Alphadictionary.com

Our Sponsors

Technical Translation
Website Translation Clip Art
 

Torturing the English language

Miscellaneous Other Topics.

Postby M. Henri Day » Sat Jan 14, 2006 5:40 pm

William wrote:...

One wonders why the Times did not crucify reporters Weiner and Myers as they did Miller. From the Times articles listed above one could easily conclude that Miller was doing just what her bosses wanted.

...


But William, that is precisely my point ! That «liberal» organ the Times is full of people like Ms Miller who are more than willing to advance their careers and please their bosses by serving as mouthpieces for administration (any administration ; when it comes to foreign policy goals, Clinton administration, Bush administration same same, the differences in execution - aside from being due to Clinton's being more knowledgeable and better prepared - are mainly a result of the fact that the latter was not burdened by a domestic agenda of «starving the beast» and rolling the country back to before 1913 and the XVIth Amendment) spin. As to your hypothesis that Miller got it - you who are so interested in sources and exactitude might wish to tell me just when and where she was «crucified» ; my impression is that on the contrary, she received generous severance pay and is alive and well today - because the administration she was shilling for is headed (?) by Mr Bush rather than Mr Clinton, that can easily be falsified by reading what the paper, mouthing the present administration line, is writing on Iran, North Korea, and Syria in order to prepare the country for yet another undeclared and unconstitutional war (my bet would be Syria if the Republican Party looks to tank in November and the people of the US don't say an unequivocal «No!» that cannot be ignored even in Washington ; North Korea and Iran, on the other hand, would seem to constitute nuts just a bit too hard to crack. Still, the Iranian plan to open an oil bourse denominated in Euros rather than USD in March this year represents a significant affront, not merely to Mr Bush's fragile pride, but also to the power of the US Treasury to force everyone to accept its paper, so nothing is certain.) Not to worry - when push comes to shove, even though there may be quibbles about execution, newspapers like the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, and the LA Times will always be there, rooting for the good guys (even if a few OpEd columnists may complain about such minor matters as illegalities and the US Constitution - which King George has informed us is just a piece of paper) !...

Henri

PS : The New York Times was founded in 1851 ; since my argument was that a newspaper with a long publishing history was bound to accumulate errors, by writing that «I think that the NYT is actually closer to a century and a half old» (rather than my «century-old» attribution), you again simply prove my point. But if it will make you feel better, please understand an «at least» prior to my adjectival....
曾记否,到中流击水,浪遏飞舟?
M. Henri Day
Grand Panjandrum
 
Posts: 1142
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:24 am
Location: Stockholm, SVERIGE

Postby Apoclima » Mon Jan 16, 2006 4:26 am

*
There is much to admire in those who refuse on principle ever to take up arms under any conditions. But that does not make pure pacifism, like no-torture absolutism, any less a form of moral foolishness, tinged with moral vanity. Not reprehensible, only deeply reproachable and supremely impracticable. People who hold such beliefs are deserving of a certain respect. But they are not to be put in positions of authority. One should be grateful for the saintly among us. And one should be vigilant that they not get to make the decisions upon which the lives of others depend.


The Truth about Torture
by Charles Krauthammer


*
Were the United States to announce that terrorists would be protected under the Geneva conventions, it would destroy any incentive our ruthless enemies have to comply with the laws of war. The Washington Post and the New York Times understood that truth in 1987, when they supported President Ronald Reagan’s rejection of an amendment to the Geneva conventions that would have granted lawful-combatant status to terrorists.


The stress techniques that the military has used to date are not torture; the advocates can only be posturing in calling them such. On its website, Human Rights Watch lists the effects of real torture: “from pain and swelling to broken bones, irreparable neurological damage, and chronic painful musculoskeletal problems . . . [to] long-term depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, marked sleep disturbances and alterations in self-perceptions, not to mention feelings of powerlessness, of fear, guilt and shame.”



How to Interrogate Terrorists
Heather Mac Donald



*
The Jihadi captured in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan is an unlawful combatant. Why? Because he cheated. He hid behind civilians, he targeted civilians and he eliminated the distinction between himself as a legitimate target and the innocent people around him. He’s also had the habit of waving the white flag of surrender or acting as if he’s dead before he shoots our guys. This entitles him to absolutely nothing under the Geneva Convention.


The disgraceful incidents committed by the sadomasochists at Abu Ghraib were not interrogations nor were they torture. Humiliation, intimidation and uncomfortable environments don’t nearly rise to that level and neither does aggressive interrogation.


U.S. Torture? By Buzz Patterson


*
If "anti-American" means anything, I'd say it means an inclination to blame America for every world problem, and to vigilantly search for America's guilt while downplaying, ignoring, or excusing the guilt of its enemies.


This is a deeply dishonest and manipulative syndrome, having nothing whatever to do with the principles to which its adherents claim fidelity. Indeed, their supposed “principles” (human rights, the sanctity of human life, individual liberty) are simply weapons, pretexts, used to promote the only real principle they have – that the U.S. is a uniquely corrupt and evil country.


Somehow, Europeans have managed to transform the atrocities which they committed and which occurred in their countries from a badge of shame (which, arguably, it need not be any longer) into some sort of badge of moral superiority and entitlement to sit in judgment of others as the Universal Arbiters of Goodness (which it most certainly is not).


The true character of the European Left

And I thought this was thoughtful:

*
I have long told soldiers, spies, and students to watch The Battle of Algiers if they want to understand how to fight terrorism. Indeed, the movie was required viewing for the graduate course I taught for five years on terrorism and the liberal state, which considered the difficulties democracies face in countering terrorism.



A Nasty Business by Bruce Hoffman

Apo
'Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination.' -Max Planck
User avatar
Apoclima
Senior Lexiterian
 
Posts: 556
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 5:00 pm

Postby William » Mon Jan 16, 2006 4:06 pm

When it comes to foreign policy goals, Clinton administration, Bush administration same same, the differences in execution - aside from being due to Clinton's being more knowledgeable and better prepared - are mainly a result of the fact that the latter was not burdened by a domestic agenda of «starving the beast» and rolling the country back to before 1913 and the XVIth Amendment) spin.


So, Clinton was more knowledgable and better prepared about foreign policy?

That is, of course, your opinion unsupported by facts. Clinton's ineffective pin prick strike against Al Qaeda's Tora Bora Afghanistan stronghold in 1998 was perhaps an example of this superior foreign policy knowledge?

His softness towards the dictator of that island workers paradise, Commuist Cuba, is maybe another example of his foreign policy knowledge?

Forgive me Henry, but I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this "rolling the country back to before 1913 and the 16th Amendment'. Are you referring to Bush's reduction of income taxes? If so don't you think that you might be exagerating a little? Bush has done nothing to abrogate the 16th Amendment. Rather it is an attempt, ineffective though it may be in the long run, to reduce years of "pork barrel" spending by previous Administrations and Congresses.

The term "crucifixion" as used in my post is, of course figurative. Though Ms. Miller may have received a generous severance pay, she WAS fired, and the left leaning media in the United States spent a lot ink and air time painting her as a shill for the Bush Administration as you have done.

Since I know that you are very intelligent and are able to see my intent in highlighting the NYT's application of opposite approaches involving the same set of facts to the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration, I can only conclude that you are being disingenuous. My post clearly points out the hypocrisy of the NYT.

And it is interesting that you claim that the problem with the NYT is that it has far too many Judith Millers. It causes me to wonder why you have so much faith in the credibility of the "Gray Lady".

I hadn't heard about Iran's "opening an oil bourse denominated in Euros". That is interesting. Maybe Iran's hostage taking leader realizes, as many do, that there is a great future for Islam in Europe. I have heard it predicted that within 50 years Europe will become another Muslim State ruled by a Muslim theocracy. Perhaps you would care to research the population growth statistics of indiginous Europeans as opposed to the stats regarding the emmigration of Muslims from North Africa to Europe. You might enjoy this article, Henri. Though it is only opinion, it contains some interesting stuff about Europe's future and the future of the West in general.

Or it could mean that Iran's current leadership, in light of the weak economies of some EU countries, is taking one
h e l l of a risk merely to slap the U.S. in the face.

Here's an excerpt from another article you might find interesting.
…it’s hardly a surprise that the EU is teaching propaganda to young children. The trouble is that ultimately, reality always smacks wishful thinking in the face. We don’t know when and how the European project, in its current dictatorial form, will come to grief. Perhaps when Iran’s nuclear weapons are within range of Paris and Berlin, and Europe suddenly discovers why it likes America again. Or perhaps, as Mark Steyn believes, Europe is simply on its way out, as native population grow older without having children, and unassimilated immigrants take over.


Again, it is merely an editorial, but does make some interesting points, don't you think?

Not to worry - when push comes to shove, even though there may be quibbles about execution, newspapers like the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, and the LA Times will always be there, rooting for the good guys (even if a few OpEd columnists may complain about such minor matters as illegalities and the US Constitution - which King George has informed us is just a piece of paper) !…


You must be referring to the "wire" tapping of international cell phone calls made by suspected Al Qaeda terrorists. Most of the pulications you list have failed to mention, I believe, that the adminsitrations of Bill Clinton, George Bush Senior, Ronald Reagon and Jimmy Carter did the same or similar things. And they probably failed to mention Abraham Lincoln's suspension during the U.S. Civil War of the right of Habeus Corpus guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. On one occasion America's greatest president ignored an order from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I may have missed it, but I don't think any of the leftist media sources have mentioned Lincoln's suspension of Constitutional rights in the face of the exigent circumstances of the Civil War. If, as I believe, they have ignored it, and you would probably know this, then it is another example of their dishonest reporting. Note that I consider dishonest those journalists who claim to be objective in their reporting but ignore critical facts that do not support their agenda.

Finally, could you please tell me when "King George" (presumably you mean George W. Bush) informed us that the Constitution is just a piece of paper?

You will note that a significant majority of American citizens understand the Constitutional basis for the the interception of suspected terrorist communication and support it, despite the less than objective leftist media's attempts to convince them their rights have been violated.

For your edification here is an in depth analysis of the Constitutionality of warrantless wiretapping. This analysis was produced by the lawyers who run "Powerlineblog.com". Their expertise in matters of the United States Constitution, I would hazard to wager Henri, is at least equal to your own.

William
William
Junior Lexiterian
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 6:48 pm

Previous

Return to Res Diversae

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron