Input Junkie

From what theweaselking say, the waterboard experimenter is generally right-wing and pro-Bush.

Why does that discredit him?

... even if waterboarding is carefully and safely done, it's still torture.

Of course it is. But there are levels of torture, and this is one of the less severe levels.

If we are to be totally honest in condemning torture, we must logically focus most of the condemnation on those perpetrators who torture most often and most seriously. For instance, if an organization tortured close to 100% of those it made prisoner, we should condemn it more than an organization which tortured more like 10% of their prisoners. And if an organization usually killed its prisoners, we should condemn it more than an organization which rarely killed its prisoners.

Any other pattern of condemnation strikes me as more than a little dishonest.

From:

madfilkentist

Why does that discredit him?

I thought Nancy's point was the opposite; that it protects him against charges of being an over-reacting liberal.

From:

I didn't have a well-defined point.

theweaselking's description was bad-tempered enough that I wanted to distance myself from it.

From:

Indeed it was. I tend to be that way, sorry.

From:

No apology required-- it's just that I didn't have my own opinion of scylla. Thanks for supplying the link.

From:

holzman.livejournal.com

I'm under the impression that "condemn" is superlative, and do not understand what it means to "condemn more." Torturing a single prisoner strikes me as sufficient for condemnation.

From:

I'm under the impression that "condemn" is superlative, and do not understand what it means to "condemn more."

One has only a limited amount of time and energy for condemnation; one can also condemn to certain degrees. Condemnation should be doled out in some rough equivalence to the magnitude and degree of the crimes involved.

For instance, I condemn Charles Manson for organizing a murderous cult and tortuting innocent victims to death. I also condemn Joe Q. Embezzler for stealing $100 thousand from his company. You can't see how I might condemn Charles Manson "more" than Joe Q. Embezzler?

Torturing a single prisoner strikes me as sufficient for condemnation.

And you can see no way, either in effort or intensity, to make a distinction in your condemnation of, say, North Korea and your condemnation of, say, Canada? Both polities have, on the public record, tortured at least one prisoner in the last 50 years ...

From:

Ah, the soft bigotry of low expectations.

I'm disgusted that the US both uses torture and defends it with a bunch of slithering, nonsensical, wrong-headed arguments.

This doesn't mean I think the US is the worst thing ever.

From:

Ah, the soft bigotry of low expectations.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

I would mean by that the tendency to excuse the atrocities committed by Third World and especially Terrorist forces, because "one can't expect any better of them," while excessively condemning any atrocities committed by Western and especially American or Israeli forces because "we expect them to be civilized." But I suspect that you somehow mean the opposite.

FYI, all warfare above the scale of occasional special-forces actions will include atrocities. One can keep the rate down, but never to zero, because there are simply too many individuals involved in modern warfare. What one can constructively do is criticize atrocities when they occur, and criticize them in rough proportion to their rate of occurrence and severity.

I'm disgusted that the US both uses torture and defends it with a bunch of slithering, nonsensical, wrong-headed arguments.

I also oppose torture. Which makes me hate the Terrorists even more, because they use torture, and commit other atrocities, as standard practice.

There is also a distinction which must be drawn between levels of torture. For instance, torturing someone to death is considerably worse than, say, depriving them of sleep for a couple of nights. Both are bad, but the second is worse.

Without "bad-worse" distinctions, one cannot meaningfully judge anything.

This doesn't mean I think the US is the worst thing ever.

I think that, as dominant Great Powers go, the US is pretty much the nicest one that ever has been. If you want to refute that, I'm open to suggestions for other candidates. I can think of one possible competitor in the "nice dominant Great Power role" -- but she, too, have committed her share of atrocities -- she just did them over 100 years ago, so they aren't in memory as fresh.

From:

avram

You're right, Jordan. I'm going to write a strongly-worded letter to Kim Jong-Il right now, telling him that if he doesn't straighten up and fly right, he can forget about getting my vote in November.

That's my smart-ass way of pointing out that responsibility is a different matter from condemnation. We can condemn whomever we want, but Americans are responsible for the actions of their own government, and not anyone else's. Kim Jong-Il may be a nasty lunatic, but he's not committing his acts in my name. The Cheney Regency, on the other hand, claims to be acting in my name for my benefit and with my consent.

From:

That's my smart-ass way of pointing out that responsibility is a different matter from condemnation. We can condemn whomever we want, but Americans are responsible for the actions of their own government, and not anyone else's.

If we only condemn our own government's actions, and no one's else's, we create the public image that our side, alone, behaves badly. When the truth is that our side not only is not the only one behaving badly, but in fact is the one behaving best, creating such an impression is a lie-by-omission.

The Cheney Regency ...

???

You do realize that this statement rather destroys the point you're making about assessing responsibility to the correct decisionmakers?

From:

avram

If we only condemn our own government's actions, and no one's else's, we create the public image that our side, alone, behaves badly.

I don't care. I don't care about some abstract "public image". I don't care if it hurts your feeling to see your "side" criticized. I care that my country is descending into tyranny.

You seem more concerned about some imaginary condemnation tallyboard. You seem content to see us slide into tyranny, as long as someone else out there is more tyrannical, as long as there's someone you can point to and say "Oh yeah? Well they're even worse!"

Though I don't think you're actually concerned about the US's public image at all. I don't think you really care about whether nancy, or I, or any other liberal, condemn Hugo Chavez, or Fidel Castro, or Joseph Stalin, or Osama bin Laden. I think you're just faking that concern as a cover for trying to control our discourse.

From:

I don't care. I don't care about some abstract "public image".

This abstract "public image" creates false perceptions of what is actually going on in the war, which could lead to us losing the war, with terrible consequences -- especially for the Iraqis.

To take a good example, if I said "Abu Ghraib torture," you would probably think I was referring to actions carried out by US forces, right? But by far the largest-scale and most severe torture carried out there was carried out by Saddam.

This creates the impression not only that we torture (which is true) but also that the enemy DOESN'T (which is monstrously false). It would be as if the "horrors of Dachau" were commonly believed to be the American troops gunning down the SS guards, rather than what was done by the SS to the inmates.

I don't care if it hurts your feeling to see your "side" criticized.

It's not a matter of "hurt feelings." It's a matter of a decent regard for the truth.

The truth is that we torture -- occasionally and mildly -- and the enemy tortures -- routinely and severely. Why must an acknowledgement of our sins preclude an acknowledgement of the foe's?

And I find it interesting to hear you admit that you don't consider the American side to be "yours" in this war ... are you neutral, then, between liberal democracy and fundamentalist totalitarianism?

I care that my country is descending into tyranny.

Our country is not "descending into tyranny," by any normal definition of "tyranny."

Would you claim that we were "descending into tyranny" in the Civil War or either World War? In all three of those, the President claimed much greater emergency powers than has Bush in this conflict.

You seem more concerned about some imaginary condemnation tallyboard.

It's hardly "imaginary." And I note that nowhere in your response are you actually condemning the Terrorists.

You seem content to see us slide into tyranny, ...

I do not believe that we are doing so. But then, I probably know a bit more about history -- both American and European -- than do you. And so I have the perspective of knowing about other American wars, and about real tyrannies.

Though I don't think you're actually concerned about the US's public image at all.

Yes, I am. Because if our "public image" slips badly enough, because of deliberately prejudiced coverage of the war, we could lose the war, and then the consequences would be terrible.

I don't think you really care about whether nancy, or I, or any other liberal, condemn Hugo Chavez, or Fidel Castro, or Joseph Stalin, or Osama bin Laden.

Yes, I do. By the way, do you condemn any of these people? More than you would George W. Bush?

I think you're just faking that concern as a cover for trying to control our discourse.

No, I'm not. By the way, if I don't care about that, why do I care about "controlling your discourse?"

From:

avram

If you didn't care about controlling our discourse, you wouldn't whine about who I was or wasn't condemning, or what "side" I seemed to be supporting. Your entire comment is a demand for me to swear a variety of loyalty oaths. Where the hell do you get off? Who do you think you are?

From:

If you didn't care about controlling our discourse, you wouldn't whine about who I was or wasn't condemning, or what "side" I seemed to be supporting.

I am not "whining" about these. Merely noting that -- if you only condemn the American side, or consider both sides morally equivalent, you are (a) being dishonest, and (b) slanting your statements to favor the Terrorists.

Your entire comment is a demand for me to swear a variety of loyalty oaths.

I am not demanding you to swear any "loyalty oaths." Merely drawing logical conclusions, from your statements, as to where your loyalties might lie.

Where the hell do you get off? Who do you think you are?

I am a rational thinker, who has the right to draw logical inferences from the sum of your statements. Or lack thereof.

You seem to believe that you should be able to condemn only one side -- and the better side at that -- in a conflict and thus be perceived as a morally superior person. I see the moral flaw in such a choice, and point it out.

Too bad if that angers you.

From:

From:

You seem to believe that you should be able to condemn only one side -- and the better side at that -- in a conflict and thus be perceived as a morally superior person. I see the moral flaw in such a choice, and point it out.

This argument is frequently heard by traffic cops (generally phrased in simpler language -- e.g. "Why aren't you out chasing real criminals?" -- but with the same logical content). Somehow, it doesn't persuade them, and I see why.

No, a traffic cop is specifically tasked to enforce traffic laws, so it is reasonable that he would be arresting those who violate those laws instead of hunting down killers. The equivalent situation would be if a town with a major violent crime problem spent 95% of its police funds on traffic enforcement and abolished its detective squads.

From:

a traffic cop is specifically tasked to enforce traffic laws

Just as American citizens are specifically tasked to control the American state.

You've pretty much conceded the point.

Edited Date: 2007-12-29 07:01 am (UTC)

From:

a traffic cop is specifically tasked to enforce traffic laws.

Just as American citizens are specifically tasked to control the American state.

Indeed. Why does "controlling the American state" require amplifying our perception of our own atrocities while minimizing our perception of enemy atrocities? It seems to me that a responsible citizenry needs to be informed not only of their own state's actions, but also of the actions of the other states with which they interact. Particularly as this concerns comparisons with the actions of those other states.

You've pretty much conceded the point.

Perhaps some point that Mr. Strawman was making in your own mind, but not any that I actually made. I already condemned torture in general, I'm merely pointing out that an honest condemnation of torture would mean a strong condemnation of Terrorist actions in this war, and then as an afterthought a mild condemnation of our own actions.

If you claim to be condemning torture, but focus on the side which is doing the least torturing while directing no condemnation toward the side which is doing the most torturing, it is not "torture" you are condemning. A cynic might, in fact, draw the conclusion that you are supporting torture, because you are more harshly condemning the side that tortures least. Certainly, that would be the effect of your action, even if your intentinons were different.

From:

From:

First, explain why "enforcing the traffic laws" requires traffic cops to focus on the fact that you're doing 62 in a 55 zone while ignoring the rather more serious fact that robberies, rapes, and murders are certainly occurring somewhere at that very moment.

Because one tasks specific police to specific details. The traffic police enforce the traffic laws, because without such enforcement there would be too many traffic accidents and resultant deaths, injuries and property damage. If the traffic police, obsessed with the violent crimes occurring elsewhere, wandered off looking for major criminals, they could not efficiently enforce the traffic laws.

Are you trying to say that those solely condemning American atrocities are trying to be "torture cops?" But the problem with that is that they are only focusing on American actions, while the more serious crimes are being committed by the other side. They are clearly not trying to prevent atrocity or torture in general, but merely atrocity or torture by one side -- and they are picking the more humane side to complain about.

From:

avram

I am a rational thinker, who has the right to draw logical inferences from the sum of your statements.

The right, sure, but not the ability. You've already drawn several wrong conclusions from my statements.

And your entire argument is based around loyalty oaths -- either I parcel out my condemnation in the proportion you approve of, or you presume me to be supporting the other "side".

From:

And your entire argument is based around loyalty oaths -- either I parcel out my condemnation in the proportion you approve of, or you presume me to be supporting the other "side".

You are claiming to be opposed to torture and atrocious conduct per se. Given that, it is suspicious that you seem to be directing the vast majority of your condemnation to the conduct of America, rather than to the conduct of her allies or enemies, given that we behave far less atrociously than does the foe.

You will note that I, who am also opposed to torture and atrocious conduct, am willing to condemn such behavior on the American side. The main reason why I direct far more condemnation to the other side is that the other side engages in far more torture and atrocious conduct than we do.

I have yet to hear you condemn any torture or other atrocious conduct on the enemy's side.

And why the scare-quotes for "side?" Any war does, as a matter of course, have more than one side.

From:

avram

The main reason why I direct far more condemnation to the other side is that the other side engages in far more torture and atrocious conduct than we do.

As I explained earlier, it's appropriate for Americans to criticize the actions of their own government to a greater extent than those of other governments, because we are responsible for the actions of our own government. It's like a parent punishing a child: If your kid borrows the family car and irresponsibly dents the fender, you yell at him. It doesn't matter that some other kid somewhere totaled his family's car -- that's not your kid.

I have yet to hear you condemn any torture or other atrocious conduct on the enemy's side.

I don't care what you have yet to hear. I'm not your trained bird, to squawk on command.

And why the scare-quotes for "side?"

Because of the complexity of the current struggles.

For one thing, while I oppose the Islamic terrorist movement, I think the Bush administration's actions in Iraq are actually furthering bin Laden's cause rather than hindering it.

For another, consider the Sunni tribes and baathists who make up the "Anbar Awakening". A couple of years ago, these folks were the enemy, fighting Coalition forces. (The Baathists, of course, were supporters of Saddam's regime.) Now they're fighting al-Qaeda-in-Iraq, while we give them weapons and money. However, they're also talking about eventually taking on the Shiite-dominated government we're also supporting. And that same Shiite-supported government is dominated by political factions with close ties to the mullahs in Iran, who are supposedly also out enemies.

So I have a pretty hard time chopping this conflict up neatly into "sides".

From:

As I explained earlier, it's appropriate for Americans to criticize the actions of their own government to a greater extent than those of other governments, because we are responsible for the actions of our own government. It's like a parent punishing a child: If your kid borrows the family car and irresponsibly dents the fender, you yell at him. It doesn't matter that some other kid somewhere totaled his family's car -- that's not your kid.

You have a point there, but when you take it so far as to gloss over the enemy's atrocities in the middle of a war, you're going too far. Would we have won any of our earlier major wars if we'd homed in on our own failings and ignored the task of getting our own population good and mad abuot the enemy's?

As to your point on sides, I'd say that there are presently two or three clear sides (American, Al Qaeda, and Shi'a Terrorists), with some factions (such as the Sunni tribes) moving between them. The mobility of the Sunni tribes is in part because there used to be another clear side, the Ba'athist Iraqis (Saddam's faction) which ceased to be with Saddam's capture and execution.

From:

avram

Who's glossing over anything? I've got no obligation to go around shouting about al Qaeda through a megaphone, and I don't think anybody else's atrocities give us license to commit torture.

You probably haven't written anything about, say, Donkey Kong in the last few weeks. Does that mean you're "glossing over" Donkey Kong?

You seem to think I've got an obligation to help at "the task of getting our own population good and mad abuot the enemy". In other words, to make myself a propagandist. I, on the other hand, see American anger as a problem that keeps us from productively fighting Islamic terrorism.

From:

I think that if America got really angry at the Islamofascists we could end the movement pretty fast. At the price of killing a lot of innocent people, however.

From:

avram

How do you figure?

We couldn't just saturation-nuke them, because it's not a geographically-bound movement. We'd wind up having to nuke people who could nuke us back. (Though maybe that's included in "killing a lot of innocent people".)

Pretty much any other sort of military action of the type likely to be driven by large numbers of angry Americans would likely just grow the movement.

From:

Would you claim that we were "descending into tyranny" in the Civil War or either World War?

Yes. In each case, the descent was (albeit imperfectly) corrected by American citizens exercising their responsibility to restrain their government.

The fact that you keep evading the clearly stated issue (that the responsibility of American citizens extends to the conduct of the American government, and not to whatever other groups it might prefer to divert attention toward) makes your claim to being "a rational thinker" sound unpersuasive.

Edited Date: 2007-12-29 06:00 am (UTC)

From:

Would you claim that we were "descending into tyranny" in the Civil War or either World War?

Yes. In each case, the slide was (albeit imperfectly) arrested by American citizens exercising their responsibility to restrain their government.

Yet, even in the midst of both the Civil War and both World Wars, America remained one of the freest societies the human race has ever seen. It is true that we were sliding in the direction of tyranny, but we were doing so from such a very high starting position, and sliding so slowly, that we never even got to mild authoritarianism.

Oh, and neither Lincoln, Wilson, FDR nor Bush interfered with the rights of the other mainstream party to campaign and run against them in elections (*). A "tyranny" which leaves most liberties intact, including the liberty to vote out the "tyrant," is a weak "tyranny" indeed!

The fact that you keep evading the clearly stated issue (that the responsibility of American citizens extends to the conduct of the American government, and not to whatever other groups it might prefer to divert attention toward) makes your claim to being "a rational thinker" sound unpersuasive.

I have repeatedly stated that torture is wrong. I didn't think it was necessary to state that we vote for our own government and no other; that's a given. However, it is still wrong to fail to condemn combatants in some rough proportion to their atrocities, because the point of news coverage should be to honestly inform, and a situation in which the side which commits the least atrocties gets them the most reported and the side which commits the most atrocities has them largely ignored is clearly dishonest.

===
(*) You could nitpick this with Lincoln since one of the people he arrested without habeus corpus was an actual politician.

From:

By the way, exactly how did American citizens "restrain their government" in either of the three wars I named? In each of them, the President got almost all the emergency powers he claimed enforced at law and confirmed by the courts. Also, in each of them, the President claimed far vaster emergency powers than has Bush.

You're being fooled by the fact that in previous recent memory -- in the Vietnam War and in Desert Storm, the Presidents claimed almost no emergency powers. What Bush is doing is simply a return to the norm for a big war.

From:

If we only condemn our own government's actions, and no one's else's, we create the public image that our side, alone, behaves badly.

This is logically equivalent to asserting "If you only wash your own car, and no one else's, you create the public image that your car, and no other, gets dirty".

Which is to say, your argument is ludicrous on its face.

Edited Date: 2007-12-29 05:47 am (UTC)

From:

If we only condemn our own government's actions, and no one's else's, we create the public image that our side, alone, behaves badly.

This is logically equivalent to asserting "If you only wash your own car, and no one else's, you create the public image that your car, and no other, gets dirty".

No, this is logically equivalent to saying "If you have one of the cleanest cars in town, but claim that it is unthinkably dirty, you create the public image that your car, and no other, gets even a little bit dirty."

Complaining is not cleaning. And, if one is morally opposed to dirt, one should logically complain more about cars in the order of their dirtiness, though of course one cleans one's own car.

From:

Why does that discredit him?

It doesn't. It does, however, provide you with a bit of context into how likely he is to exaggerate the effects, *and* it provides you with the knowledge that he was doing this specifically to prove his previous stance of "Oh, come on, it can't possibly be that bad! Everyone says it isn't torture, so I'm going to find out for myself!" correct.

But there are levels of torture, and this is one of the less severe levels.

According to everyone who's experienced it, and given that it's been *the* most effective torture choice for breaking people for close to a thousand years of recorded history, I would suspect you are totally 100% wrong.

But, hey, let's find out. Are you volunteering to experience it?

Any other pattern of condemnation strikes me as more than a little dishonest.

And so you feel that the US should get a free pass on the torture, rape, and murder of prisoners because they aren't quite as bad as people who torture, rape, and murder *more* prisoners?

Ah, of course, because objecting to actions you *can* affect, by people who supposedly claim to be better than that, is totally inexcusable when they're just not quite as bad as some other people.

Whereas I simply condemn all torture, and all torturers, and all rape and rapists, and all murder and murderers.

From:

But there are levels of torture, and this is one of the less severe levels.

According to everyone who's experienced it, and given that it's been *the* most effective torture choice for breaking people for close to a thousand years of recorded history, I would suspect you are totally 100% wrong.

You are conflating "severity" with "effectiveness."

"Severity" has to do with the level of pain and permanent injury being inflicted. "Effectiveness" has to do with the reliability of the information gained.

To put this in context, suppose that you are an innocent man who is captured and interrogated. Would you rather have someone burn your limbs off with a blowtorch, which maims you for life but will probably only result in you saying whatever your captors want to hear, or disorienting you through sleep deprivation etc., which will probably produce only minimal long-term effects but will probably result the interrogators actually learning the truth?

The blowtorch, which is actually used by Al Qaeda, is more severe torture. The disorientation is more reliable.

But, hey, let's find out. Are you volunteering to experience it?

No, but if I had to, I would vastly prefer the reliable to the severe methods.

Any other pattern of condemnation strikes me as more than a little dishonest.

And so you feel that the US should get a free pass on the torture, rape, and murder of prisoners because they aren't quite as bad as people who torture, rape, and murder *more* prisoners?

No, I don't. If you're honest, can you point to what I said that indicates that we should? And it's not that we aren't "quite" as bad as the Terrorists, it's that we are much less bad as the Terrorists.

Whereas I simply condemn all torture, and all torturers, and all rape and rapists, and all murder and murderers.

First of all, I haven't heard you condemning any Terrorist states or organizations.

Secondly, if you condemn everyone equally, then your condemnations are meaningless as a tool to elicit better behavior.

The reason for the second point is that all combatant organizations will commit some atrocities. Thus all will, by your standard, be condemned. Hence, logically, combatant organizations facing judgement by your standards should make no effort to avoid committing atrocities, since whether they do or not, they will commit some and thus be condemned.

In practical and cultural-evolutionary terms, positing moral equivalence between the West and the Terrorists will favor the victory of the Terrorists, because moral superiority is a major Western propaganda advantage. But if the Terrorists win, then atrocities will increase worldwide, because of the bandwagon effect (people copy and side with the winners). Hence your morally-equivalent condemnations (*) would have the effect of increasing the occurrence of the behavior you condemn!

This is a fairly basic demonstration of the Law of Unintended Consequences in action.

===
(*) If you actually did that, since so far I have only heard you condemn America.

From:

"Severity" has to do with the level of pain and permanent injury being inflicted. "Effectiveness" has to do with the reliability of the information gained.

In which case, water torture is, like all other tortures, of essentially zero effectiveness.

Which, AGAIN, is something every person who's ever studied torture and every person who's ever been tortured can tell you: The victim will tell you absolutely anything and everything that they think might make you stop. Worse, they're going to tell you *what they think will make you stop*.

If you're honest, can you point to what I said that indicates that we should?

You've said, again and again, that's it's unfair to condemn the USA for torturing, raping, and murdering civilians, without trial, in violation of their treaty obligations, abrogating the constitutional rights of their civilians, because there are other people MORE worthy of condemnation.

This indicates that you're howling about how some tin-pot two-bit dictator in buttfuck nowhere is worse than you are, therefore we're not allowed to condemn you as long as you can find somebody that you're Not As Bad As.

And it's not that we aren't "quite" as bad as the Terrorists, it's that we are much less bad as the Terrorists.

First: It's "terrorist". It's not a formal title, there's no formal meaning, there's no membership requirements. You don't capitalise it in the way that you capitalise American or Saudi.

Second: Are you completely ignorant of the actual numbers?
Americans have killed more Iraqi civilians than Saddam ever did.
Americans have imprisoned, tortured, raped, and murdered more Iraqi civilians than Saddam ever did.
Nearly the *entirety* of the resistance against American occupation in Iraq is essentially homegrown, CAUSED BY the American tactics while occupying the place. It doesn't take a lot of people disappeared in the middle of the night, or shot dead by unaccountable contractors, or murdered to cover up the rape of their children, to get a whole lot of people desperate to get the invading army to stop doing this to them.
And the "Al Qaeda" there has absolutely nothing in common or in connection with the "Al Qaeda" that arranged the WTC attacks. They share a name because it makes a great symbol.

The American atrocities are *causing the problem*.

moral superiority is a major Western propaganda advantage.

And if they were morally superior, I wouldn't mind giving it to them.

However, as long as you get officially sanctioned, directly ordered, and totally unpunished atrocities from the supposed "good guys", where they insist that they are totally allowed to commit whatever atrocities they want because there's no legal way to stop them, and where they define "does not agree with us 100%" as "non-person, does not have rights"?

They don't have a moral high ground to stand on. AT BEST, they have what you're bleating about: because you can think of somebody that you're Not As Bad As, that means you're okay, right?

And I say no, you're not okay.

But if the Terrorists win,

And in those five words, you explain your fundamental disconnect from reality.

There *is* no "Terrorist".
No terrorist army.
No terrorist state.
Not even a good definition of what makes a terrorist, or what it would take to win the supposed war on terrorism.

And the tactics used in the prosecution of this war is *increasing* terrorism and *creating* terrorists, not reducing the problem at all.

From:

You've said, again and again, that's it's unfair to condemn the USA for torturing, raping, and murdering civilians, without trial, in violation of their treaty obligations, abrogating the constitutional rights of their civilians, because there are other people MORE worthy of condemnation.

No, I'm saying that it's dishonest to focus the majority of one's condemnation on the atroctities committed by America in this war, while directing little or no condemnation toward the far more serious atrocities committed by the Terrorists and Terrorist States. You cannot do this and logically claim that your diatribe is aimed at atrocities per se, because it is obvious that you are only really bothered about one side's atrocities.

This indicates that you're howling about how some tin-pot two-bit dictator in buttfuck nowhere is worse than you are, therefore we're not allowed to condemn you as long as you can find somebody that you're Not As Bad As.

I did not say this. What I said is that, when discussing a war, condemning only one side -- and the more ethical side at that -- is dishonest. I did not say that one is "not allowed to" (how would I enforce that, anyway) condemn the more ethical side. Simply that it is dishonest to condemn disproportionately.

If you have a problem understanding that, I'm sorry for you.

Americans have killed more Iraqi civilians than Saddam ever did.

Americans have imprisoned, tortured, raped, and murdered more Iraqi civilians than Saddam ever did.

Both these statements are untrue. I suspect that you arrived at your conclusion by blaming America for everything that every side has done in the war, and also by counting as "civilians" the rebel combatants.

Nearly the *entirety* of the resistance against American occupation in Iraq is essentially homegrown, CAUSED BY the American tactics while occupying the place. It doesn't take a lot of people disappeared in the middle of the night, or shot dead by unaccountable contractors, or murdered to cover up the rape of their children, to get a whole lot of people desperate to get the invading army to stop doing this to them.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but I suspect that you missed the news that the Haditha "massacre" turned out to be bogus. In fact, I think you're just plugging a template of "America = atrocities" from leftover Vietnam War Communist propaganda into that war.

But if the Terrorists win,

And in those five words, you explain your fundamental disconnect from reality.

There *is* no "Terrorist".

Well, that's a good way to resolve a war. Define the enemy out of existence.

Too bad that doesn't actually change anything in reality.

No terrorist army

Numerous ones, actually, both belonging to Terrorist States and to less formal Terrorist organizations.

No terrorist state.

(*sigh*) Cuba, Syria, Iran, the Sudan, and North Korea, at least.

Not even a good definition of what makes a terrorist, ...

A deliberate strategy of murdering civilian noncombatants when such is easily avoidable.

... or what it would take to win the supposed war on terrorism.

The defeat and overthrow of the Terrorist State regimes, and their replacement by ones that would treat terrorists as criminals rather than sheltering and supporting them.

That was easy. :)

From:

A deliberate strategy of murdering civilian noncombatants when such is easily avoidable.

The defeat and overthrow of the Terrorist State regimes, and their replacement by ones that would treat terrorists as criminals rather than sheltering and supporting them.

You've just defined the United States Army and their mercenary "civilian contractors" as a terrorist organisation, and the USA as a terrorist state in need of overthrow for sheltering and supporting them rather than treating them as criminals.

Congratulations!

From:

The US Army does not have a deliberate strategy of murdering civilian noncombatants when easily avoidable, and in fact by the standards of armies in general is remarkably humane in its conduct of warfare. Where did you get the idea that we behave as terrorists?

From: