I thought that one was supposed to avoid ad hominem attacks?<br><br>

Fair enough =)<br><br>So exactly what are the established conditions of "victory" for this "war"?<br><br>Which is to say, under what circumstances will the likes of the Patriot Act no longer be necessary and we can go back to enjoying the full freedoms guaranteed to us by the Constitution?<br><br>And I would emphasize that these conditions are not your own beliefs, but those specified by the administration ... from which I have yet to see any. If they have, I would appreciate a link =)<br><br>***matt<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>rational people examine available evidence and jump to conclusions all of the time because it is human nature to do so.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Actually that is the opposite of rational thinking.<br>Rational people look at available evidence and come to a rational conclusion. In this case my opinion is that a rational person would see the available photos and come to the rational conclusion that things don't look very good but pictures alone don't tell the whole story so I'll reserve final judgment against those pictured until some context is provided.<br><br>Others have jumped to the conclusion that those pictured are guilty of rape or abuse or torture or all of the above.<br><br>People on the board seem to want to jump to the conclusion that because I haven't jumped to the irrational conclusion that those pictured are guilty that I must believe that they are not guilty. This would also be an irrational conclusion.<br><br>Dean Davis

I haven't looked at any of the images because I don't want to see them. So I can't judge. But people outside this board whom I respect (not that I don't respect people on this board, but you seem to dismiss folks here as irrational jump-to-conclusion idiots) seem to have come to a conclusion much like what you're calling irrational.<br><br>Here's Mr. Rumsfeld on what he's seen: [color:blue]"In recent months, we've seen abuse here under our responsibility, and it's been a body blow for us," Rumsfeld said at Abu Ghraib. "It doesn't represent America. It doesn't represent American values. It doesn't represent the values of you here in this room."<br><br>"The people who engaged in abuses will be brought to justice," the secretary said. "The world will see how a free and democratic society functions."</font color=blue><br><br>I agree, on the whole, with the idea that the actions don't represent American values (I say on the whole because to think that these kinds of actions are not American is to deny American history, from the treatment of Native Americans to the treatment of slaves and ex-slaves). But Rumsfeld seems convinced that the pictures he's seen do indeed reflect "abuse," and that the abuse is "a body blow for us."<br><br>At lunch today I watched a discussion on CNN about whether the things that happened in the prison were or weren't torture. I'm sorry that I didn't catch the names of the discussants (I was washing dishes for a while). At any rate, the person who was against the notion that the events represent torture sounded more and more like Mr. Clinton on "what is is." More straightforwad, I thought, was the Gen. Myers' deputy, who when asked whether the things he saw in those photos, if done to Americans, would be a violation of the Geneva Accords, said clearly that yes, they would be a violation of the Accords. I know that violating the Geneva Accords is not the same thing as rape or sexual abuse--but to focus on that is to miss the point, I think, which is precisely what Mr. Rumsfeld said: "a body blow for us."<br><br>Now you may disagree, and you may reserve judgment, and you may want more evidence, and you may say that photographs are not sufficient to come to any conclusion. All true. But men and women of good will and of intelligence, independent of the folks on this board, seem to have come to a different conclusion.<br><br>

Ahh, I've been accused of an ad hominem attack. Glad I'm the one called to the carpet on this. Nice to be held to a higher standard.<br><br>In any event it's unsubstantiated posts like these that afford me the opportunity to make long drawn out posts that no one likes. So let's proceed.<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Unbelieveable. You do read your own posts, right?<br>Brought up twice:<br>1) A single post posing a question to me. I did not answer that post.<br>2) Making a silly comparison between the difference of "Mission Accomplished" and "War" over.<p><hr></blockquote><p>A rhetorical question hinting at my incredulity of him claiming he did not bring up the broomstick point twice. Followed by evidence of my original claim.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>It seems as if you'd like to have your politics in sound bytes, spoon fed to you so you wouldn't really have to think or analyize what is being said. But how about you go read the speech on "Mission Acocmpished" day instead of assuming that the entire speech is summarized by those words?<p><hr></blockquote><p>This is not an attack unfounded in logic. So far his posts have truly led me to this conclusion. I do believe that he doesn't analyze. Most of his points are backed up by snippets and sound bytes like "Mission Accomplished" with no further explanation as to why the simple phrases support the conclusion.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>You won't read the speech because it immediatly contradicts your false assertion that Mission Accomplished = War Over as evidenced by my two previous quotes whose meaning, of course, remains undisputed.<p><hr></blockquote><p>I also believe this to be true. I really don't think he'll ever read the speech. (Well he may now just to spite me. But, that's OK.) Also it remains true that the content of the speech does directly contradict his original point.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>It certainly didn't cause me to believe the fighting was over. Especially since the actual speech says as much serveral times. But that really the difference between us. I actually listened to the speech.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Also, an opinion I hold to be true. The "Mission Accomplished" banner did not lead me to believe that the fighting was over. It wouldn't have even outside the context of the speech. So his conclusion is false. I also hold the second statement to also be true at that time. Nothing he posted led me to believe he had listened to or read the speech. And that would be a difference between me and him.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>BTW, where did I say rape wasn't sexual abuse?<p><hr></blockquote><p>A statement that doesn't apply to your original comment but a statement that still remains unanswered because it can't be answered.<br><br><br><br>Dean Davis

Thank you for those comments <br><br><br><br>KateMate

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Rational people look at available evidence and come to a rational conclusion.<p><hr></blockquote><p>i think my conclusion is rational, so i guess that's where we differ. merriam-webster defines rational as, "having reason or understanding" and i have reason to believe my conclusion is correct based on the comments i've read. things are bad. i think a rational person reads this:<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>"I expected that these pictures would be very hard on the stomach lining and it was significantly worse than anything that I had anticipated," said Sen. Ron Wyden. "Take the worse case and multiply it several times over."<p><hr></blockquote><p>and can assume that things are probably much worse than what we have already seen. <br><br>and this:<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The Army has acknowledged that at least a dozen deaths at prisons and detention camps remain under scrutiny by criminal investigators. The CIA is reviewing at least two additional deaths. <p><hr></blockquote><p>i think a rational person could conclude that it is possible that some of these deaths were caused by US soldiers and await a more conclusive explanation. every death is sad, but the red cross reported that up to 90% of the prisoners were wrongly accused and mistakenly picked up. it's even more sad when civilians die because of our actions. i sure hope this is not the case.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Lawmakers said the images depicted Iraqi female detainees forced to expose their breasts and prisoners terrified by angry dogs. A poor-quality videotape appeared to show a broomstick being used in a sexual abuse episode.<p><hr></blockquote><p>sexual abuse and a broomstick leads a rational person to assume that this is rape because i cannot imagine a scenario where a broomstick is used in a sexual episode that is not rape. can you?<br><br>i don't jump to a conclusion that you think that people are not guilty; i merely think that you are still hoping to believe the best in spite of the comments saying to believe the worst.<br><br>----<br>"even if we get bin Laden or Zawahiri now, it is 2 years 2 late. Al Qaeda is a very different org now. It has had time to adapt. The administration should have finished this job." Leverett, former Bush Nat’l Security Cncl staff specialist.

Two excellent points. From the pictures alone I think it would be rational to come to the conclusion that the Geneva Accords were probably violated. But only having a general understanding of the Geneva provisions it's still not 100% (more like 95%). I'll have to read up on the Geneva Treaty to come to a more informed conclusion for this.<br><br>But again to the accusations of torture and sexual abuse. Notice Rumsfeld picked his words carefully in his quote as you would imagine he would. He talked about "abuse". Not "sexual abuse" or torture. And I would agree that the photos show abuse. And it's abuse that doesn't reflect American values. That has been my point. People are taking a sensible conclusion that the photos show "abuse" and are inflating that into "sexual abuse", "severe sexual abuse" and torture. Those are serious charges and much more evidence is needed to make them stick.<br>But most posters are writing as if those kinds of charges are really facts. A point I don't agree with. I think the possibility is there but no facts.<br><br>I never said that the behaviors portrayed in the photos are all A-OK and it's nothing to be worried about or that is isn't or shouldn't be a stain on America's image I'm just disputing the more extreme conclusions about the photos and quotes.<br><br>Others may come to different conclusions but one they express them in a public forum they should expect to be asked to defend the conclusion. As I do.<br><br>Dean Davis

Even Wolfowitz admitted it was "inhumane" and "a violation of the Geneva Convention" today during hearings. I think that says a lot coming from him. This is the deputy secretary of defense that didn't even know the Iraq body count within a hundred when asked last week. That was frightening.<br><br>Here's some excerpts from our newspaper today (AP source) from the Senate committee that saw all the new photos. I thought this was interesting because of the bipartisan reaction. There are a lot of upset people on capital hill.<br><br>Among the most shocking of images was a video of a male detainee repeatedly banging into a cell door, until he collapsed. It appeared the man had a rope lashed around his waist and that someone was pulling him toward the door.<br> "It just deepens the conclusion that this was a cell block gone wild, Senator Lieberman, D-Conn., said.<br><br> Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said he was particularly offended by a photograph in which "a prisoner was sodomizing himself" with a banana. "My conclusion is that that was probably coerced somehow," Franks said.<br><br>Single, specific quotes from various committee members:<br><br>•"Pornographic images involving prisoners. It was hard to tell what orifice you were looking at in the pictures I saw," said Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Fla.<br><br>•"More than seven soldiers standing in a hallway with a clump of people tied together on the floor. You can't tell me all of this is going on with seven or eight Army privates," said Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla.<br><br>•"Dogs snarling at prisoners and women being forced to disrobe. I don't know how the hell these people got into our army," said Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, R-Colo.<br><br>•"People were, I believe, forced to smash heads against doors until their heads broke open. There were people who were forced to have sex with each other," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-NY.<br><br>•"U.S. soldiers engaged in pornographic acts with each other. It certainly was so far unbecoming of what we expect from American soldiers. It's so terribly disappointing," said Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn.<br><br>• "Some of it is clearly individuals acting in a rogue manner," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. "Some of it has an elaborate nature to it that makes me very suspicious of whether or not others were directing or encouraging."<br>  Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., agreed, saying, "It is impossible that this could have been carried out without the knowledge of higher-ups."<br><br>Wow.<br><br>

If you want to narrow the field of statements to which adhomination applies, then no doubt you're right. You didn't say "you are an idiot." Not in so many words. You did imply it, at least.<br><br>Or maybe I'm jumping to conclusions. Oh dear. I suppose that means I'm also in the ballpark of idiocy because I don't like to think or analyze.<br><br>edit: Incidentally, I "called you on the carpet" for adhomination simply because you spent a great deal of energy berating folks who did the same thing. Mote and beam time, I thought.<br><br><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by yoyo52 on 05/14/04 00:25 AM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>