June 22, 2005
Reactionaries
The House of Representatives – again – voted to add an amendment to the U.S. Constitution outlawing the burning of American flags.
You know what, guys? A vote on an anti-flag-burning amendment is not a poll asking whether or not you approve of people who burn the American flag. Some of us use it as a test to gauge how much respect and understanding you have for the First Amendment – not to mention the Constitution. Conservatives like to point out – correctly, I might add – that the U.S. Constitution is great in part because it limits the power of the state rather than the freedom of the people who live in this country. Is it really too much to ask that we keep it that way?
Unpatriotic self-loathing reactionaries have every right to burn their own property as long as they are not committing arson. I have yet to hear a compelling reason why we should take that right from them. So what if burning the flag is offensive? The U.S. Constitution is no place for Political Correctness, whether it’s left-wing or right-wing.
Some of these House Republicans are just unclear on the concept. Others, I have no doubt, are dirty political hacks. Ooh, let's see how many Democrats vote against this amendment so we can hang "unpatriotic" around their necks. If you ever wonder why “patriotism” and “flag-waver” are sneer words in some quarters, well, this is part of the reason. Some people make patriotism embarrassing.
Democrats who vote for amendments like this are gutless cowards. But if they wouldn’t promote people to party leadership positions who compare U.S. soldiers to Nazis, Stalinists, and Khmer Rouge thugs they might have a wee bit less to be defensive about. They might want to think about that sort of thing when votes like this one come up.
UPDATE: Sigh. Some people in the comments are sticking up for Dick Durbin and his comparison of Gitmo to the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot. I don’t particularly feel like getting into an argument about this, which is the reason I never even mentioned the flap until now. But I will make one point since it fell right into my lap.
Someone who goes by the name of Scrapiron left the following comment, after which he was summarily banned from ever posting here again:The amendment should include an automatic death penalty. Of course I also think that the educated idiots should receive the death penalty just for wasting oxygen when they breathe. [Emphasis added.]Now that, my friends, makes me think of Pol Pot.
We live in a free country, and a flag can be just a piece of cloth to those who choose to feel that way.
I don't happen to agree, but there you go.
When I see someone burn a flag I see someone making a political statement against the honor and history of this odd damned experiment we are embarked upon. And yes, I do question their patriotism.
It's a base act of political voodoo when you get down to brass tacks. When we say "words mean things" people nod. Actions do speak louder than words, and lighting that bunting (to me) is a personal statememt that the arsonist would be just fine with burning a lot more than just some cloth.
But then again, that's just me. It's political speech of a particualarly crass and mindless stripe. A hearty "fuck you" to the overwhelming majority of Americans.
And government has zero business attempting to codify a penalty for doing it. Let them burn the flag. See where it gets them.
Posted by: TmjUtah at June 22, 2005 06:46 PMBurning the flag is the act of children, not
criminals.
Here we go again. Who compared US soldiers to Nazis, Stalinists, and the Khmer Rouge? Durbin? No, he didn't. Did you read his whole comment? or did you just listen to the right-wing version of it? His comment was too vulverable to being twisted, but twisting it around was still wrong.
Does anyone remember Durbin fighting to get proper armor for the troops? the troops he hates so much?
You're right on about the flag burning issue. On the heels of the Durbin comments, the Republicans are taking this patriotism contest as far as they can and cashing in. I shake my head at the kind of mentality it takes for a person to burn the flag, but I also shake my head at rabid flag wavers. I don't know who is more dangerous.
Posted by: John Mc at June 22, 2005 07:18 PM... if they wouldn’t promote people to party leadership positions who compare U.S. soldiers to Nazis, Stalinists, and Khmer Rouge thugs they might have a wee bit less to be defensive about.
Ah, so is this what makes you a "centrist," Michael? That given two pieces of dishonest partisan hackery by the Republicans, you reject one and unthinkingly accept the other?
Solomonic, one might say.
Just to refresh everyone's memory, here's the passage from an FBI report that drew the comparison you find unconscionable:
On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold. . . . On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor.
Now, here's the part I need your help on, Michael. You see, Sen. Durbin followed this excerpt by saying that if not told otherwise, "you would most certainly believe this must have been done by ...." -- and the way that he chose to end that sentence, in your view, was so beyond the pale that all Democrats should be embarrassed.
What I'd like to know is, how do you think he should have finished that sentence? "You would most certainly believe this must have been done by ...."
By whom, Michael? I'm serious. What would you have considered an acceptable ending to that sentence?
Or do good Americans simply not say anything at all, pretending that torture in our military prisons doesn't exist (kind of like Islamic extremism in Iraq, you might say!) because it's politically inconvenient to acknowledge it?
Posted by: Swopa at June 22, 2005 07:18 PMHow stupid. What could be better for America than for Lefties to burn the flag for all to see. More freedom of expression for the Left I say.
Posted by: spaniard at June 22, 2005 07:24 PMHow great is it that even after Durbin apologized, others find it necessary to defend his statement.
If I come upon someone burning Old Glory, I am going to take it from them and punch them in the mouth. And I expect to be charged and convicted of battery for doing so. For while burning the flag is base, insulting, childish, counterproductive and unpatriotic, so are many things in a free society. Protest and unpopular speech, if they aren't protected by the First Amendmant, then what is?
Yes, flags are burned by jerks. Jerks are best off punched, not by trivializing the Constitution.
Posted by: spc67 at June 22, 2005 07:27 PMI say let the flag burners be free to burn the flag--it makes it that much easier to identify the morons amongs us.
Posted by: chris in st. lou' at June 22, 2005 07:30 PMSwopa,
I'm sorry, but I just don't think of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot when I read those FBI excerpts.
Genocide, totalitarianism, and slavery are what make me think of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at June 22, 2005 07:45 PMThe purpose of the House of Representatives is to express the will of the people, however stupid and short sited that will may be. The House is supposed to be populist in it's political view.
The purpose of the Senate is to buffer short term popular opinion against the long term interests of the nation. Limiting speech has long term slippery slope consequences.
Posted by: Soldier's Dad at June 22, 2005 07:48 PM"How great is it that even after Durbin apologized, others find it necessary to defend his statement."
See jerk. Punch jerk. It's that kind of truncated thought process that would lead someone to believe that Durbin actually sincerely apologized, instead of maybe, being a politician and all, gauging the wind and exercising some damage control.
Posted by: John Mc at June 22, 2005 07:50 PMI thought Yahoo news was stuck in a time warp when I read about this. I guess the House solved all the real problems that we face if they had time to revisit the flag-burning issue.
Posted by: Norton at June 22, 2005 08:06 PM"I'm sorry, but I just don't think of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot when I read those FBI excerpts."
Well, if you think of American soldiers we're screwed.
The question was "What do you think of?" I'm still curious as to your answer. If not Pol Pot, maybe Pinochet ???
If the Right and it's hangers-on doesn't think of some torture regime but Americans when it looks at that quote, I have to ask myself who has dragged this country into the dirt and shamed it. Certainly not Dick Durbin for telling some truth.
Posted by: reg at June 22, 2005 08:09 PMJohnny Mac,
So Durbin's merely a liar? LOL GREEEEEAT Defense.
Talk about truncated thought. What are ya tryin' to get fewer seats in the Senate?
Posted by: spc67 at June 22, 2005 08:13 PMSomeone that purposely burns The Flag/ Passport/ Citizenship Card, should have their citizenship permanently revoked. People that engage in such political acts should be made to suffer the appropriate logical consequences of their action.
Posted by: mika. at June 22, 2005 08:14 PMC'mon Michael. When I think of Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, and Pol Pot, I think of much,much worse things too, but that is besides the point. Since when do we let these monsters set our moral compass? Durbin's point was 'are you okay with the acts described by this FBI official?' Are these acts (there were worse ones he could have mentioned, including deaths by beatings) consistent with the values that we uphold?
I'm all for destroying these religious fascists, but we have to remember 'why' we are the good guys.
spc67,
Quick life lesson here. I learned this a long time ago, and I'm only 31. Politicians are not always sincere with their words.
Next to the truth, I could care less about democratic or republican seats.
Posted by: John Mc at June 22, 2005 08:34 PMJohnny Mac,
True, true (I am an older and wiser 41:)), if you weren't defending Durbin/claiming it wasn't an apology then I withdraw my comment. If you think he shouldn't have apologized, or theat HE isn't characterizing it that way then we disagree.
Posted by: spc67 at June 22, 2005 08:37 PMHELL NO, he shouldn't have apologized.
Posted by: John Mc at June 22, 2005 08:43 PMJohn MC: Since when do we let these monsters set our moral compass?
I don't. Of course it's not good enough that we "aren't as bad" as Nazi Germany. I just don't think of Gitmo as anywhere near the same planet as Belsen.
I don't approve of everything that goes on in that place and I've said so many many times. That doesn't changed the fact that Dick Durbin "Godwinned" himself.
Reg: The question was "What do you think of?" I'm still curious as to your answer. If not Pol Pot, maybe Pinochet ???
Any prisoner of war camp in any country. That does NOT mean I'm okay with abusing prisoners, so don't deliberately misinterpret what I just said. I think prisoner abuse should be kept as near zero as possible, even for known terrorists. But I am tired of hearing this country slandered as the new Nazi Germany.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at June 22, 2005 08:44 PMKeep on keepin' on Johnny Mac.
I love counterproductivity among my political opponents.
Posted by: spc67 at June 22, 2005 08:45 PMI didn't bother to read your BIO, i'll just assume you were educated at one of the failed colleges. Burning the flag is not speach of any form, free or repressed. It's desecration to the highest level and the show of a traitor. The amendment should include an automatic death penalty. Of course I also think that the educated idiots should receive the death penalty just for wasting oxygen when they breathe. Help the enviroment, stop breathing.
Posted by: scrapiron at June 22, 2005 08:51 PMMJT: "…the U.S Constitution is great in part because it limits the power of the state rather than the freedom of the people who live in this country."
Indeed. I recently read the US constitution. (I'm Canadian, so I hope I can be forgiven for not reading it sooner.) One thing that struck me was that most of the amendments either placed limitations on the state or granted rights to the people. Of those that didn't, they were mainly procedural. As far as I could see, the only amendment that took away individual rights was the ban on alcohol, and that was later repealed by a subsequent amendment.
Spc67: "If I come upon someone burning Old Glory, I am going to take it from them and punch them in the mouth. And I expect to be charged and convicted of battery for doing so…Yes, flags are burned by jerks. Jerks are best off punched, not by trivializing the Constitution."
Ah yes, and then there's America's dark side. See flag-burner, punch flag-burner. Unfortunately that tradition is at least as old as the Constitution and the beautiful vision that led to it. See commie, beat commie. See nigger, lynch nigger. See Indian, kill Indian. See witch, burn witch.
Posted by: VinoVeritas at June 22, 2005 09:01 PMYup, punching a flag burner is the same as lynching and the rest. OOOOOOOOOOkay. A couple of minor differences though. What you site are KILLINGS for what people ARE (except witches of course, unless they were, well, you get my drift), whereas I am proposing battery for what someone DOES. See the difference? Sort of like how turning off the AC isn't the same as gassing millions.
Posted by: spc67 at June 22, 2005 09:19 PMthe U.S. Constitution is great in part because it limits the power of the state rather than the freedom of the people who live in this country.
I'll second that.
I say let the flag burners be free to burn the flag--it makes it that much easier to identify the morons amongs us.
I'll second that, too.
It's political speech of a particualarly crass and mindless stripe.
It's expression, not speech. There's a reason to be nitpicky - the not-too-uncommon false argument that flag burning laws violate First Amendment speech protections. Speech is a subset of expression, not expression as a whole.
Flag burning laws provide a precedent for banning all sorts of symbol "desecration." Anyone who has ever complained about academic political correctness should see where this could lead.
Posted by: Alan K. Henderson at June 22, 2005 09:31 PM"I love counterproductivity among my political opponents."
Sorry to disappoint ya, but don't get giddy thinking Durbin's comments will be that counter-productive. The Illinois Republicans got him beat at that game. The best they could come up with in the elections against my fellow South Side Chicagoan, Barack Oobama, was Alan Keyes.
nuff said
I think the argument against the Flag Desecration amendment has been sufficiently made, and I needn't add anything to that.
As far as Sen. Durbin goes, as much as I feel his comments were inappropriate and inartful, I still don't think he meant to compare the troops to Nazis, or Stalinists. He made a serious error, and he rightly apologized. Frankly, this only confirms my belief that we ought to but a moatorium on all Nazi analogies (and corresponding Soviet, Pol Pot analogies).
Posted by: Rafique Tucker at June 22, 2005 09:51 PMI used to get sucked into the flag burning debate but now I see it for what it really is, a 3 card monty game played on us by self serving politicians. The flag burning issue is usually trotted out because some senator has been caught with his flag staff stuck in a 22 year old female intern.
We are in a friggin war right now and the best these people can do is waste time on this horse flop.
Craig, Chico
Posted by: Craig, California at June 22, 2005 10:17 PMScrapiron: Of course I also think that the educated idiots should receive the death penalty just for wasting oxygen when they breathe.
Now that, my friends, makes me think of Pol Pot.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at June 22, 2005 10:35 PMScrapiron, by the way, is banned. No one who makes a debut post like that one gets to post here again.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at June 22, 2005 10:39 PMThe problem with Durbin's comments was overreach. I blame a media-degraded communications environment and a culture that's long forgotten the value of understatement.
Use of the T and N words is a sign that
a) a fair amount of Americans are genuinely upset at what appears to be American soldiers acting like soldiers of some second-tier Latin American strongman and abusing prisoners
b) a fair amount of Americans could care less
I belong to the first group and the whole Durbin flap seems to be a kind of rightwing cheerleading and the whole process seems pretty clear:
1. trot out some objectionable comment (even if it's pretty obscure)
2. scream bloody murder
I'm assuming the purpose is two-fold
1. keep the rank and file in a state of perpetual agitated self-righteousness
2. make it hard to talk about real problems, so that anyone who brings up unpleasant topics like Sean Baker can be dismissed as a Ward Churchill lover or whatever)
And a flag-burning ammendment is the last refuge of political scoundrels, anyone who pays attention to it or votes in favor of it has no place in government.
Posted by: Michael Farris at June 22, 2005 10:45 PM"I don't want to amend the Constitution to solve a nonproblem. People are not burning the flag. The only time they start is when this amendment gets offered."
-Senator Bob Bennett
(one of only two sane Senate Republicans on this issue)
...you gotta admit, the man does have a point. As for why this has suddenly come up, the Republicans might actually have the votes to pass the son of a bitch, finally. That is to say, they have the votes only if a handful of officially "undecided" Dems vote for it too. In other words, bottom line: this is a preemptive strike on the Hillary '08 campaign.
Step one: Question her politics.
Step two: Question her patriotism.
Step three: Question her sexuality. (yep, it's coming.)
VinoVeritas:
Ah yes, and then there's America's dark side. See flag-burner, punch flag-burner. Unfortunately that tradition is at least as old as the Constitution and the beautiful vision that led to it. See commie, beat commie. See nigger, lynch nigger. See Indian, kill Indian. See witch, burn witch.
Leaving aside the breadth of that brush, I see a common misconception here; that leaving something legal means it should be tolerated in civil society.
That doesn't mean I advocate punching flag burners. (Too far, spc67). But I'm a strong advocate of hopefully artful derision of aggressive stupidity. Taunt them some more, and if they get chippy, then toss a cow at 'em.
So John MC, hell yes Durbin should have apoligized, and sincerely; because as the very best what he said was stupid to the bone. And if you really think trivializing what happened during and after WWII, or in the Killing Fields, then you're not so bright yourself.
Posted by: Mark Poling at June 22, 2005 11:37 PMAnd Grant, I find it depressing that you're probably correct re: the pre-emptive strike against Hillary.
Posted by: Mark Poling at June 22, 2005 11:38 PMGrant and Mark,
There's no need to speculate that right-wing trolls will accuse Hillary Clinton of being a lesbian. I've already heard it said, and apparently it's a major thurst of Ed Klein's new book The Truth About Hillary.
John Podhoretz (who is a political conservative, by the way) reviewed it for the New York Post.
Excerpt below:
------------------------------------------------
This is one of the most sordid volumes I've ever waded through. Thirty pages into it, I wanted to take a shower. Sixty pages into it, I wanted to be decontaminated. And 200 pages into it, I wanted someone to drive stakes through my eyes so I wouldn't have to suffer through another word.
Though Klein suggests in his subtitle that he has written a study of a power-hungry politician — "What She Knew, When She Knew It, And How Far She'll Go to Become President" — he's produced something quite different. An unduly celebratory biography is called a "hagiography." Klein's book is a "hate-eography."
[...]
Klein may offer a few words here or there about Whitewater or Travelgate, but what really floats his boat is the Higham-like notion that Sen. Clinton is secretly a lesbian.
He has no proof whatever for this claim save that she has had some lesbian friends. (So do I. Does that make me a lesbian?) Indeed, Klein even offers the quaint theory that it doesn't really matter whether Hillary ever acted on her supposed lesbian tendencies. "To be a lesbian," he lectures on page 63, "it was not necessary for a woman to have a physical relationship with another woman. Such a relationship could be romantic and asexual."
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at June 23, 2005 12:01 AMI think people should be allowed to burn the American flag as an exercise of political expression.
And I also think I should be allowed to punch a flag-burning asshat in the nose as an exercise in political expression.
Posted by: Gullyborg at June 23, 2005 12:09 AMI have long been PROUD of American Freedom -- freedom enough to BURN. If one so wanted.
(not so unpleasant nightmare coming ...):
Or to put pig shit on it.
Like right outside the Saudi Arabian embassy, everytime a terrorist bomb goes off and kills somebody.
Followed by pig shit on the Koran.
Then burn them both.
And a claim to UN Article 19 -- free speech; which we DO have in America. But not in the Middle East.
Neither symbol, as symbol alone, is worth the life the terrorist murdered. But the freedom to speak IS worth fighting for, dying for, killing for; and even killing some innocents.
And even some excessively brutal interrogations, whose purpose is to save US lives.
I think of the Stanford Prison experiment when I hear of abuse; and US prison rape; and the German movie Das Experiment -- and how power corrupts.
I also think: glad Rumsfeld fired Gen. Karpinski; glad she's now a colonel. I wonder what other armies have been so tough on their generals?
Higher Standards? yechh -- Higher Standards means Gitmo is Gulag
Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at June 23, 2005 02:59 AMHey, even Durbin agrees he made an improper and offensive analogy - he even apologized for it on the Senate floor.
The sad part of this flag burning bit, for me, is that having it come up again reminds me that I'm getting old. We just keep recycling all the old issues - I think this is the third or fourth time, in my lifetime, that this "controversy" has been debated by our national politicians.
I think you're right MJT, there is no principle here other than the political attempt to embarrass.
Posted by: too many steves at June 23, 2005 03:27 AM"But I am tired of hearing this country slandered as the new Nazi Germany."
Durbin didn't do that and anyone who actually reads his remarks should know it. Talk about overheating your rhetoric to make a tendentious point...
He shouldn't have bent to pressure to recant, by the way. He should have told his critics to deal with the substance of his comments and not waste their time policing his rhetorical devices. Those folks look BAD in my book, because they make more noise about an analogy than acts that truly are detrimental to our country and our conduct of a war. That's where the shaming should begin.
Posted by: reg at June 23, 2005 04:04 AMNow I think I see why you had opted not to mention Durbin.
I don’t particularly feel like getting into an argument about this, which is the reason I never even mentioned the flap until now.I'm guessing the "quality" of argumentation Durbin's defenders put forth was probably, for you, predictable.
It's your blog. You blog as you wish. As it should be.
But why give the keys to the reflexive, the defensive, and the illogical?
When you jumped on Congressman Jones for being the cretin he is
but were silent on Durbin I wondered about your integrity.
Which is what happens when you stifle yourself in order to dodge dealing with energetic but weak argumentation.
Your choice of course. It's your blog.
Just thought you'd like to know how it looks from here.
BTW You do seem to have some commenters willing to help with the chores. Bless 'em.
As to flag burning I sorted that out for myself decades ago.
If they feel they must -- I won't stand in their way.
I'll respect their rights.
But I won't respect them.
However, the first time a citizen is arrested or in any way penalized by any governmental body or official for Koran desecration as "hate speech" I will certainly find myself reconsidering my position on an Amendment.
Posted by: Stephen at June 23, 2005 04:46 AM"Democrats who vote for amendments like this are gutless cowards"
And Republicans who vote for amendments like this are . . . well, just Republicans?
No matter the issue it seems it's always a good occaision to rip the Democrats, even if they aren't behind the amendment.
And if the amendment is proposed just so Democrats can smeared as unpatriotic, well, they deserve it anyway.
Posted by: Pug at June 23, 2005 05:46 AMI hate to see the flag burned, but I hate seeing swastikas and KKK hoods too. Where do you draw the line?
This strikes as a well-intentioned first step on the road to Hell.
Posted by: TallDave at June 23, 2005 05:48 AMThat doesn't changed the fact that Dick Durbin "Godwinned" himself.
Exactly.
Posted by: TallDave at June 23, 2005 05:50 AMThis argument will run ad naseam, till the next Democrat makes the same mistake as the last.Any human being with even a working knowledge of history could never possibly compare Gitmo with any of the above. This is an indisputable fact. However, I believe Mr Durbin was merely trying to highlight his oposition to any form of mistreatment of captured enemies.That was his fundamental argument.He expressed it badly,possibly to elevate his status.He and the rest of the democratic party should be questioned as to what is their incessant need to play up to the extreme members of their party and the cost it does to the centre left base in regaining the ground they have lost
Posted by: Patrick at June 23, 2005 06:10 AMListen, I'm sympathetic to Durbin's horror and shame at some of the treatment of prisoners. Shackling a prisoner to the floor to stew in his own waste for 24 hours doesn't seem right to me for several reasons:
(1) It's not the most effective way to extract intelligence from him.
(2) It's bad PR in a greater war for "hearts and minds," because it lends credibility to "moral equivalency" arguments of the enemy and their sympathizers.
(3) It's immoral, and ultimately degrades and brutalizes our own troops.
If such practices are against official policy, then that is a problem that needs to be addressed, and if they are in line with official policy, then that policy needs to be re-examined and criticized. Is it really helping the war effort?
But it is possible to deplore such practices without likening them to the greatest atrocities known to humankind. This is also a grave mistake for several reasons:
(1) It diminishes the credibility of your valid criticism because it's correctly seen as over-the-top rhetoric and unpersuasive demagoguery.
(2) It trivializes the scale of suffering and death from those great atrocities, and thereby insults its victims.
(3) Your overstatement becomes part of the enemy's propaganda and exacerbates the PR problem that the ill-treatment created in the first place. Now you have a US Senator being quoted on al Jazeera comparing US service men and women to Nazis. Not good.
Most of the people who demanded an apology from Durbin were unconcerned with (1), but this does not make their concerns with (2) and (3) less valid. Durbin was right to apologize, but he ought to have apologized for all three.
Those, like Swopa and Andrew Sullivan, who would defend his remarks by carefully parsing his grammar so as to claim that it wasn't really likening Gitmo to the Killing Fields... Well, in some rigid, legalistic sense you may be right, but you are missing the point.
Let's say that you are right, and Durbin didn't really exactly equate Gitmo with all the worst grand scale evils of the 20th Century. Then why juxtapose them at all? To those who you might hope to persuade it just makes Gitmo look not so bad in comparison, right? Therefore, it looks as if the remark hope to insinuate an equivalency without going so far as to state it outright. That's just a more weasely form of demagoguery. It's really no less offensive than an outright comparison, and no more helpful to the cause of ending a deplorable practice. It is, as we like to say these days, "unhelpful."
Posted by: Browning Porter at June 23, 2005 06:16 AM
Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more. and On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him.?
I'll tell you what I think of when I read this: Boy, do we suck at torture. Lying on the floor? Why not hang him upside down by his toes? Force him to stand under penalty of electric shock? Why don't they do that?
Of course, even Bush haters like Swopa know why. It's because we don't allow our moral compass to be dictated by others (a phrase I've now read twice in 2 days). The unpleasentness of being chained to a table and being denied proper toilet facilities may be horrific treatment for grandma, but for a terrorist taken from the battlefield, it's a joke.
These forms of "torture" do more to prove how different we are from our enemy than how evil we have become. This isn't torture. In the immortal words of Gary Johnston, anyone who thinks this is torture is a pussy. And sometimes pussies get so full shit, they become assholes themselves.
Posted by: Zymurgist at June 23, 2005 06:33 AMMark Poling (responding to my post of 9:01 PM: “Leaving aside the breadth of that brush, I see a common misconception here; that leaving something legal means it should be tolerated in civil society.”
Yes my statement was too shrill and I apologize for it. And I agree with your attitude that the response to stupid dissent should be creative derision.
But let me try to make my point again less emotionally: Americans have a long and great tradition of placing limits on government. But the reason to place limits on government is not because government is inherently bad, but because freedom is inherently good. There are two parts to a free society: having a government that respects freedom, and having a civil society and culture that respects the importance of non-violence and respect for peaceful dissent. Having the former without the latter does little.
Government coercion and violence at least usually has the virtue of being predictable. Keep your head down and you can usually avoid it. A culture that tolerates or endorses vigilantism is at least as dangerous to personal freedom as a dictatorship.
It was spc67’s endorsement of violence that I objected to, even if it’s only assault instead of lynching.
Posted by: VinoVeritas at June 23, 2005 06:57 AMThe flag burning amendment is just another one of those issues that the Republicans like to introduce every couple of years just to rev up their base, when they know it will never become law. The FMA last year was only the latest version. Grandstanding like this, I think, is best ignored.
As for Durbin, of course it was wrong to cross the line into Godwinization. But what bothered me even more was the right-wing OUTRAGE over it- as if by criticizing interrogators for inappropriate actions, he was ripping ALL troops, and thus America itself.
Because of the Republicans don't have something to be OUTRAGED about, they have nothing to talk about.
Posted by: Steve at June 23, 2005 07:02 AMOf course, stepping on a Koran, now we can't have that, can we? But it's OK to burn a flag.
Posted by: exhelodrvr at June 23, 2005 07:06 AMAs a person who was disgusted in the strongest sense by the rhetoric of Amnesty International in calling Gitmo a gulag, I have to say that Durbin's comments were not out of line and they have been misrepresented.
As I see it, Durbin qualitatively compared actions taking place in two places and times. The qualitative comparison was apt and thought-provoking. It was not a quantitative comparison of scope or degree, nor did it speak to intent. He did not say Gitmo is 'x'. He said, certain things have happened there, and here's where else they've happened, and does that make you feel a certain way about them? I think the success of that final question is what created so much backlash.
The qualitative comparison was apt and thought-provoking.
I disagree. I think it was neither. Is was not apt, a word that means "exactly appropriate." As many have pointed out, life in Gitmo may be very harsh, but it's a bowl of cherries compared to life in Auschwitz, or a Soviet gulag, or on the killing fields of Cambodia. Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply ignorant of history.
And it's certainly not "thought-provoking." Emotion-provoking, yes. But as we've seen, they were not the emotions a persuasive speaker might have hoped for. He completely botched the point he was trying to make by over-reaching.
My question is this: Isn't the image of a man chained in his own waste not vivid enough for you? What's the point in also evoking images of millions and millions of dead, and the unimaginable inhuman horrors in the same breath? Is the image of Gitmo just not scary and ugly enough on its own, he had to put a little top spin on it? No one who doesn't already agree with him will be persuaded by that kind of argument, will they?
Posted by: Browning Porter at June 23, 2005 08:04 AMNot only should scrapiron be banned but his post should be deleted. Not only does he not know how to spell correctly but he also used contradictory words to make his point. What exactly are "educated idiots"? I suggest scrapiron should get some education himself at one of our "failed colleges". Or maybe he simply failed at college?
Posted by: Jim Jones at June 23, 2005 08:06 AMThe thing that makes me sick to my stomach about the House passing this fool Amendment is that it will almost certainly lead to more flag burning. I hate to see the flag desecrated on US soil by Americans, and Congress has just created an incentive to do so. Those who would not otherwise even think to burn the flag are now encouraged to do so, if only to defend the principle of free speech, and to create test cases of same.
And I'll also be forced to defend them, on the principle of free speech. Thanks so much for that, assholes in Congress.
Posted by: Wagner James Au at June 23, 2005 08:07 AMGovernment coercion and violence at least usually has the virtue of being predictable. Keep your head down and you can usually avoid it. A culture that tolerates or endorses vigilantism is at least as dangerous to personal freedom as a dictatorship.
Where would you have rather lived during the late 1930’s and early 1940’s – Government coerced Europe or vigilante America?
Was the Warsaw uprising "dangerous vigilantism"? I'm sure the Nazis and those who were anxious to cooperate with them believed that it was.
The Salem witch trials were due to the actions of the government. The Jim Crow laws were government-enforced. The violence they encouraged wasn't 'vigilantism'.
All non-government aggression isn't vigilantism. Barfights, muggings and punching someone in the nose isn't vigilantism.
The declaration of independence stated that people have the right to defend themselves against government coercion. Many people at the time thought that this idea was radical and dangerous, and many prefered government coercion . Many of them became Candians.
Posted by: mary at June 23, 2005 08:09 AMoops - Canadians.
Posted by: mary at June 23, 2005 08:10 AMTo spc67:
If you catch me burning the flag and try to punch me in the mouth just keep in mind you are likely to get punched in the mouth back and probably a face full of burned flag to go with it tough guy.
Browning, I agree in principle, but you're referring not to anything Durbin said but to the words that people have put in his mouth. Read his statement again, you'll see that he described a small and finite set of acts that are factually documented, not "life in Gitmo" or "life in Auschwitz," as you're saying. I agree with your contrasting of the two overall situations, and Durbin probably would as well. Do we really want to suppress his valid concerns because there's a bigger, stupider argument out there that he's not even making?
On the effect of his statement - is your point, then, that relating these events cannot be thought-provoking, because it's emotional as well? In other words, we therefore cannot or should not think/talk about them? Seems like most important issues would be too emotional for rational discussion if that were true.
Posted by: Nate at June 23, 2005 08:36 AMI can't help but think this whole thing is in some sense a reaction to the Gitmo-Koran fiasco. Our soldiers are required to wear gloves when handling the "Holy Koran" (and wrap it in towels IIRC) and treat it with the utmost respect, while anyone is free to desecrate our flag. If we're going to insist on honoring the symbols of our enemies, then I can certainly understand demands of our own citizens for respect of our symbols. I am against this amendment but then I am also totally against treating the Koran as anything but an ordinary book at Gitmo. Let's at least have some consistency.
Posted by: Caroline at June 23, 2005 08:42 AMCaroline,
You are absolutely correct. This is another example of the left getting their way on PC-issues, but not the right. Unfortunately, steps like this have to be taken to keep the PC-line from being permanently established well to the left of reality; we have seen that happen far too often on other issues.
Nate is right. Amnesty International's calling gitmo a modern day gulag was dumb and wrong (North Korea's labor camps are the modern day gulag). An apology would be in order. Durbin's comments did not make that comparison, no apology required.
This is tiresome, because it is going to happen again and again every time someone mentions one of the Big Nasties. It was no different when Republican Rick Santorum had to apologize a month ago for
his "comments comparing Democrats to Hitler". He did no such thing, and he shouldn't have apologized either. What's with all these Nazis demanding apogies?
Mary: “Where would you have rather lived during the late 1930’s and early 1940’s – Government coerced Europe or vigilante America?”
Germany had a culture that was anti-semitic and had a deference to authoritarianism. I think it was this culture that allowed Hitler to come to power. Remember, Hitler was democratically elected, and then was vested with dictatorial powers by the Reichstag.
"This is how liberty dies - to thunderous applause."
And Mary, if liberals aren’t allowed to unfavorably compare Guantanamo to Nazism, then conservatives shouldn’t be able to favorably contrast Jim Crow to Nazism.
Posted by: VinoVeritas at June 23, 2005 09:30 AMVino - you didn't answer my question. Where would you rather have lived?
Which is preferable, government-coerced Libya or vigilante America; government-coerced North Korea or vigilante America; soviet-coerced Russia or vigilante America..? I could go on and on all day with this. Your basic assertion that:
Government coercion and violence at least usually has the virtue of being predictable. Keep your head down and you can usually avoid it. A culture that tolerates or endorses vigilantism is at least as dangerous to personal freedom as a dictatorship.
..is such a fallacy, there are thousands of examples to contradict it.
..and liberals don't usually compare Guantanamo to Nazism - Leftists do. Not coincidentally, Leftists also believe that government coercion and violence is preferable to 'vigilante' liberal democracy.
Posted by: mary at June 23, 2005 09:39 AMVinoVeritas is not all wrong. A predictable dictatorship is preferable to an anarchic semi-democracy. Certainly it was much better to live as an ethnic German under Hitler than to live as Black man in rural Mississippi in the 1920s -1930s.
Posted by: vanya at June 23, 2005 09:50 AMJim Jones,
Heh, at least you'd be showing a little spine, unusual for those today (unlike say M. Ali) who understood a price needed to be paid for civil disobedience.
Posted by: spc67 at June 23, 2005 10:00 AMI think the notion that an anti-flag burning amendment has anything to do with military regulations for treatment of the Koran to be, well, silly.
It's essentially dealing with two radically different things, and no, it's not the Koran and the flag: it's the military versus the civilian American public.
Soldiers face lots of rules and regulations. They sign up knowing this. If you strike the flag in combat without orders, indicating surrender, you can be executed if convicted. People who join the military do so knowing they will lose a great many of their freedoms.
I don't know all the details of the uniform code of military justice, but I'm guessing there's probably something in there about flag-burning too.
The American public, on the other hand, is totally free to burn the American flag - and the Koran, if they want.
Soldiers aren't ordered to treat the Koran as they've been ordered to because DoD feels the Koran is important or sacred or whatever. They do it, like most things the military does, because those rules serve a purpose; in this case, strategic. The goal is to not alienate anyone that we don't have to. That whole hearts-and-minds thing: if we made it policy to shit on the Koran, the Muslims who don't hate us might start to, you know, not like us so much.
PS - One cannot desecrate the flag. This implies that the flag is sacred, and thanks to the first amendment, Congress can pass no law making the flag a religious icon. Which is a very, very good thing.
Posted by: The Commenter at June 23, 2005 10:10 AMMary: “you didn't answer my question. Where would you rather have lived? (Government coerced Europe or vigilante America during the late 1930’s and early 1940’s)”
Sorry, I thought the question was rhetorical. Oh gee, that’s a tough one. I guess I’d need more information.
Which “government coerced” European country? Germany or Britain? Italy or Denmark?
Where in America? NYC or Mississippi?
Black skin or white? Christian or Jewish? Capitalist or union activist?
My answer would depend on the answers to those questions. (If time travel is on the table, so are all those questions.)
White Christian? If I kept my head down, it wouldn’t matter until about 1940.
Jewish? Probably Denmark, at least until Nazi occupation, when my fellow Danish citizens would have smuggled me to Sweden.
Black? Probably NYC, although there’s no great choices. Can I time-travel forward? No? Why not?
Jewish and Black? Then I’m really screwed.
(Thanks for the support Vanya.)
Posted by: VinoVeritas at June 23, 2005 10:11 AMCertainly it was much better to live as an ethnic German under Hitler than to live as Black man in rural Mississippi in the 1920s -1930s.
Personally, I'd rather be fighting KKK loons than keeping my head down and doing nothing to stop Nazis from slaughtering Jews, as most Germans did.
Posted by: mary at June 23, 2005 10:21 AMForget this amendment. We need one limiting the powers of iminent domain.
Posted by: Flyboy at June 23, 2005 10:22 AMCommenter - I didn't say shit on the Koran - I said treat it like any other book (don't know about you but I don't know anyone who shits on books). If that loses hearts and minds - too bad. The alternative (treating it as a "sacred book") may well embolden our enemies to press harder and harder for our dhimmitude. As for the rest of your post - explain it to the folks who are likely phoning their congressmen with their support of this amendment because they are utterly fed up with what they probably see as a total double standard. I didn't say I agreed with the amendment, rather that I suspected that its introduction might bear a relationship to the Gitmo/Koran fiasco and that I could understand the sentiment.
Posted by: Caroline at June 23, 2005 10:28 AMHey Nate,
I addressed the issue of parsing Durbin's remarks exactly in an earlier post -- - the one that begins: "Listen, I'm sympathetic to Durbin's horror and shame at some of the treatment of prisoners." I don't dispute that Durbin didn't exactly and explicitly equate Gitmo with Auschwitz. To my mind, that doesn't make his remarks any less stupid and insensitive.
To respond to your question: is your point, then, that relating these events cannot be thought-provoking, because it's emotional as well?
Of course not. My point is that the emotional freight of his statement is wildly disproportionate, and overshadows any coherent thought he might have wanted to provoke. We should be thinking about the morality and utility of such treatment of prisoners. Instead, thanks to him, we are talking about the damned Nazis.
Admit it: Bringing up the Nazis, the gulags and the Khmer Rouge all in the same breath evokes images with tremendous emotional charge. They are images of the wholesale torture and slaughter of innocents. Millions dead, men women and children -- deliberate starvation, gas chambers, bayoneting pregnant women in the belly. You can't just name them all like that without provoking a powerful emotional response. That any of these groups may have left a man chained to the floor overnight is practically the least objectionable of their crimes. Bringing them up actually does make Gitmo look Club Med in comparison.
So why bring them up at all? Why not let the FBI agent's depiction of what happened stand on its own? Even if he does not say it in so many words, it's obvious that he somehow wanted to associate what went on in Gitmo with a litany of the worst criminal states in the history of the 20th century. If he wants to provoke a thought from us, then isn't it supposed to be: "My gosh! If we do this, aren't we like the Nazis?" Do you even dispute this? And if not, then why defend him on the grounds that he didn't make that comparison explicit? If he insinuates it, is that better than if he comes right out and says it?
But ultimately I hold it against him that he's not changing anyone's mind with that kind of rhetoric. He gives the moonbat left that little frisson of self-righteousness they crave. They think, "Like I've been saying, we're no better than Nazis. Thank God someone has the balls to say it." And he invites the wingnut right to actually make the comparison and note, correctly, that we are hardly Nazis, and from that conclude, incorrectly, "So he was a bit chilly and he pooped himself. He's a terrorist. What's the big deal?"
Posted by: Browning Porter at June 23, 2005 10:29 AMCommenter,
If you are saying that the only problem with treatment of the Koran is when it goes counter to the rules that have been put in place by the military, you might want to pass that information on to the strident voices on the left, who (apparently) didn't even bother to check on whether or not there were any Koran-treatment-standards before they started their spiel.
Caroline, this flag burning issue is decades old. The Koran issue, on the other hand, is just a blip.
I agree it should be treated as a book. At the very least, take the damn gloves off. I don't put gloves on before I touch a Koran, and if I walk down the streets of Cairo holding a Koran in my bare hands no one will care. They'll be happy enough that I'm interested in the book.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at June 23, 2005 11:13 AMHas Spaniard changed his name to "exhelodrvr"? Just asking for the info...
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at June 23, 2005 12:29 PMDouble,
Not that I am aware of.
Not that I am aware of.
Ah. The word combo count plus the style of the entry closely resembles spaniard's. Apologies.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at June 23, 2005 03:05 PMAs for Durbin, of course it was wrong to cross the line into Godwinization.
Yep
But what bothered me even more was the right-wing OUTRAGE over it.
What bothers me is how the far left is flaking for Durbin and his over-reaction to Gitmo intel gathering methodolgy.
as if by criticizing interrogators for inappropriate actions, he was ripping ALL troops, and thus America itself.
Sen. Durbins words ended up on above the fold newspaper stories and editorial pages from Paris to Tehran. He smeared America, he smeared our service men and women and gave our enemy political ammunition.
Craig
Posted by: at June 23, 2005 03:08 PMDouble,
Does spaniard end posts with prepositions, too?
Craig,
What so many public figures fail to realize (I am assuming/hoping that this is not done intentionally by most of them, although I am positive it is intentional in some cases) is that their criticisms of the administration/the military/the war in Iraq can not be treated as if they are being made in a board room, where no one will hear the raw data, just some sanitized version. It is guaranteed that these statements will be taken out of context, and used in that manner by all kinds of forces, both domestic and international, and will result in increased American casualties and a lengthened waw against the Islamic terrorists. But they continue on their merry way ...
exhelodrvr: "It is guaranteed that these statements will be taken out of context, and used in that manner by all kinds of forces, both domestic and international, and will result in increased American casualties and a lengthened waw against the Islamic terrorists"
What is amazing to me is that this point even needs to be made.
But! I'm going to try to go out on a limb here and imagine how the other (domestic) side sees this in good faith, and suppose that they are viewing this from say , Commenter's perspective, and that they imagine that by vociferously condemning our own infractions as they do, they are (in good faith) trying to win the "hearts and minds" of our enemies. Which brings us right to the core of the issue - what is actually the content of those hearts and minds? Do they form a monolithic block? Do they think the same way we westerners do? Let's suppose Durbin is winning some hearts and minds. Are they the hearts and minds we NEED to win in order to WIN?? Or are they the suckers whose H&M's we may well win but who have no power whatsoever to affect the outcome of the conflict? Just wondering is all.
No DPU - exhelo isn't Carlos - he's an ex Navy helicopter pilot. (I hope I got that right EH!)
MJT: "I agree it should be treated as a book"
Ahh - well, now we're on the same page:-)
MJT: "At the very least, take the damn gloves off."
By all means, let's take the damn gloves off! :-)
Posted by: Caroline at June 23, 2005 03:46 PMThanks, Caroline.
The hearts and minds that are being won are not being won over to "our side." They are being won to the "other side" because those types of statements just confirms (in their inaccurate view) the propaganda that has been fed these people for the past 50 years.
Posted by: exhelodrvr at June 23, 2005 04:40 PMAh, no matter how long you are away, the stuggle continues. Sort of reassuring in an unpleasant way to know that the intellectual equivalent of WW1 Trench Warfare is still grinding up all who enter. What we need here is MOBILITY !!
And on that note---- 3 cheers for Karl Rove and his dis of 'liberals' last night. He should not have said it last night of course. Ever so upsetting to have the truth just thrown out there with no nuance .
No he should not have said this last night---- he should have said this a year ago. A nation that does not defend its troops and their missions does not deserve to have those troops
defend it.
Yea Karl !!!
Posted by: dougf at June 23, 2005 05:18 PMWith the proper permit my municipality allows me to burn fallen trees and scrap lumber on my property. The town also requires that I phone them to alert them at the time I "do a burn". That is so they don't end up dispatching firefighters when citzens report smoke on my property. I have no quarrel with any of this.
But what if I were to fasten one piece of scrap lumber across another and then burn it? And what if I did this in sight of one of the public roads which border parts of my property?
A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision holds that if I did that with the "intent to intimidate" that I might be subject to arrest. Otherwise it's OK with The Robed Ones.
Desecration of a religious symbol or Thought Crime?
Sucks either way.
Posted by: Stephen at June 23, 2005 05:20 PMMichael,
The guy's comment is an offensive tongue and cheek joke, in my opinion, comparing him to Pol Pot is a bit (no way) over the top.... aka Dick Durbin.
The flag burning Amendment, particularly for those who fought in war, is a sensitive issue but has NO basis in Constitutional reality.
Antonin Scalia even ironically mentioned this as an example in a speech he gave a month or two ago, about how he feels the Court has become activist and overstepping its Constitutional intent.
His point was basic - burning a flag he finds reprehensible but as a Supreme Court member whose only job is to interpret and enforce the Constitution this is protected free speech.
I researched articles on this and some interesting tidbits.
Hillary against gives a weasely answer though - for laws banning but against Constitutional Amendment.
McCain for
In 2000 the Senate failed to vote for the Amendment after the House passed it with 2/3. The Senate vote against was only 37. Thus, 63 voted for it!!! NOW THAT IS SCAREY!
If Nazis in Skokie and Larry Flynt with a pornographic cartoon of Jerry Falwell and his mom in an out house are protected free speech than sorry, as reprehensible as flag burning morons are, they're protected by the 1rst Amendment and with good sound reason.
That my friends is why (thank g-d) we don't live in a Big Brother PC country like France (even Britain) where you can be charged and thrown in jail for a comment "someone/a judge interprets" as racist. (See Oriana Fallaci - Brigitte Bardot)
We can all send a thank you note to that brilliant rich white slave owner Berkeley residents despise so much, Thomas Jefferson.
Posted by: at June 23, 2005 06:01 PMVinoVeritas> To be technical, witches weren't burned in America, they were hung. Catholics burn and Protestants hang.
MJT> I think a more fiting compariosn for Durbin would be to compare us to DeGaulle's actions in Algeria. The Nazi comparison jsut annoys people. Now comparing us to the French would be a more effective chide, but Durbin could be a francophile and most people don't think of specific examples.
Say someoen is acting liek a Nazi and they yawn and ignore you. warn taht they're acting like the French and they show some concern.
Posted by: Green Baron at June 23, 2005 06:23 PMCaroline,
I believe that you have totally misunderstood my goals.
I'm amazed at the adoption of postmodernism by the same conservatives who used to hate it so.
My point has a lot less to do with words than you seem to think.
From what I gather, you interpret my stance as something like this:
"In order to win hearts and minds, people like Durbin must verbally flagellate America so as to appear...penitent? apologetic? meek? whatever..."
When, in reality, I don't want people like Durbin to speak out in order to win hearts and minds. Rather, I think the things against which Durbin spoke are alienating people, and I think this is a bad thing. It is my hope that if enough people speak out, our political leaders will actually change their policies which are alientating people.
See the difference? You think I want Durbin to speak because I place value on the words themselves. Rather, I want Durbin to speak because I want actual policy changes, and in a democracy, policies are influence by public debate.
Get it?
Posted by: The Commenter at June 23, 2005 07:28 PMPosted by The Commenter- Get it
Your condescending and fancy yourself smarter than everyone else.
Rather, I want Durbin to speak because I want actual policy changes, and in a democracy, policies are influence by public debate.
Your projecting when you posit the theory that Dick Durbin can raise any debate beyond churlish and petty.
Craig, Chico
Posted by: Craig, California at June 24, 2005 12:09 AMIn Jan, 2004, BEFORE the elections, the US military disciplined Gen. Karpinski for her 2003 failures at Abu Ghraib.
That was appropriate and sufficient.
It seemed to some of the rank and file soldiers that THEY were being made scapegoats; I guess they were but this story hasn't be followed. Because of this, some of the soldiers released the PICTURES of the abuses they participated in. Perhaps "See, I'm wasn't as bad as THESE folks; and it was on orders from above."
The pictures drove the story, and were a big part of the election -- how could Bush allow this?
It is war. Shit happens. (Caroline, I brought up shit on the flag, shit on the Koran -- free speech allows shitting on anything as protest. Or art!)
The pictures and hundreds of stories and some 26 deaths under US custody ... were NOT enough to convince the majority of US voters to boot Bush. Sullivan partly decided to switch from pro-Bush/ Iraq war, to anti-Bush, because of Abu.
Gitmo criticism is merely another stick of Imperfection with which to bash Bush. Leftists don't necessarily want better treatment for prisoners (why not look at US prison rape?), they want no prisoners and no war and especially no Bush as president. Wasn't there a silly "impeachment" show, too? Durbin's and Amnesty's hysterical criticism is merely more anti-Bush politics.
Politics which DOES embolden the terrorists, DOES justify in their minds how Bush's America is the "Great Satan", and DOES mean that more Americans, and especially Iraqis, are murdered by terrorists.
On Jay Rosen's PressThink there's an important issue about a Free Press -- does the Right just want a Public Relations effort for the war?
Naturally, none of the Left try to quantify any effects, nor look at the other side. 3 main points:
PR for Bush. Balanced. PR for terrorists.
Of course, the Press is usually anti something, so these three become:
PR anti-terrorist.
Balanced.
PR anti-Bush.
Does the PRESS have any effect? I'm sure it does. How much, don't know. My guess: a balanced press would result in 1000 Americans killed in the ME in 6 years of Bush action from 9/11. The fact that none know, or can know, doesn't change the tradeoffs; here's an example tradeoff list for the three choices, measured in American lives (at about the level I actually believe).
PR anti-Terrorist: 500 Americans killed.
Balanced Press: 1000 Americans killed.
PR anti-Bush: 3000 Americans killed.
With Zero, none, no mention of any US war mistakes, only PR pro-war "news" -- this will end the conflict with the least US lives lost.
With only PR anti-Bush, only news that makes the US look bad, or inadequate, or failing -- this will end the conflict with the most US lives lost.
Balanced will be near the middle.
The absolute numbers in the tradeoff are not known -- but the tradeoff is real.
Durbin's anti-Bush oriented remarks are, essentially AND deliberately, pro-terrorist, and will result in more US lives lost.
I support the balanced level -- with MORE US lives lost than a PR anti-terror minimum; but I admit to great sadness at each US life lost.
MJT's frequent disgust at Abu, without comparison to other prison regimes, or the Stanford Experiment, seems excessive anti-Bush (pro-terrorist). Unreal Perfection of US soldiers is not an option, and the abuse cases seem to show the US is taking reasonable care to minimize torture.
The Clinton-Rwanda inaction policy, now being used by the UN in Darfur, is the alternate ME policy to ask Amnesty if they prefer.
Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at June 24, 2005 01:04 AMCommenter: "Rather, I think the things against which Durbin spoke are alienating people, and I think this is a bad thing. It is my hope that if enough people speak out, our political leaders will actually change their policies which are alientating people."
Commenter - Just out of curiosity - if Muslims are so horrified by torture, then why do you think there wasn't wider support in the Muslim world for our removal of Saddam Hussein? Is there an outcry in the Muslim world against what goes on in Syrian prisons? Egyptian prisons? I don't hear much of one. I might infer from that that Muslims wouldn't have any particular objection to our policy of rendition either. Have you heard complaints from Muslims about it? Or would they actually prefer that the Gitmo prisoners be transferred to ME prisons, even if they would be seriously tortured? I am asking these questions out of genuine curiosity re how these hearts and minds that you want to win, actually work.
Posted by: Caroline at June 24, 2005 06:03 AMOh Christ, the "unreal perfection" nonsense again.
Is it unreal perfection to, say, condemn a rapist for committing rape? After all, isn't it a fantasy that you could ever eliminate rape? These things happen, you know!
Anyway, the thing that confuses me is the notion that words are having a greater impact than actual policies; that is, that the real debate centers not around whether we should do certain things, but whether we should say certain things.
The implication (and this is why I bring up conservative postmodernism) is that all these words are having a tremendous impact on the situation. Tom, you actually throw out estimates of the number of Americans killed as a result of words.
Setting aside for the moment the fact that Muslims have their own media and that they would be aware of US policies regardless of whether American media ever discussed them, the big question is this: which alienates more people, Durbin complaining about torture or American troops torturing people to death in Afghanistan and Iraq?
A lot of conservatives have adopted the position that talking about torture makes people hate us - but if no one were being tortured, the media wouldn't be able to report on it.
So I'm not sure if this is a very cynical ploy by a lot of people to shift the debate away from "should we torture?" to "should we talk about torture?", but that requires too much coordination by too many people to be plausible. So I'm left confused: conservatives assume, as you have, that condemnations of torture have direct results in the real world; that is, if we condemn torture, Americans die. But if words about torture can cause people to die, couldn't, you know, torture mean that Americans will die?
This is pure Baudrillardan hyperreality - the notion that the words are the reality, that the torture, the physical act itself behind the conversation, is irrelevant. It doesn't have to be there. We could call it "oogly-boogly", and say "I condemn oogly-boogly", and the conversation would be about whether we should talk about oogly-boogly, regardless of whether oogly-boogly actually exists beyond the conversation.
Posted by: The Commenter at June 24, 2005 06:04 AMCaroline,
I once had a conversation with a Muslim (something I doubt most people who are willing to speak as if they are experts on Islam have ever done, because who needs reality when we have blogs?) in which I asked him: why do Muslims care so much about Israel, or what the US is doing in Iraq, when Saddam killed far more Muslims than either the US or Israel ever has?
He responded: when you're little, you fight with your sister, and this is ok. But if you ever saw someone else fighting with your sister, you'd defend her.
In other words, Muslim-on-Muslim violence is ok, but non-Muslim-on-Muslim violence is bad.
Regardless of the stupidity of this-as-philosophy, this appears to be the way a lot of people think.
Al Qaeda propaganda efforts are aimed at portraying America as an imperialist aggressor out to destroy Islam and all that's good in the world. They want to convince as many people of this as possible, to radicalize Muslims and unite them through their hatred of an Enemy so they can harness that revolutionary mass, overthrow their governments, and found a new Caliphate.
The reason why I say "we should not torture", other than the facts that torture is morally wrong, illegal, and is less than effective, is that we are doing exactly what al Qaeda propaganda says we will do.
We can say "but Saddam did worse!" until we're blue in the face - but that doesn't really matter. It's like defending the military's policy on firing gay Arabic speakers by saying "well, Clinton was the one created that stupid rule!" It's true, Clinton created that stupid rule, and he should be condemned - but what matters is now, what matters is what the leaders in charge now will do about it now. Saddam was worse - but what is the US doing now? We don't care about Saddam's image (beyond the propaganda value of showing a defeated dictator stand trial).
We care about our image. Al Qaeda says "America is bad and we do bad things". If we come in and do bad things, then people might start to listen to al Qaeda. If we come in and do good things, then people might start to think "al Qaeda doesn't know jack or shit".
But then, I suppose if one were to be raped, and get angry at the rapist, the rapist could always say "hey, it was a lot worse under Saddam!" and everyone could have a good laugh, because hey! It really was worse under Saddam.
Posted by: The Commenter at June 24, 2005 06:15 AMCommenter -
I appreciate you explaining to me how the Muslim mind works:
"In other words, Muslim-on-Muslim violence is ok, but non-Muslim-on-Muslim violence is bad."
That would certainly appear to be a fair assessment of the situation and would explain a great deal re these hearts and minds that we need to win.
And what of Muslim on non-Muslim violence? OK? Not OK? Does it work this way?
Muslim on Muslim violence - OK.
Muslim on non-Muslim violence - OK.
Non-Muslim on Muslim violence - Not OK.
?? (I just want to be very clear on the rules here...)
Also, you've brought up this Baudrillard fellow before. Sorry, I haven't read him and so must rely on what you are conveying about him. But I hope you don't mean to deny that words (even the ones we speak silently in our heads) don't have a major impact on reality. They arguably have a greater impact in the cause and effect world of human relationships than physical reality itself does. For example - the words "muslim" and "non-Muslim", as they define the legitimacy or illegitimacy of violence in the minds of people calling themselves (and thinking of themselves) as "Muslim".
Incidentally, I don't consider myself a conservative. I'm not sure where you got that idea..)
Posted by: Caroline at June 24, 2005 07:16 AMThe Commenter said: "Al Qaeda propaganda efforts are aimed at portraying America as an imperialist aggressor out to destroy Islam and all that's good in the world."
Commenter, could you please tell us what is this "all that is good in world" Islamists are fighting for, and that others would find appealing enough to join in their fight against the American imperialist?
Posted by: mika. at June 24, 2005 01:26 PMGreat column by VDH:
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200506240756.asp
Posted by: exhelodrvr at June 24, 2005 01:56 PMCommenter - another couple of questions:
You say: "Al Qaeda propaganda efforts are aimed at portraying America as an imperialist aggressor out to destroy Islam and all that's good in the world. They want to convince as many people of this as possible, to radicalize Muslims and unite them through their hatred of an Enemy so they can harness that revolutionary mass, overthrow their governments, and found a new Caliphate."
Are you suggesting that al Queda is living in "Baudrillardan hyperreality"? A hyperreality in which words are more real than reality itself? Your use of the term "propoganda" would suggest as much. (I assume propoganda dwells in the realm of hyperreality). So what you are suggesting is that what you call hyperreality has real world consequences (e.g the capacity to unite Muslims in their hatred with the real-world consequence of overthrowing governments). So I am wondering why you deny the real-world consequences of Durbin's words? How are those words fundamentally different from al-Queda propoganda that have real-world consequences?
Also - if as you say, "Muslim on Muslim" violence is OK (from the Muslim POV), then if the opposition manages to shut down Gitmo (we've already heard many calls to that effect), do you think the policy of rendering suspects back to Muslim countries would be more acceptable in the 'winning hearts and minds' sphere than establishing a new detention facility? (Frankly, I don't get the point of shutting down Gitmo. Wouldn't it simply be Gitmo by another name?)But if Muslim on Muslim violence is more acceptable (from the winning hearts and minds perspective), then maybe we should seriously revisit the issue of rendition, instead of presuming to understand this from a western POV.
Posted by: Caroline at June 24, 2005 05:00 PMmika - I noticed in the comments thread above that you were plaintively wondering where your favorite nemesis, Commenter, had run off to. Where have YOU been? He has his own blog now! Michael has linked to it several times:
(Now Commenter - please don't shoot the messenger :-))
Posted by: Caroline at June 24, 2005 05:11 PMMichael - feel free to delete my 5:11 post. Mika is apparently more unhinged than I realized.
Posted by: Caroline at June 25, 2005 10:32 AMCaroline,
Me unhinged? Why? Cause I wont give Commenter the traffic?
Caroline, Commenter and I go way back. I know him from when his moniker was Hassan i Sabbah. He's a British writer of Persian decent, now likely residing in the US. Of-course he'll deny it. I hope you're astute enough to know who's telling the truth.
I don't believe I've ever read anything on a blog that literally made my jaw drop. That is, until I just read your last comment, Mika.
Mika has an interesting epistemological outlook on life: he can not only determine who an anonymous commenter is, out of 6 billion plus people, but he also knows that any evidence presented to the contrary is automatically false. Hence, he can never be disproven - whatever he assumes is the truth, and nothing can convince him otherwise.
Anyway, that was probably the craziest thing I've ever read. I've been accused of a lot of things in my life, but now I have officially been accused of being someone else.
British to boot! Care for some tea, govna? 'Ello, what's all this then? Kippers and mash? My favorite!
Posted by: The Commenter at June 25, 2005 01:35 PMCaroline, why do you suppose Commenter wont answer the question I posed to him just prior?
Posted by: mika. at June 25, 2005 02:56 PMMika - Commenter's jaw wasn't the only one that dropped when I read your post. It's rather obvious that he is exactly who he says he is - a young American working at DOD, an atheist, and a committed Democrat, who is studying Farsi on the side. He's rather idealistic (IMHO) but he's no taqqiya practicing Islamist. All of this can be consistently inferred from every one of his posts on this blog as well as the ones on his own. If he doesn't come right out and deny your claims re his identity, it's probably because his jaw is on the floor, thereby rendering him speechless. I admit to thinking you were half kidding re your accusations about him in the past but then I realized 2 threads up that you were actually serious. So yes - I think I am astute enough to discern when someone is telling the truth and also astute enough (although a little slower on that score!) to discern when someone is slightly unhinged. And you, my friend, are without a doubt slightly unhinged.
Posted by: Caroline at June 25, 2005 03:34 PMCaroline, nobody studies Farsi on the side.
Posted by: mika. at June 25, 2005 04:01 PMOk, Mika, I'll do my best to answer your question as if you were not batshit insane.
"Commenter, could you please tell us what is this "all that is good in world" Islamists are fighting for, and that others would find appealing enough to join in their fight against the American imperialist?"
I never said that Islamists were fighting for all that is good in the world, or at least what I understand good to be. What I did say was that al Qaeda was attempting to portray the US as being against what is good. A great deal of radical Islamist propaganda focuses on the real and imagined suffer of Muslims at the hands of America and its allies - the same way the Soviet Union harped on the treatment of blacks in the US while at the same time brutally repressing its own minorities. Furthermore, Islamist "good" is different from our "good" in a number of ways - we are criticized for our lack of spirituality, for being atheists, for pornography, for the imodesty of our women, and so forth.
To some in the Islamic world, this is appealing - there are going to be some who sympathize with al Qaeda's objective of establishing a Caliphate, or at least Sharia law.
To others, however, this does not appeal. The Council on Foreign Relations reported that most Muslims in their focus groups in Morocco, Egypt, and Indonesia did not want Sharia law, a new Caliphate, a victory by al Qaeda, none of it. Many in the focus groups reported approval of bin Laden explicitly because he was attacking America, and America was disliked.
For example, US commanders in Iraq have estimated that of the 15 - 20,000 insurgents in Iraq, only about 1,000 are foreign jihadists and about 500 are Iraqi jihadists. Over the last year, something like 30,000 Iraqis have joined the insurgency, and Newsweek estimates another 400,000 auxiliaries and support personnel. They're not jihadists, but they keep joining the insurgency - in the same way that Russians supported Stalin's Great Patriotic War, despite hating the communists, and the same way the Vietnamese people fought for Ho Chi Min, even if communism was not popular there. Or the way the German people fought to the bitter, bitter end, not so much out of a love for Nazism or Hitler (who by that point had ordered the destruction of the German people), but because the alternative, the Red Army, was worse.
In other words, if we are perceived as an enemy of a particular people, those people will support those fighting us, even if they don't particularly like the people fighting us. This has happened over and over again, historically, and this is exactly what al Qaeda hoped would happen.
As al Qaeda attempts to sway people to their side, it doesn't help that we do things like kill more Iraqis than the insurgency or torture Iraqis and Afghans to death. Blah blah blah the media shouldn't report on this, whatever. Iraqi, Afghan, and other foreign media will report on this regardless of whether ours does. And at a time when we are trying to say "hey, don't hate us, we're here to save you from the bad guys", it doesn't help to be doing the very same bad things the bad guys are accusing us of doing. In other words, if we say "we're here to liberate you" and al Qaeda says "they're here to torture and kill", and then we torture and kill, we end up with less credibility and al Qaeda ends up with more. We never, ever want al Qaeda to have credibility - so let's not do things that help them to get it.
PS - lots of people take Farsi on the side. My class, introduction to Farsi I, started with about 10 people, all between 21 and 30, all taking it as part of their education, for work, or to further their career. Dipshit. I'm taking it because I'd like a career where knowing Farsi would be very useful - with the national security community in Washington. But if I were, in fact, trying to hide the fact that I was Persian-born, why would I mention Farsi at all, dumbass?
Anyway, I think that you're actually insane former presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche, and that when you're not posting here, you're cross-dressing and molesting children. Of course, you'll deny it all, you freak!
Posted by: The Commenter at June 25, 2005 04:31 PMCommenter - this is way OT but knowing that you're interested in winning hearts and minds in the Muslim world, I think these are a couple of (admittedly lengthy) articles you might be interested in reading, in the interest of understanding the psychology of our adversaries:
Humilitiation and Honor in Arab Societies
This too:
Posted by: Caroline at June 25, 2005 05:42 PMCommenter, you can't have it both ways. On the one hand you claim that the majority of Muslims oppose Jihadi supremacists (THIS IS A LIE), yet when these Jihadi supremacists are confronted by the US, you claim that doing so alienates the Muslim majority. This argument is absurd and reeks of taqqiya.
Confronting the Russian Communists didn't make us anti Russian with the Communist hating folk in Russia. The Russians that loathed that communist elite understood what we were doing and encouraged us on. The reason someone would make an argument in favor of a Communist identity for the Russian people, or any people for that matter, is because that someone is invested in that Communist identity. Same applies here. The reason you make similar arguments for appeasement of Jihadi ideology is because you are emotionally invested in that Islamist identity. It is irrelevant whether you are an atheist or not. What is relevant is your tribal Muslim affiliation. For you, the Muslim "religion" might not as relevant as to the more hardcore Islamists, but Muslim tribalism and pan nationalism still courses through your veins.
Further, you are still trying to imply that you knowing Farsi is unrelated to you being of Iranian decent. Sorry, but people don't just "casually" take up that language. And even as a Farsi interpreter you'd be next to useless to any potential employer being just a student of that language. Your rational for "job advancement" doesn't hold up to scrutiny. As to why you would mention you knowing that language, that reason you alone know. But long before you made that admission on your blog, this was already known to me. And it was known to me because I already knew you from previous encounters where you make that information known.
Posted by: mika. at June 25, 2005 07:13 PMOh Mika, how is possible for one man, even one cross-dressing child-molesting man, to be wrong about everything?
But, please, tell me about that time you talked to someone who you now think is me.
Posted by: The Commenter at June 26, 2005 12:04 AMWell, that cute baby girl I had for breakfast was positively delicious.
Posted by: mika. at June 26, 2005 06:33 AMBtw Caroline, seen Carlos lately?
Posted by: mika. at June 26, 2005 06:44 AMTelewizory Plazmowe Kamery Cyfrowe Kino Domowe Telewizory Plazmowe Telewizory Lcd Kuchnie Piekarniki Lodówki Pralki Zmywarki Okapy Kuchenne Odtwarzacze mp3 Aparaty Cyfrowe DMC FZ5
Posted by: Aparaty cyfrowe at June 27, 2005 04:58 AMpicture of naked black @ picture of nude black @ picture sexe @ play black jack @ plump black ass @ plump black butt @ porn black woman white @ porn blacks and blonde @ porn blacks on whites @ porn de sexe @ porn free black hoe @ porn mpeg ebony @ porn sex @ porn sex dick @ porn sex sexe @ porn star black cat @ porn star black diamond @ porn star dorothy black @ porn star ebony ayers @ porn star ebony ayres @ porn star ebony porn @ porn star johnni black @ porn star sex @ porn video with black @ pornoe @ pornographi @ pornographic film @ pornographie gratuite @ pornoteca sexe @ pornoz @ pornoz ru @ porono sex @ pree sex @ pree teen sex @ pregnant sex @ pregnant sex movie @ pretty ebony girl @ pretty ebony teen @ public sex @ puma black porn star @ pussy sex @ rapper ebony eyes @ rate my black ass @ real sex @ reales sexe @ reggaeton sexe video @ registered sex offender @ relatos bisex @ rencontre sexe @ retro sex
Posted by: ruben at September 8, 2005 04:41 AMHi I have been given the task of getting links for our websites thathave good page rank on the links directories.In addition we have many categories so your site will be place on an appropriate page. If you would like to trade links please send me your website details.Best Regards,seopro@walla.com
http://www2w.bravehost.com vs the best casino http://casino.vmedical.us new online casino
casinos
casino
online poker
online gambling
online casinos
online casinos
online casinos
online poker
online casinos
online casino
casino
poker
casino
casino
casinos
online casino
online gambling
casino
poker
neteller casinos
online casino
online poker
online casino
internet poker
free online poker
texas holdem poker
poker
online slots
online roulette
online blackjack
poker
online casinos
online casino
online casino
online roulette
online poker
internet casinos
online slots
online blackjack
online poker
Take your time to check out some information dedicated to tamiflu purchase tamiflu purchase
http://www.dolev-yomel.com/tami1
tamiflu without prescription
http://www.dolev-yomel.com/tami2
tamiflu in canada
http://www.dolev-yomel.com/tami3
tamiflu price
http://www.dolev-yomel.com/tami4
cheap tamiflu price
http://www.dolev-yomel.com/tami5
real tamiflu price
http://www.archipenko.co.il/tami6
buy tamiflu
http://www.archipenko.co.il/tami7
order tamiflu
http://www.archipenko.co.il/tami8
tamiflu online
http://www.archipenko.co.il/tami9
tamiflu
http://www.archipenko.co.il/tami10
tamiflu and no prescription
http://www.archipenko.co.il/flu
Very nice site sharp
Posted by: Sharp at November 6, 2005 10:08 AMCheck out How to Gamble in America :: Poker Index :: Poker Room Review :: Sports Index :: Sports Book Review :: Casino Index :: Casino Review :: Craps :: Blackjack Strategies :: Roulette :: Let It Ride :: Three Card Poker :: Video Poker :: Gambling Quotes :: Online Gambling :: Online Poker :: Draw Poker :: Poker Hand Rankings :: Texas Hold’em :: Seven Card Stud :: Seven Card High/Low :: Omaha :: Omaha High/Low :: Guide To Sports Betting :: The Basics to Wagering on Sports :: Parlays :: Teasers :: Half Point :: Sports Betting Tips & Tricks :: Money Management :: Sports Betting Terminology :: Football Tip :: Free NFL Pick :: Other Sites Index :: Bill Clinton Quotes :: Other Sites :: Other Sites 2 :: Rounders Quotes
Also check out 100 Best Poker Rooms for all the best up to date online gambling sites.
And How to Gamble Online for all the best up to date online gambling sites.
Posted by: Gamble in America at November 8, 2005 04:30 PMAdult Personals adult dating services sex dating adult
club erotic personals adult dating online internet
dating service adult singles of adult personal ads join free.
adult
personals
Adult personals - online
personals
adult dating
adult dating sex dating
adult
personals
adult personals sex dating
home security
home security
adult
dating
adult dating erotic personals sex
adult dating
adult
personals
adult personals adult dating
adult
personals
adult personals adult dating sex
dating
adult dating
adult dating online adult
singles
sex
dating
sex dating adult dating service
adult
dating
adult dating
adult personals
personals adult personals
adult sex
datingadult sex dating adult personals
adult
singles
adult singles adult personals
sex dating
airfare
discount airfare
adult dating
adult dating
casino gambling
casino gambling
sex adult
dating
sex adult dating adult dating
pharmacy
online pharmacy
new online poker site ! http://poker.trinitytc.com Poker
Posted by: poker at December 11, 2005 01:26 AMAirfareLowest.net provides great tickets at cheap airfare prices for everyone. We have cheap hotels and cheap rental cars available. You can buy cruise tickets all over the worlds. Feel free to check out our prices so you can see that we have the cheapest prices for all tickets. We have all Airfare our tickets are all Lowest Airfare prices for all Cheap Airfare prices world wide. First Class Airfare is available so as Last Minute Airfare Available. We also provide Cheap Hotels for all Hotel Visitors and we do our own Hotels Reservations including Las Vegas Hotels, London Hotels, New York Hotels, Hilton Hotels, Orlando Hotels. We have all Rental Cars for all the location if you take a cruise ship plus cruise reviews available for all cruises. Plane Tickets available 24 hours a day on our secure server. A fare is the fee paid by a traveller allowing him or her to make use of a public transport system: rail, bus, taxi, etc. In the case of air transport, the term airfare is often used.
The fare paid is a contribution Hotels to the operational costs of the transport system involved, either partial (as is frequently the case with publicly supported systems) or total. We have Hitlton Hotels for all hotel motel places such as chicago hotels for hotels deals. Paris hotels are available all the time San Francisco Hotels 24 hours a day with Habbo hotels, for discount hotel rooms, plus all hawaii hotels, and sheraton hotels, plus malaysia hotels. It's great to spend time in radisson hotels with hotel rooms in New York city hotels plus miami hotels, and singapore hotels. We provide all kind of boston hotels for disney hotels and cancun hotels, plus discount vegas hotels for all our clients. San Diego hotels available with best western hotels in bangkok hotels, and cheap new orleans hotels, amesterdam hotels with great view of the city. Number one choice hotels at wyndham hotels for Prague Hotels and Hyatt Hotels, bellagio hotel. Doubletree hotels phuket hotels and westin hotels we have them all at all times plus toronto hotels, and niagara falls hotels. Many bus and rail systems in the United States recover only around one-third of their operational costs from fares.
The rules regarding how and when fares are to be paid and for how long they remain valid are many and varied. Rail and bus systems usually require the payment of fares on or before boarding. In the case of taxis and other vehicles for hire, payment is Cheap Rental Cars normally made at the end of the ride.
Some systems allow fare transfers: that is to say that a single payment permits travel within a particular geographical zone or time period. Such an arrangement is helpful for people who need to transfer from one route to another in order to reach their destination. Sometimes transfers are valid in one direction only, requiring a new fare to be paid for the return trip.
A Net dating service, also known as hispanic dating service online dating or internet dating, is an example of a dating system and allows individuals, couples and speed dating groups to meet online and possibly develop a social, romantic or sexual interracial dating relationship. Net dating services free dating services provide un-moderated lesbian dating matchmaking through the use of personal jewish dating computers and the Internet.
Such black dating services generally allow people to provide personal information, then search for other individuals using sex dating criteria such as age range, gender and location. Most sites allow members to upload photos of themselves dating lexington online and browse the photos of asian dating others. Sites may offer additional services, including webcasts, dating chat online chat, and message boards. Sites dating advice typically allow people to register for free but may offer services which require a monthly fee.
It seems that everywhere bbw dating you turn today been going to dating sites, people are online dating from site dating. More and more American singles use the online dating services to find love, online personals, friendship, or simply an online friend for matchmaking sites. We were launched to help online dating louisville singles of all ages for free online dating and free dating, religions such as christian datind christian dating services and sexual interests, find exactly what they're looking for with singles dating. Every personals or singles site gets reviewed before being posted here on dating web sites.We have availablegay dating, on our online dating sites, LDS Dating also available for everyone. We have dating tips for everyone, all ages dating available such as seniors dating , internet dating and also we have dating personals We provide all kind of dating such as singles for all singles websites so guys and girls can meet single girls to meet singles online. Many sites are broad-based, with members from a variety of backgrounds looking for different types of relationships. Other sites are more specific, based on the dating personals type of members, interests, location, or matchmaker dating relationship desired.U.S. any dating eharmony has href marriage match more online per service than residents spent $469.5 million on online dating and dating issue personals in 2004, the largest segment of “paid content” on the web, according to a study conducted by the Online free dating personals Publishers Association (OPA) and comScore Networks.
In terms of the dating of free dating site complete authoritative texts, there are dating idea three main versions of the relationship dating Hebrew Bible. There is the Masoretic text of the Torah, thought to be first indian dating assembled russian dating in the 4th century CE. The oldest chicago dating known copy (the oldest is the Aleppo Codex, the yahoo dating oldest complete match dating text is the Leningrad Codex) now dates to the christian dating services tenth century CE. There is the Septuagint, married dating which is a Greek translation of the Torah, made under Ptolemy in the third century BCE. The oldest dating or services copy of the Septuagint is dating direct centuries older than the seattle dating oldest complete Masoretic text, and texas dating fragments of the Septuagint date to the second century BCE. There is also the Samaritan Torah, which teen dating emerged after the Assyrian occupation of the web dating northern kingdom of Israel. The Peshitta, a translation of the Christian Bible into Syriac, a dating game variant of Aramaic, can be useful in determining latin dating authenticity of passages and hence help establish dates. The earliest known copy of the Peshitta dates to 445-460 CE.
Online casino, also recognized as virtual casinos, is the online description of land-based casinos. They permit you to play casino games through the internet casino. Some online casinos supply various games such as casino gambling, while others only offer only one type of game. Online poker is also very well-liked and there are many devoted companies that offer this activity such as