(and mine)by vapid moral equivalence. Cool. 3,000 Innocents--mostly American--are slaughtered one morning by Islamist sewage on a mission designed by Khalid Sheik Mohammad...And, when his nasal passages are subsequently introduced to moisture, you strenuously object. You lefty nitwits stagger me AND your dead WTC friends. Trust that, Looneytune.

...

The scary thing is how quickly the moral taboo against justifying torture fell away... and how tenuous a grasp so many among us have on their humanity.

...

It's nice around here when the trolls go home. -- Paul Daniel Ash

The trolls serve a function. They let us see what happens when we fall down that slippery slope that is always there when one abandons sticking to principle.

I fear that few Americans have any personal philosophy or have given much thought to philosophy. A few (speaking relatively) in our culture have studied eastern philosophy in the last few decades, but even they, more than likely, have never given serious thought to how one should act in those times when the stakes are high and the situation confused. This is why many find it so complicated: they are working though it for the first time --- and propagandists are helping them.

The early christian gnostics (some sects) were accused of having no morality and being deviants. Their crime? They believed that one may do as he pleases, as long as the action (or lack thereof) harmed no one and satisfied the principle to love all even as much as ones self. I am not as pure as these early gnostics, because I slip in that one may not harm the "innocent" but may harm "the guilty" in defense of the innocent. Ah, but there lies a problem. How does one harm the guilty without ever harming any innocent ones?

In a dust-up with Mona (and others), I claimed that I would never torture a child even if that would mean saving the whole human race. Many thought that to be "over the top". I think it is not; as I can not see any value in a human race that needs to torture babies. Nor any value in a race that feels a need to torture at all.

In any situation, I can start with this "first principal" -- as you harm no one, do as you will. (some claim that was a Celtic motto)

http://www.rageboy.com/mbimages/dalai-lama-y-miguel-serrano-lg.jpg

you should see this picture ... the man being greeted so amicably by the Daily Llama is Miguel Serrano ... you can read more about him in his books, or at mysticbourgeoisie.com, or at wikipedia, or see him here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GOmkF23MJA

Suffice it to say that The Man In Saffron's opinions about such things are not very high on my list of things to read, but his total submission to the doctrine of pre-emptive torture does not surprise me one little bit.

@Paul Daniel Ash

Precisely, which is why I analogize it to rape. The scary thing is how quickly the moral taboo against justifying torture fell away... and how tenuous a grasp so many among us have on their humanity.

This is what is so enormously depressing about the United States today. Steve (aka "Ticking Vagina Man") is just a small example of the multitude who supported this and other exceedingly ugly behaviors that have emanated from this administration after 9/11.

I also wonder at what is left unspoken. If the "put a bunch of 20 year olds in that situation etc" storyline is actually valid in any way whatsoever, it is almost certain that SteveInDallas is admitting to being a rapist as well as a torturer.

Good thing they aren't real people he done it to, like us republican voters, huh?

Non-violence can't tackle terror: Dalai

Times of India

18 Jan 2009, 0451 hrs IST, PTI

NEW DELHI: The Dalai Lama, a lifelong champion of non-violence on Saturday candidly stated that terrorism cannot be tackled by applying the principle of ahimsa because the minds of terrorists are closed.

"It is difficult to deal with terrorism through non-violence," the Tibetan spiritual leader said delivering the Madhavrao Scindia Memorial Lecture here.

He also termed terrorism as the worst kind of violence which is not carried by a few mad people but by those who are very brilliant and educated.

"They (terrorists) are very brilliant and educated...but a strong ill feeling is bred in them. Their minds are closed," the Dalai Lama said.

He said that the only way to tackle terrorism is through prevention. The head of the Tibetan government-in-exile left the audience stunned when he said "I love President George W Bush." He went on to add how he and the US President instantly struck a chord in their first meeting unlike politicians who take a while to develop close ties.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Non-violence_cant_tackle_terror_Dalai_/articleshow/3995810.cms

For the record, the "Greatest Generation" had no problem with Dresden, Nagasaki, or Hiroshima. They would've done anything and everything to beat their opponents. And if you don't think that ad hoc executions went on in the field, you're truly naive.

War isn't pretty, people.

-- steveindallas

My own father served in the 2nd New Zealand Expeditionary Force. He was born in the '20s so I believe he qualifies where Bush and Cheney (and you) do not ... he, and many of his fellow servicemen I have spoken with were appalled by the fire-bombing of Tokyo and Dresden, and the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many of them suffered chronic psychological problems for the rest of their lives as a consequence of the thinsg they did and witnessed. (One of the things often ignored in all this is that soldiers are often as much victims of their political masters as are the people they kill). One of the things my father kept from his experiences was a British (iirc) poster showing German soldiers bayonetting babies. This demonisation was deliberately calculated to remove the inhibitions most western soldiers were raised with, against torture, summary executions, etc.

Not much has changed when it comes to the manipulation of public opinion, and the "management of the message", except that the methods get a little more subtle, perhaps.

Having already referred to your own "narrow circle of military friends" you should be more careful about presuming to speak for an entire generation, or even the servicemen of that generation. You have no excuse for your presumption, since by your own words you demonstrate you are already aware of how narrowly focussed we can be when we only associate with people like ourselves.

Sure, torture and summary executions happened in World War 2. So did rape, mass murder, genocide, and a whole host of other horrors, for which the Allies hanged people.

The distinction you are missing is that you're trying to legitimise SOME of these things while the countries of which we are citizens have almost universally agreed (geneva conventions have 194 signatories according to wikipedia and the ICRC) that they are crimes and they remain crimes no matter who does them, no matter who orders them done, no matter what circumstances pertain when they are done.

That is not a private opinion: that is the law.

Which is where this whole thread started, with Glenn making this very "simple" point.

I'd have thought you of all people would have appreciated it.