psychological methods?

Not to say that cutting someones legs off with a chainsaw doesn't sound more effective than holding their hand and asking them politely.

Who said I believe in cutting their legs off, or anything in that matter.
No matter how much one trains there are certain breaking points in human psycology and body. You can be a hardcore Jihadi like that Sheik Mohhamed who beheaded people, but one they applied the "water boarding" technique which is psycologically traumatizing and started to spill out his secrets after 2 seconds in that session..

Sleep deprivation, and other methods over prolonged periods of time, will cause a psy breakdown and they do start talking...

[Fargin]

The typical 24 senerio. What you gonna do, the terrorist wont talk and there's only an hour till the nuke detonate in somewhereville, US of A?

#1 Offer him a cup of coffey and a donut.
#2 Cut his frickin' legs off!!!!!!!!!11111111

[Guggenmauer]

Who said I believe in cutting their legs off, or anything in that matter.
No matter how much one trains there are certain breaking points in human psycology and body. You can be a hardcore Jihadi like that Sheik Mohhamed who beheaded people, but one they applied the "water boarding" technique which is psycologically traumatizing and started to spill out his secrets after 2 seconds in that session..

Sleep deprivation, and other methods over prolonged periods of time, will cause a psy breakdown and they do start talking...

Yeah I do agree with you here. The wording in your previous post made them look hardcore jihadist who weren't going to talk either way because to become a martyr is the greatest glory, to them. They're humans just like anyone else no matter what their beliefs are. I'd say that gruesome amounts of physical pain in most cases will cause the subject to choose life and for the pain to stop over his beliefs (which are just that, beliefs).

Now not to say that torture and all that isn't inhumane, but sometimes it just is what is necessary to further your own agenda in a war situation. Calling torture inhumane, while accepting war is hypocritial in a sense that both are oppressive acts on others, but that is a whole nuther can of worms im not going to open.

[number nine]

Now not to say that torture and all that isn't inhumane, but sometimes it just is what is necessary to further your own agenda in a war situation. Calling torture inhumane, while accepting war is hypocritial in a sense that both are oppressive acts on others, but that is a whole nuther can of worms im not going to open.

And that is completely correct. I'll add more, in war, or aforementioned scenario with terrorists, torture is self-defence, because some of your buddies in uniform, or citizens of your country, will not die. It's sad indeed, but is true. And Fargin, cutting legs off is not neccessary of course, maybe AQ does it, but skilled interrogator will never use it. :(

[Guggenmauer]

The "cutting off the legs..." part of my previous post was just a caricatyrisation of a physically violent method of interrogation, didn't mean to offend anyone with that statement. Another thing that I find interesting is the way how the western media portrays the Iraq/Afghan insurgents simply as "terrorists" completely locking them into that niche of the "they hate us for our freedoms"-line that has become pretty popular in the western world it seems.

Terrorism is a tactic and a pretty broad term at that. Though of course it has to be understood that giving an accurate portrayal of a regions history and the parties involved in both good&bad isn't always beneficial.

[JJC]

The "cutting off the legs..." part of my previous post was just a caricatyrisation of a physically violent method of interrogation, didn't mean to offend anyone with that statement. Another thing that I find interesting is the way how the western media portrays the Iraq/Afghan insurgents simply as "terrorists" completely locking them into that niche of the "they hate us for our freedoms"-line that has become pretty popular in the western world it seems.

If you don't know yet, the Jihadis motivated by Islamic thought and teachings hate the fact that there are night clubs where college students of both sexes go out on weekends to drink and hook up for one night stance, where gay clubs are socially tolerated in western cultures, where teenage girls are FREE to dress how they desire, where women are given equal respect in the business world, while in some Muslim countries they are not trusted to even walk outside their town. So I do believe that they do hate us for these FREEDOMS and more, so the western media is not lying to me.

[number nine]

Yes but isn't that hate motivated by their teachings, they don't hate freedoms per se, I think, but they hate us for belonging to different religion?

[Guggenmauer]

If you don't know yet, the Jihadis motivated by Islamic thought and teachings hate the fact that there are night clubs where college students of both sexes go out on weekends to drink and hook up for one night stance, where gay clubs are socially tolerated in western cultures, where teenage girls are FREE to dress how they desire, where women are given equal respect in the business world, while in some Muslim countries they are not trusted to even walk outside their town. So I do believe that they do hate us for these FREEDOMS and more, so the western media is not lying to me.

Of course all reality is perceptual and all, but why do you think that they hate all those things? It's hard to hate something that is thousands of miles away, unless those values are pushed onto them in their lives, right? How have they heard of all these miraculous western values?

Why are there millions of muslims who aren't blowing themselves up in western countries? I wouldn't paint the issue so black and white.

[JJC]

Yes but isn't that hate motivated by their teachings, they don't hate freedoms per se, I think, but they hate us for belonging to different religion?

It is all inclusive, they hate us for our religions, our society, our way of thought. To them their religion dicates all those matters of life. So when they see that if we accept it as a normal thing to hook up in a club on a weekend, their religion prohibits that as immoral behavior, thus our religion is inferior to theirs.

[Guggenmauer]

But we aren't a part of their society! Do you seriously think that they'd be attacking western countries unless they were meddling in their business? And why haven't there been any attacks on countries that have taken a neutral position in the Iraq/Afghanistan war such as Finland?

[JJC]

But we aren't a part of their society! Do you seriously think that they'd be attacking western countries unless they were meddling in their business? And why haven't there been any attacks on countries that have taken a neutral position in the Iraq/Afghanistan war such as Finland?

LMAO, and will you tell me that U.K. didn't have radical preachers in popular mosques and problems with radical Islam before Britain enetered Iraq war, or is the reality more like it was brewing for decades and because of political correctness in the British society, this matter was ignored for so long?

[number nine]

Guggenmauer, there were no attacks on Finland yet. Purpose of combat for these terrorists is spreading of Islam. If we imagine there is no Israel, no USA, they would pick another target, maybe for example Russians for their war against Chechens or Chinese, there are a lot of muslims in China.

Again, that is my personal opinion. I can see that we are off-topic a little too.

[Guggenmauer]

LMAO, and will you tell me that U.K. didn't have radical preachers in popular mosques and problems with radical Islam before Britain enetered Iraq war, or is the reality more like it was brewing for decades and because of political correctness in the British society, this matter was ignored for so long?

And you tell me that the U.K hasn't been in the Middle-East before the Iraq war? Again I don't think that the issue is as black and white as the media portrays it to be.

[JJC]

All I will say is no matter how much you will try to blame the victim for rape, that rapist will onctinue to rape. Radical Islam is not a recent phenomena and it has nothing to do with West meddling in their business.
If you blame British for Imams preaching Koranic thought of justification for killing the Kufar, than by your logic all African nations that Britain once colonized should be preaching hate and should be understood if they too murder people on buses and iarports...

[SBL]

But we aren't a part of their society! Do you seriously think that they'd be attacking western countries unless they were meddling in their business? And why haven't there been any attacks on countries that have taken a neutral position in the Iraq/Afghanistan war such as Finland?

I more-or-less agree with JJC. Someone on this board characterized jihadism as a "supremacist ideology" which I agree with totally. The issue is that it's a multi-faceted movement involving persons of various degrees of commitment and motivation. But it's stated pretty clearly by their own propoganda that the end-goal of the movement is to establish a 'global caliphate' and to spread Islam by the sword. The reason why the US and Britain and such nations are being targeted is because they are (rightfully) seen as being the greatest obstacles to their ends.
Islamist-fueled attacks occur all over the globe and to all stripes of people including other Muslims; not just against westerners. Chechnya, Kashmir, Indonesia etc. have all suffered Islamic terrorist attacks. I wouldn't say that some individuals haven't been influenced to take up arms against the US/UK et. al. because of our involvement in the Middle East, but the core of the problem is the radical wahhabism/Islamism that plants these ideas in the heads of people to begin with.

[Guggenmauer]

Since you are claiming that this "supremacist ideology" is at fault, can I politely ask you to provide me with unbiased (non-coalition based) proof that shows that terror attacks in western countries are caused completely by radical islam, and dismisses the western foothold in the region as having anything to do with it?

Like with everything every action has a reaction. I need to be convinced that these radical islamists who blindly hate western freedoms are at fault.

[SBL]

Since you are claiming that this "supremacist ideology" is at fault, can I politely ask you to provide me with unbiased (non-coalition based) proof that shows that terror attacks in western countries are caused completely by radical islam, and dismisses the western foothold in the region as having anything to do with it?

Like with everything every action has a reaction. I need to be convinced that these radical islamists who blindly hate western freedoms are at fault.

I don't think it has anything to do with our freedoms sufficed to say that western-style 'freedoms' is an obstruction to, and in conflict with, radical Islamic thinking- those who want to sweep away the system in place and replace it with one styled after their own beliefs.
Now having said that, I don't believe this wave of terrorism we're seeing is completely and directly caused by jihadism/wahhabis, or whatever. The discontent and anti-western sentiment is a culmination of several factors- into which Western interests have played a role. But directly attributing the whole mess to Western actions would be incorrect imo. Anytime an outside group asserts its interests, it's going to breed some resentment, but I would personally lay the blame on middle easterners' apparent inability to "get it together" than on western meddling, as the whole region seems to be a microcosm of conflict unto itself.
But I would suggest the jihadists are the root of the terrorism, as they're the ones who are directing the ire towards the west. It's their opportunity to ride the wave of public discontent to power, and as I said, the West is currently the largest obstruction to that end.

[Guggenmauer]

Guggenmauer, there were no attacks on Finland yet.


You think that Finlands stance in Middle-Eastern affairs doesn't have anything to do with it?

[Guggenmauer]

I don't think it has anything to do with our freedoms sufficed to say that western-style 'freedoms' is an obstruction to, and in conflict with, radical Islamic thinking- those who want to sweep away the system in place and replace it with one styled after their own beliefs.
Now having said that, I don't believe this wave of terrorism we're seeing is completely and directly caused by jihadism/wahhabis, or whatever. The discontent and anti-western sentiment is a culmination of several factors- into which Western interests have played a role. But directly attributing the whole mess to Western actions would be incorrect imo. Anytime an outside group asserts its interests, it's going to breed some resentment, but I would personally lay the blame on middle easterners' apparent inability to "get it together" than on western meddling, as the whole region seems to be a microcosm of conflict unto itself.
But I would suggest the jihadists are the root of the terrorism, as they're the ones who are directing the ire towards the west. It's their opportunity to ride the wave of public discontent to power, and as I said, the West is currently the largest obstruction to that end.

Doesn't saying that the Western foothold acts as a catalyst instead of the jihadism, sound a bit irrational to you? Wouldn't it make more sense to say that the Western presence in the Middle-East has provoked a heightened amount of jihadism and islamic extremism? Why is the jihad concentrated on a region where the amount of western influence is the greatest?

The definition of jihad doesn't solely include the expansion of islam through force, but also the defense of islam and the muslim lands through force. Which one of those seems more fitting in this case?

And please do not mis-interpert me as a pro-radical islamist here, because I hope to remain as neutral as I personally can. We are humans and war is natural to our species. I'd just like more people to take an educated look at their "enemies" as well as at their own along with the preceding history of the current events.

[SBL]

Doesn't saying that the Western foothold acts as a catalyst instead of the jihadism, sound a bit irrational to you? Wouldn't it make more sense to say that the Western presence in the Middle-East has provoked a heightened amount of jihadism and islamic extremism? Why is the jihad concentrated on a region where the amount of western influence is the greatest?

The definition of jihad doesn't solely include the expansion of islam through force, but also the defense of islam and the muslim lands through force. Which one of those seems more fitting in this case?

And please do not mis-interpert me as a pro-radical islamist here, because I hope to remain as neutral as I personally can. We are humans and war is natural to our species. I'd just like more people to take an educated look at their "enemies" as well as at their own along with the preceding history of the current events.


When did I suggest there was no correlation? I'm saying the jihadist movement is responsible for focusing the ire on the West, but that doesn't make the West responsible for its inception.

[Guggenmauer]

Ah sorry I misread a segment of your post. I agree with what you said in your previous reply.

[Atlantic Friend]

This seems to be political window dressing more than anything else. The only new item that sticks out to me - is that we can't make fun of people's religion. Of course South Park can do it on TV to millions of people every day in an effort to boost corporate advertising revenue - but we mustn't do it to save lives. Other than that, all this other stuff is already on the books.

I agree that the "do not denigrate their religion" is rather stupid. First, I doubt it does wonder to break a suspect to attack his religion. Second, as there probably are Iraqi troops or police around, and since they are Muslim too, i'm sure it has already crossed the mind of every interrogator that gravely offending Islam was a big no-no already.

On a darker note, it is rather disturbing that one should feel the need to insist there should not be ****** abuse. I'm sure the Iraqis have seenmore than enough "rape rooms" under Saddam.

[number nine]

You think that Finlands stance in Middle-Eastern affairs doesn't have anything to do with it?

No I don't. But I suppose because of nature of radical islam fundamentalists have spared them from their usual rampage only because they are after bigger fish, not because Fins are not meddling in their business.

:)

[Guggenmauer]

Ah. So you got any unbiased data to prove this?

[number nine]

No. But you don't have any data to deny it too, and somehow I feel I'm right.

:)

By the way, how come many mujahideen from arab states fought in Chechnia when Russia was usually helping ME countries? Those fanatics who blow themselves in suicide bombing are on holy war dude.

[Abrahamsen]

Finland does have troops in Afganistan, just so you know.

[SBL]

Finland does have troops in Afganistan, just so you know.

Oh snap.p-)

[Beowulf]

Finland does have troops in Afganistan, just so you know.

I was just thinking the same thing, I thought I remembered them having a swimming pool in kandahar....

[Beowulf]

Since you are claiming that this "supremacist ideology" is at fault, can I politely ask you to provide me with unbiased (non-coalition based) proof that shows that terror attacks in western countries are caused completely by radical islam, and dismisses the western foothold in the region as having anything to do with it?

Like with everything every action has a reaction. I need to be convinced that these radical islamists who blindly hate western freedoms are at fault.

By the same token, I don't think that you can attribute all terrorism to western involvement in the region. There are many factors involved in terrorism and trying to find a simple causal relationship is IMO a flawed approach.

[Guggenmauer]

Oh snap.p-)

They are peacekeepers. There's a difference between an offensive force and a peacekeeping force last I checked. They are relatively lightly equipped as well.

And I never did state that we didn't have troops over there. Read "stance".

[Guggenmauer]

By the same token, I don't think that you can attribute all terrorism to western involvement in the region. There are many factors involved in terrorism and trying to find a simple causal relationship is IMO a flawed approach.

I am not saying that it is the only attributing factor behind global terrorism, but it damn sure as hell seems a lot more logical to me than saying that they hate us for our freedoms when our freedoms are thousands of miles away, unless we(western nations) have a presence in the region.