Iraq war + WMD's = LIE

[g4macdad]

I don't watch news. How was the chickenhawk convention - did you get to recite all the latest moonbat mantra?

Nice! And very relevant too.

 

[knot]

Nice! And very relevant too.

About as relevant as

BTW: How was the Fox News broadcast tonight?

 

[Schneibster]

Sometimes it works.

Unfortunately, the only time that's true is when you're in a rapidly developing situation, and you can't tell when it does and when it doesn't until it's too late. And it doesn't work as well as other interrogation techniques if you have the time. The CIA had established that by 1962, and had a manual on it. Allow me to quote from it:

"The threat of coercion usually weakens or destroys resistance more effectively than coercion itself. The threat to inflict pain, for example, can trigger fears more damaging than the immediate sensation of pain. In fact, most people underestimate their capacity to withstand pain. The same principle holds for other fears: sustained long enough, a strong fear of anything vague or unknown induces regression, whereas the materialization of the fear, the infliction of some form of punishment, is likely to come as a relief. The subject finds that he can hold out, and his resistances are strengthened. 'In general, direct physical brutality creates only resentment, hostility, and further defiance.' (reference provided in original text)"

The tone here is clear: threats are much more effective than punishments. The threat allows the subject's mind to work against itself; the actuality creates the feeling that resistance is possible, once it has been endured. This impression is strengthened by the following:

" Interrogatees who are withholding but who feel qualms of guilt and a secret desire to yield are likely to become intractable if made to endure pain. The reason is that they can then interpret the pain as punishment and hence as expiation. There are also persons who enjoy pain and its anticipation and who will keep back information that they might otherwise divulge if they are given reason to expect that withholding will result in the punishment that they want. Persons of considerable moral or intellectual stature often find in pain inflicted by others a confirmation of the belief that they are in the hands of inferiors, and their resolve not to submit is strengthened.

Intense pain is quite likely to produce false confessions, concocted as a means of escaping from distress. A time-consuming delay results, while investigation is conducted and the admissions are proven untrue. During this respite the interrogatee can pull himself together. He may even use the time to think up new, more complex "admissions" that take still longer to disprove. KUBARK is especially vulnerable to such tactics because the interrogation is conducted for the sake of information and not for police purposes.

If an interrogatee is caused to suffer pain rather late in the interrogation process and after other tactics have failed, he is almost certain to conclude that the interrogator is becoming desperate. He may then decide that if he can just hold out against this final assault, he will win the struggle and his freedom. And he is likely to be right. Interrogatees who have withstood pain are more difficult to handle by other methods. The effect has been not to repress the subject but to restore his confidence and maturity."

The ineffectiveness of pain is emphasized. It is more likely to create exactly the opposite effect of that desired.

Let me repeat: this was KNOWN in 1963. This is a study published by one of the most effective intelligence agencies in the world. Anyone who thinks the people writing this didn't know what they were talking about is a fool; this manual lays out the techniques of coercive interrogation, coldly, clinically, and without pulling any punches.

And the people currently conducting interrogations for the United States are ignoring this. And if you think I just said they're fools, you are correct.

 

[Darat]

...snip..

5) and the lies about WMD.
I think the government(s) (particularly my own) actually believed that there would be WMDs found to justify their pre-emptive invasion. There's no evidence of outright lying that I've seen, just heavy spin afterward as damage limitation.


...snip...

I think you have to add with a heavy dose of spin beforehand as well.

 

[Big Les]

I do quibble with your statement that there is no evidence of outright lying though. I agree that Bush and Blair both possibly thought there would be some WMD in Iraq. I think, however, that the strength of evidence for their conclusions was absolutely misrepresented. The underlying evidence for WMD in Iraq was very suspect and in every case the dubiousness of that evidence was lied about. There have been long threads on this point at JREF and there were some people that participated in those threads that did not share my view on this, but for me the evidence is overwhelming: Bushco was absolutely engaged in organized lying about the evidence for WMD in Iraq.

Of course we won't know for sure for a very long time, but bottom line as best I can tell is; they were pretty damn sure that they'd find WMD, so that plus his routine non-compliance were good-as-any excuses to prosecute Bush's war. Although Blair may have been in on the spin and misrepresentation to a great extent, I think he was suckered just like the rest of us (as well as doing his best to maintain the "special" relationship), and by the time he realised what he was doing it was too late. I think he's now compartmentalised that part of his political career to allow him to keep on grinnin', but I await his memoirs with interest.

I think you have to add with a heavy dose of spin beforehand as well.

Agreed - although it was spin of somewhat different nature and purpose - before it was (I think) because they knew they were right in going after Saddam, but the pesky peace-loving rest of the country(ies) wouldn't go along with it unless a passable excuse was offered. After the fact, it was more along the lines of whitewash. Difficult to do when the situation is still there, and getting worse.

 

[Beerina]

War in Iraq: is that still on? I thought Saddam was like, gone already.

That was the plan.

I was on the fence when it started. I would have not gone in at that time, based on the evidence, assuming it was accurate, which it was not.

I now think it wasn't necessarily a lie, but more of a probability calculation: they were hoping to take over and install a democracy of shiny, happy people rather quickly. Given that success, if it turned out there were no WMDs, well, big deal. Bush would be the huge hero, and the dominos of dictatorship in the Middle East would start tumbling.

Unfortunately, there was a monkey wrench of incompetency thrown into it.

Lies about WMD: Wait, wasn't WMD a band from the late 70's?

You're thinking of Grand Funk Railroad.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Seeing how this was moved from the Conspiracy Theory Forums then it's safe to say that you do acknowledge that :

1) Chemical Weapons were used by the US on Fallujah
2) Nuclear Weapons (DU) have been used all over the country
3) A genocide is being carried out in Iraq
4) Torture is common place
5) We invaded a country based on Right Wing Extremists WILD CONSPIRACY THEORY


Do you disagree with any of the above statements?

If so, which ones and why?

Who is this "you," TC?

How is Willy Pete "a chemical weapon?"

Where did you get the idea that trying to put words into the mouth of a few hundred other people was an intelligent way to have a conversation, or to begin an argument?

Also, what is the point about crying over spilled milk? The war in Iraq can't be undone. It can only be ended, or rather, US participation in it can. The war between factions can't be ended by other than the factions involved, by either exhaustion, genocide of the Sunnah (not gonna happen) or a form of partition and population transfer that reduces the friction.

I'd say that it will take another 16 years for that to come about, given data points in Yugoslavia and Mozambique.

It may take longer.

DR

 

[Ziggurat]

TC329 is a troll. He hasn't been back since post #11. It's time this thread died.

 

[fuelair]

I'm just curious as to where members of this forum stand on the war in Iraq, torture in Abu Ghraib, Chemical Weapons in Fallujah, Depleted Uranium everywhere, and the lies about WMD.

So does the average JREF support the war in Iraq or not?

Don't know if average or not but: A) against - particularly way it was done, B) against - go for the ones who have real info re:torture/rendition//try the ones who told the low levels to do it, C)whose? fine if US, bad if Iraq,D) excellent for penetration, love it. Hear they are working on ceramics that are even better though - when WE can penetrate a tank with a .38 I'm cool with it.)E) lying bad.F)shrub vacuums srule8.G) but there has been 0.00000 data that even hints he or his bbs planned and/or executed 9/11 - just look at the stupid expression when reality breaks into the goat story - that is ignorance and non-acceptance.

 

[steverino]

"The threat of coercion usually weakens or destroys resistance more effectively than coercion itself. The threat to inflict pain, for example, can trigger fears more damaging than the immediate sensation of pain. In fact, most people underestimate their capacity to withstand pain.

So you get the bad guy, torture another guy in front of him, then say, "Tell us what you know, or you'll be next." Then, according to that report, the fear would work.

Let me repeat: this was KNOWN in 1963. This is a study published by one of the most effective intelligence agencies in the world..

And in 1963 the Corvair was KNOWN to be an efficient, growndbreaking, economy car.

 

[Schneibster]

So you get the bad guy, torture another guy in front of him, then say, "Tell us what you know, or you'll be next." Then, according to that report, the fear would work.

Hmmm. Did you read it? Do you understand it, or are you just looking for something to attack because you don't like what it says?

And in 1963 the Corvair was KNOWN to be an efficient, growndbreaking, economy car.

And in 1963 they'd been making cars for 60 years, and extracting information from people for thousands of years. Guess which one they were better at?

To answer my own question, it appears you're just looking for something to attack because you don't like what it says. That's a shame, because let me tell you, there are all sorts of problems rearing their ugly heads because of what these idiots have done. Seems they can't get anybody to take the guys they tortured down in Gitmo back. We might have to make 'em US citizens. And then there's that little problem with the inadmissibility of evidence obtained under coercion, so they can't try the really bad ones without causing a Constitutional crisis (and mark my words, Henry Waxman hasn't even gotten around to that one yet, he's got more important fish to fry). And there will be more such problems to come, too.

Oh, and just one more little thing for you to keep in mind: who was President while this information was being put together? You don't suppose ol' Jack might have gone and obtained a little information from one of the most experienced organizations in the world at interrogation, using what might be termed a little "special relationship" he had, do you? Nawwww. Hmmm. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

 

[steverino]

Hmmm. Did you read it? Do you understand it, or are you just looking for something to attack because you don't like what it says?

I was astounded to see the quotings of John C. Lilly in your link. He once took LSD, made a large bowel movement, and said it was he giving birth to his mother.

 

[Schneibster]

Just in case I was a little too elliptical, have you ever heard of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?