Oddly silent

Just came across this:

home.comcast.net/~drmoran/home.htm

In June 2005, the Atlantic Monthly ran an article by the military technology and intelligence historian Stephen Budiansky, entitled “Truth Extraction.” He wrote:

"Six months before the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison broke into public view, a small and fairly obscure private association of United States Marine Corps members posted on its Web site a document on how to get enemy POWs to talk. The document described a situation very similar to the one the United States faces in the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan: a fanatical and implacable enemy, intense pressure to achieve quick results, a brutal war in which the old rules no longer seem to apply.

"Marine Major Sherwood F. Moran, the report's author, noted that despite the complexities and difficulties of dealing with an enemy from such a hostile and alien culture, some American interrogators consistently managed to extract useful information from prisoners. The successful interrogators all had one thing in common in the way they approached their subjects. They were nice to them.

"Moran was writing in 1943, and he was describing his own, already legendary methods of interrogating Japanese prisoners of war. More than a half century later his report remains something of a cult classic for military interrogators. The Marine Corps Interrogator Translator Teams Association, a group of active-duty and retired Marine intelligence personnel, calls Moran's report one of the 'timeless documents' in the field and says it has long been 'a standard read' for insiders. An MCITTA member says the group decided to post Moran's report online in July of 2003, because 'many others wanted to read it' and because the original document, in the Marine Corps archives, was in such poor shape that the photocopies in circulation were difficult to decipher. He denies that current events had anything to do with either the decision to post the document or the increased interest in it."

Well, I'm really glad nobody was water boarded here. I guess blowing them up is much more compassionate...

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S.-led air strikes against Islamic State in Iraq have killed three of the militant group's top leaders but not senior commander Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, U.S. officials said on Thursday.

Among those killed was Abd al Basit, whom the officials described as the group's military 'emir,' and Haji Mutazz, a deputy to Baghdadi. Those strikes took place between Dec. 3 and Dec. 9, they said.


They also confirmed last month's killing of Radwan Taleb al-Hamdouni, whom local medical sources had described to Reuters at the time as the radical militant group's leader in the northern city of Mosul.


News of the killings, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, came the same day the top U.S. commander of coalition efforts against the Islamic State, Lieutenant General James Terry, hailed the impact of four months of air strikes in Iraq.

"We've made significant progress in halting that (militant) offensive," Terry told reporters.

He pointed to successful air strikes this week around Iraq's Sinjar Mountain and Zumar. Those strikes helped Kurdish peshmerga fighters fight their way to Sinjar mountain and, according to a Kurdish leader, free hundreds of people trapped there by Islamic State fighters.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-says-thr...ar-BBgXYFe?ocid=iehp

ZHawke wrote: Just came across this:

home.comcast.net/~drmoran/home.htm

In June 2005, the Atlantic Monthly ran an article by the military technology and intelligence historian Stephen Budiansky, entitled “Truth Extraction.” He wrote:

"Six months before the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison broke into public view, a small and fairly obscure private association of United States Marine Corps members posted on its Web site a document on how to get enemy POWs to talk. The document described a situation very similar to the one the United States faces in the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan: a fanatical and implacable enemy, intense pressure to achieve quick results, a brutal war in which the old rules no longer seem to apply.

"Marine Major Sherwood F. Moran, the report's author, noted that despite the complexities and difficulties of dealing with an enemy from such a hostile and alien culture, some American interrogators consistently managed to extract useful information from prisoners. The successful interrogators all had one thing in common in the way they approached their subjects. They were nice to them.

"Moran was writing in 1943, and he was describing his own, already legendary methods of interrogating Japanese prisoners of war. More than a half century later his report remains something of a cult classic for military interrogators. The Marine Corps Interrogator Translator Teams Association, a group of active-duty and retired Marine intelligence personnel, calls Moran's report one of the 'timeless documents' in the field and says it has long been 'a standard read' for insiders. An MCITTA member says the group decided to post Moran's report online in July of 2003, because 'many others wanted to read it' and because the original document, in the Marine Corps archives, was in such poor shape that the photocopies in circulation were difficult to decipher. He denies that current events had anything to do with either the decision to post the document or the increased interest in it."

I see an opportunity to finally resolve the issue. Collect all Liberals and arm them with the very best pens and paper, send them into the ISIS, ISIL, al Qaeda camps to negotiate a lasting peace.
There are two probable outcomes, one they will prove beyond reason that the pen is indeed mightier than the sword and return heroes. Two, they will be separated from their heads and we can stop arguing stupidity and determine how to rid the earth of the vile twisted Islamic extremists.
Clearly, its a win/win situation.

HEARTLESS wrote: I see an opportunity to finally resolve the issue. Collect all Liberals and arm them with the very best pens and paper, send them into the ISIS, ISIL, al Qaeda camps to negotiate a lasting peace.
There are two probable outcomes, one they will prove beyond reason that the pen is indeed mightier than the sword and return heroes. Two, they will be separated from their heads and we can stop arguing stupidity and determine how to rid the earth of the vile twisted Islamic extremists.
Clearly, its a win/win situation.

Interesting. For someone who obviously thinks discussing things like we are in this thread is arguing stupidity, you certainly do participate, don't you (rhetorical, of course).

The rest of your post doesn't merit a response.

ZHawke wrote:

HEARTLESS wrote: I see an opportunity to finally resolve the issue. Collect all Liberals and arm them with the very best pens and paper, send them into the ISIS, ISIL, al Qaeda camps to negotiate a lasting peace.
There are two probable outcomes, one they will prove beyond reason that the pen is indeed mightier than the sword and return heroes. Two, they will be separated from their heads and we can stop arguing stupidity and determine how to rid the earth of the vile twisted Islamic extremists.
Clearly, its a win/win situation.

Interesting. For someone who obviously thinks discussing things like we are in this thread is arguing stupidity, you certainly do participate, don't you (rhetorical, of course).

The rest of your post doesn't merit a response.

Well ZHawke, HEARTLESS does make a more logical point when it comes to terrorists than does your signature line. I realize the way he says it is a bit over the top, but his assessment of the outcome is pretty accurate don't you think?

If Einstein were alive today, do you think he would use those words if he was discussing solutions to current day terrorism?

Rick wrote: Well ZHawke, HEARTLESS does make a more logical point when it comes to terrorists than does your signature line. I realize the way he says it is a bit over the top, but his assessment of the outcome is pretty accurate don't you think?

If Einstein were alive today, do you think he would use those words if he was discussing solutions to current day terrorism?

No, he doesn't make a "more logical point", Rick. It's certainly a more blatantly "conservative" viewpoint. I'll concede that.

If Einstein were alive today, I don't know if he would use those words. Nor do you. We can "suppose" all we want to, but this is one of those posts from you where you posit a hypothetical and unanswerable question that is just as frustrating to me as some of mine are to you. To me, you are missing the point I'm trying to make, especially in the broader scope of things.

ZHawke wrote:

Rick wrote: Well ZHawke, HEARTLESS does make a more logical point when it comes to terrorists than does your signature line. I realize the way he says it is a bit over the top, but his assessment of the outcome is pretty accurate don't you think?

If Einstein were alive today, do you think he would use those words if he was discussing solutions to current day terrorism?

No, he doesn't make a "more logical point", Rick. It's certainly a more blatantly "conservative" viewpoint. I'll concede that.

If Einstein were alive today, I don't know if he would use those words. Nor do you. We can "suppose" all we want to, but this is one of those posts from you where you posit a hypothetical and unanswerable question that is just as frustrating to me as some of mine are to you. To me, you are missing the point I'm trying to make, especially in the broader scope of things.

You're right, I don't know what he would think today, but I do know that terrorism has "evolved" since his day. I just haven't seen any great successes in using "understanding" when it comes to evil men who are hel bent on eliminating anyone and everyone who does not believe as they do. I understand their goals and I understand their methods, but I don't believe they will ever understand that every life is as important as another, despite believing in different gods or no god. I'm pretty sure Einstein could also understand how dangerous and inhuman these people are.

Rick wrote: You're right, I don't know what he would think today, but I do know that terrorism has "evolved" since his day. I just haven't seen any great successes in using "understanding" when it comes to evil men who are hel bent on eliminating anyone and everyone who does not believe as they do. I understand their goals and I understand their methods, but I don't believe they will ever understand that every life is as important as another, despite believing in different gods or no god. I'm pretty sure Einstein could also understand how dangerous and inhuman these people are.

And therein lies the conundrum I get frustrated with, Rick. First you posit an unanswerable question about what Einstein might or might not say. Then you come back with this. The point I was trying to make with my sig line is that without understanding, there really can be no peace. So, your understanding is to posit what you did regarding how evil the extremist Jihadists are. You also say you "understand" them. But, do you really? I'm not trying to defend them or their actions. Not even a little bit. Not even a minuscule bit. But I believe none of us really "understands" them. And, I'm putting all of this out there with all due respect. I do NOT mean this to be adversarial in the least.

I'm going to use a little bit of personal history/experience here in an effort to try and help illustrate where I'm coming from on this and a lot of other issues.

Following the tragedy at Columbine High School, I can't remember how many times I was asked if I blamed the perps for what happened. At the time, my reaction was to think, "WTF kind of question is that"?. My answers were invariably along the lines of I don't have time or a willingness to "blame" them. They've already paid the price for their actions and will be paying it into eternity as far as I'm concerned.

Then the questions turned to, "Help us understand.......". My response to that was to essentially say if we could actually wrap our heads around why they did what they did, not that that would make what they did "right" by any stretch of the imagination, we would also then be more like them than I, personally, would want to take on mentally, psychologically, and emotionally. Edited to add: And then I realized I am, in fact, trying to understand. Why else would I read books like "Columbine", or do the research on this event to help me come to grips with what happened to myself, my family, and everyone else affected by this tragedy? Whether I ever will be able to "understand" is probably not going to happen. Nor will it when it comes to extremism anywhere in this world. But I'm trying.

I've also been told I don't know how many times, "I can't begin to imagine what you're going through", or "I can't imagine what you've gone through". My response has always been, and will always be, "Then you should probably TRY to imagine".

Edited to add: I also try to help people understand my personal trauma isn't/wasn't any more or less severe than any trauma they have experienced in their lives. Everyone experiences trauma. This is one experience in all of our lives that doesn't qualify in the least for "degrees of magnitude" as far as I'm concerned. Trauma is trauma.

That infamous event thrust me into a world not of my own choosing. It gave me serious pause to reflect upon who I was prior to it, who I became during, and who I am now. Basically, I try very hard to choose love. Again, that doesn't mean I don't feel emotion when things like the school massacre takes place in Pakistan or when mass shootings anywhere occur, or when I perceive an injustice has been perpetrated upon someone.

Personal emotions run high whenever these type of events occur. Initial emotions dictate revenge. More pragmatic emotions over a period of time tend to temper my personal demons in that regard, and I move away from revenge as a motivation. I can't help it. It's who I am - who I've become.

That's how I choose to look at politics, religion, torture, emotions, and everything else under whatever God anyone might choose to believe in.

My own personal bottom line, if one wants to call it that, is if we don't at least try to understand, not condone or anything even remotely close to that, then we really are no better than they are when it comes to our own core beliefs.