Adam Corolla's view on waterboarding

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

So he is an intellectual historian. But exactly how did he crush the notion that Arabs hate us for what we are?

 

Bernard Lewis is also an intellectual historian. Yet their views are diametrically opposite. Why is that?

 

Could it be that one looks at the history of Arab colonialism and the locals' response while the other looks at the excuse for anti-americanism at every corner?

 

I happen to be in Lewis's camp in not blaming America for every evil. Arab anger existed well before USA in involvement in the region. I tie the violent strain of Islam directly to disciples of Qutb who did preach that western influence was a grave danger to Arab society.

 

So when you draw a straight line from foundation of Muslim Brotherhood to Al Qeda and a whole bunch of crossed unconnected dots for the Arab street anger at America, I'm willing to bet that the guys who are actually doing the killing and blowing up are doing it because they're afraid of what our way of life will do to theirs.

 

But you can follow a self loathing fellow who can't accept the concept of righteousness.

 

i never said i blamed america for every evil. rather our foreign policy in the middle east post ww1 has been atrocious/disturbing.

 

lets take one example that is very specific. its important to stick to facts. do you think installing the shah, a murderous dictator over iran, has caused any suspicion or anger? or do you think they hate us in iran because we have mcdonalds and a 1st amendment...

Edited May 9, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER

[Jim in Anchorage]

i never said i blamed america for every evil. rather our foreign policy in the middle east post ww1 has been atrocious/disturbing.

 

lets take one example that is very specific. its important to stick to facts. do you think installing the shah, a murderous dictator over iran, has caused any suspicion or anger? or do you think they hate us in iran because we have mcdonalds and a 1st amendment...

They are not old enough to rememeber the shah, much less any CIA 1950's involvement. The current "goverment" is shooting and imprisoning political dissidents TODAY. Do you think they forget rigged elections 3 years ago and just think about 1941? You got a real guilt trip.

[3rdnlng]

i never said i blamed america for every evil. rather our foreign policy in the middle east post ww1 has been atrocious/disturbing.

 

lets take one example that is very specific. its important to stick to facts. do you think installing the shah, a murderous dictator over iran, has caused any suspicion or anger? or do you think they hate us in iran because we have mcdonalds and a 1st amendment...

 

 

Out of curiosity, how did you happen to pick your screen name in April of 2009?

[GG]

i never said i blamed america for every evil. rather our foreign policy in the middle east post ww1 has been atrocious/disturbing.

 

lets take one example that is very specific. its important to stick to facts. do you think installing the shah, a murderous dictator over iran, has caused any suspicion or anger? or do you think they hate us in iran because we have mcdonalds and a 1st amendment...

 

What about the US intelligence actions in Latin America? Asia? It's not like Mideast was the only battlefield of the cold war. Yet only the disciples of Qutb want to blow us up. Surely a self hater like Chomsky has an answer.

[erynthered]

Out of curiosity, how did you happen to pick your screen name in April of 2009?

 

 

FromToChange DateJOHN DELLAPELLEMARCELL DAREUS POWERMay 06 2012 06:50 PM

[OCinBuffalo]

What about the US intelligence actions in Latin America? Asia? It's not like Mideast was the only battlefield of the cold war. Yet only the disciples of Qutb want to blow us up. Surely a self hater like Chomsky has an answer.

Ahhh...one of the Chomsky-killer arguments. Very nice, very nice. Well executed.

 

There are logical flaws like this all over the place in his thinking, you just have to be objective.

 

However, it's difficult to be objective when your primary purpose for reading Chomsky.....is to impress that semi-hot grad student you are looking to bang. Or, if you are looking to prove that you aren't just a shallow, pot-smoking tool to some militant feminist reporter for one of the city's free papers, then it's best not point out that, no, America's post-WW2 foreign policy was not in fact entirely based on a conspiracy between the State Department and ex-Nazi army officers.

 

As if the State Department, and not the CIA, would be the ones doing this, and, as if there is such a thing as the Nazi Army. There was the SS, and there was, the army. There were Nazis that were army officers....but not a Nazi Army. There was the Waffen SS...but they were...SS, not army. And, if we are talking about evil people doing evil things here....wouldn't they be....Nazis....not ex-Nazis?

 

Hehehehe Chomsky tools are fun to play with.

[3rdnlng]

FromToChange DateJOHN DELLAPELLEMARCELL DAREUS POWERMay 06 2012 06:50 PM

 

Thank you. I see that now. I guess number of posts don't carry over from name to name.

[LeviF]

FromToChange DateJOHN DELLAPELLEMARCELL DAREUS POWERMay 06 2012 06:50 PM

Holy !@#$. No way.

 

Hey John, how did Donte react to you telling him how much he sucked on Facebook?

[bbb]

Is it really JOHN DELLAPELLE? Wasn't he the one who said every 5 minutes "Cowher to Buffalo by Tuesday." And, then never was heard from again?

[C.Biscuit97]

Now there's a leap of logic. Do yourself a favor and stay on the safe side of the wall.

 

Yeah, guys bitching about politics and how the government is holding them back is so scary.

[GG]

Yeah, guys bitching about politics and how the government is holding them back is so scary.

We also B word about idiots. Welcome to the party.

[DC Tom]

We also B word about idiots. Welcome to the party.

 

We don't B word about idiots. We just whack 'em with a mallet.

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

What about the US intelligence actions in Latin America? Asia? It's not like Mideast was the only battlefield of the cold war. Yet only the disciples of Qutb want to blow us up. Surely a self hater like Chomsky has an answer.

 

 

I never stated that every culture will react the same towards occupation and torture. strangely, this doesnt give justification for occupation. in other words, because the arab/muslim world is looking for payback, this somehow brings illegitimacy to their anger/cause. this is the equivalent of saying after i punch you in the face, you are now bad for wanting to kick my ass. i reject this implication...not saying you stated this, but i think it was implied.

 

its like you want to put in bold print, THE ARAB WORLD WANTS TO KILL US, and then not say why? and then you say, SEE, OTHER PEOPLE DONT ACT LIKE THIS, well thats becasue people have different ideologies on when it is appropriate to respond to naked aggression/violence. there is also not only differences in ideology, but also differences in circumstance and incentive to engage in terrorist action against the state. there is a rational actor theory on this, i foget who wrote it.

 

pointing to another person not reacting towards occupation does not mean reacting towards occupation is wrong. the fundamental question is why. the solution is not to occupy more...

 

whats funny, is latin american people have reacted, sometimes in violent fashion...

 

as far as why there is difference in violent reaction? i dont think the reaction is really that different on a general level.

 

the cultures are different, but there has been responses in history from latin america. the cuban 5, the sandanistas guerilla war vs the contras. the current alliance between chavez and iran... there is also vast amounts of terror action against the US for its drug war policy. there are tons of columbian mercenaries. there is also direct funding from south american sympathizers to terrorist groups like hezbollah or al-aqsa brigade because of US imperialism in the area. there are thousands of examples of direct action against the US in latin america.

 

read up on the FMLN in el salvador during the 80s.

 

a big one is the cuban missle crisis...

 

its also important to note that during the cold war, many leftist groups were not as isolated as the middle east becasue they had the soviet union to rely on...

 

but i will concede that violent reaction among radical islamists, like 911, is much more prevalent compared to secular leftists groups. i think this speaks more towards religion taking over a cause, like 79 in iran. it brings more zeal to a cause when people think god is on their side.

 

what this does not do is justify our foreign policy, and among many terrorist actions against the US, i feel some of it is a moral response from desperate people...

 

to make one point clear, i feel there are major problems within islam, and an islamic state is disturbing to me, but i would find the same problem with a christian state. and if a foreign country attacked the US, and christians engaged in terrorism against that aggressor, i would see their action as justified.

 

its also important to point out on the issue of iran before 79, our installed dictator and isolation of the iranian people created an environment where a power vaccum is created. many many times during hard times, a country becomes polarized and fringe groups do arise. so we are to blame for this also... there are tons of books on ethnic conflict being created by autocratic regimes and a country being destitute.. e.g. the congo...

Edited May 9, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER

[GG]

No matter how much verbal diarrhea you'll spew, doesn't change the fact that the guys who were waterboarded did not come from countries which were "occupied" by the US. Other than that your point is?

[Alaska Darin]

The United States has waterboarded how many people in the course of the GWOT? THREE?

Don't know and I doubt you do either. Irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, though I'm not surprised someone with so little cognitive ability uses such pedestrian fodder.

And judging by how those three are acting down in GITMO in that bull **** show trial right now, I really dont think whatever long terms effects were caused by waterboarding did what?

Nice conclusion, you !@#$ing chimpanzee. Maybe you can serve on the jury for some of the upcoming military PTSD trials. Then all those guys can get the convictions they obviously "deserve".

Make them BIGGER pieces of **** than they already are? So your whole argument is a red herring because you based it on waterboarding being used as an EI tactic MUCH MUCH MUCH more than it is and used.

Yeah, because it's so unlike the government to slowly boil the frog. You're a real righty savant.

So spare me the lecture.

You're in no position to make demands.

And take your race card and shove it up your ass.

I know, it hits a little too close to home with clowns like you. Go stand in front of your mirror and tell yourself you're not a racist.

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

No matter how much verbal diarrhea you'll spew, doesn't change the fact that the guys who were waterboarded did not come from countries which were "occupied" by the US. Other than that your point is?

 

 

most of the 911 hijackers came from saudi arabia and egypt.

 

also, you dont have to be from an occupied country to be pissed and engage in "terrorist activity". obviously you know this...

 

my point was originally calling out corollas propaganda that, "they hate us because of who we are". this is utter nonsense.

[GG]

most of the 911 hijackers came from saudi arabia and egypt.

 

also, you dont have to be from an occupied country to be pissed and engage in "terrorist activity". obviously you know this...

 

my point was originally calling out corollas propaganda that, "they hate us because of who we are". this is utter nonsense.

 

That's not exactly what Carolla said, but let's play along your Chomsky card.

 

Even you would admit that there's a massive gulf between being pissed and taking the next step to engage in terrorist activity - specifically in these cases resorting to lethal means to target civilians and non-military institutions. So, why all the garbage about Iran & Iraq, when people in question came from Egypt & Saudi? When exactly was Egypt occupied? When was Saudi Arabia? US was actually a major cog in ending the colonial hold by UK and France in the region. Chomskites conveniently forget that part of history as well as the Soviet influence in the region and what KGB did to destabilize it. But, I know, it's all evil US fault.

 

The point that waterboarding breeds more terrorists is a red herring, because it's a crappy point. I think the region has been fairly consistent in that a blind following of religious tenets and historic Muslim insecurity and victimization have been far more effective in recruiting. If you want proof, look no further than what happened in Afghanistan where hundreds of thousands demonstrated and scores were killed when a bunch of books were mistakenly burned, while nary a peep when a rogue soldier gunned down 17 civilians. That should give you a clue on the peoples' priorities in the region. If anything, Persians are generally laughing at Arabs being tortured.

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

That's not exactly what Carolla said, but let's play along your Chomsky card.

 

Even you would admit that there's a massive gulf between being pissed and taking the next step to engage in terrorist activity - specifically in these cases resorting to lethal means to target civilians and non-military institutions. So, why all the garbage about Iran & Iraq, when people in question came from Egypt & Saudi? When exactly was Egypt occupied? When was Saudi Arabia? US was actually a major cog in ending the colonial hold by UK and France in the region. Chomskites conveniently forget that part of history as well as the Soviet influence in the region and what KGB did to destabilize it. But, I know, it's all evil US fault.

 

The point that waterboarding breeds more terrorists is a red herring, because it's a crappy point. I think the region has been fairly consistent in that a blind following of religious tenets and historic Muslim insecurity and victimization have been far more effective in recruiting. If you want proof, look no further than what happened in Afghanistan where hundreds of thousands demonstrated and scores were killed when a bunch of books were mistakenly burned, while nary a peep when a rogue soldier gunned down 17 civilians. That should give you a clue on the peoples' priorities in the region. If anything, Persians are generally laughing at Arabs being tortured.

 

 

ill stop you right there respectfully. egypt was occupied by an american backed dictator for over 30 years. mubarak. this was what the whole arab spring was about...the saudi royal family is a despotic regime backed by the US also.

 

as far as targeting civilians, most of these people who have been occupied and tortured have little means in military power. believe me, if hezbollah had a legit air force and military, they would rather use that. from what i know, some of this is religious, and the other part is viewed as collateral damage. also, civilians are not always targeted, the marines in lebanon, and the attack on the USS COLE. for example, when civilians are targeted in israel, the palestinian people view this as collateral damage. the same would be true if canada invaded the US in 1948 and kicked people out of their homes in montana and the dakotas. the canadians living there would be targeted. its ironic because israel claiming self defense is similar to germany claiming self defense after they invaded poland or france. you cant punch someone and then claim self defense... not to segway, but this is what the whole zimmerman case rests on. can you start a fight and then claim self defense. obviously you cant...

 

so there is an issue of collateral damage in suicide bombing where the people targeted are either overtly occupying territory or they are systematically targeted because organizations like hezbollah choose terrorism for political reasons, ie this is easier than working through traditional military warfare... i would argue fire bombing cities in japan or europe in ww2 is no different than 911. in fact, it was worse in ww2, millions of civilians were bombed, for being in occupied territory.

 

what is so strange is you are looking at the ugly blowback against american foreign policy and saying " look how mean and violent they are ". again, the question is why?

 

if you want to stop terrorism, than stop participating in it.

 

robert pape has some great work on this issue.

 

here-http://danieldrezner.com/research/guest/Pape1.pdf

 

its more important to ask if the reaction is justified, ie who started what, not so much asking are different tactics of reaction too violent...

 

you are paying attention to the strategy and not so much the reasons behind why that strategy is in place...

 

not to be funny, but remember the movie red dawn. lol

 

if this really happened, of course you would engage in terrorism against the soviets.

Edited May 10, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER

[3rdnlng]

ill stop you right there respectfully. egypt was occupied by an american backed dictator for over 30 years. mubarak. this was what the whole arab spring was about...the saudi royal family is a despotic regime backed by the US also.

 

as far as targeting civilians, most of these people who have been occupied and tortured have little means in military power. believe me, if hezbollah had a legit air force and military, they would rather use that. from what i know, some of this is religious, and the other part is viewed as collateral damage. also, civilians are not always targeted, the marines in lebanon, and the attack on the USS COLE. for example, when civilians are targeted in israel, the palestinian people view this as collateral damage. the same would be true if canada invaded the US in 1948 and kicked people out of their homes in montana and the dakotas. the canadians living there would be targeted. its ironic because israel claiming self defense is similar to germany claiming self defense after they invaded poland or france. you cant punch someone and then claim self defense... not to segway, but this is what the whole zimmerman case rests on. can you start a fight and then claim self defense. obviously you cant... so there is an issue of collateral damage in suicide bombing where the people targeted are either overtly occupying territory or they are systematically targeted because organizations like hezbollah choose terrorism for political reasons, ie this is easier than working through traditional military warfare... i would argue fire bombing cities in japan or europe in ww2 is no different than 911. in fact, it was worse in ww2, millions of civilians were bombed, for being in occupied territory.

 

what is so strange is you are looking at the ugly blowback against american foreign policy and saying " look how mean and violent they are ". again, the question is why?

 

if you want to stop terrorism, than stop participating in it.

 

robert pape has some great work on this issue.

 

here-http://danieldrezner.com/research/guest/Pape1.pdf

 

its more important to ask if the reaction is justified, ie who started what, not so much asking are different tactics of reaction too violent...

 

you are paying attention to the strategy and not so much the reasons behind why that strategy is in place...

 

 

What makes you think Zimmerman started a fight?

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

What makes you think Zimmerman started a fight?

 

 

no, i should clarify, if he started a fight, then you cant claim self defense. personally i dont think he started it. i was just using a hypothetical.

 

sry

 

That's not exactly what Carolla said, but let's play along your Chomsky card.

 

Even you would admit that there's a massive gulf between being pissed and taking the next step to engage in terrorist activity - specifically in these cases resorting to lethal means to target civilians and non-military institutions. So, why all the garbage about Iran & Iraq, when people in question came from Egypt & Saudi? When exactly was Egypt occupied? When was Saudi Arabia? US was actually a major cog in ending the colonial hold by UK and France in the region. Chomskites conveniently forget that part of history as well as the Soviet influence in the region and what KGB did to destabilize it. But, I know, it's all evil US fault.

 

The point that waterboarding breeds more terrorists is a red herring, because it's a crappy point. I think the region has been fairly consistent in that a blind following of religious tenets and historic Muslim insecurity and victimization have been far more effective in recruiting. If you want proof, look no further than what happened in Afghanistan where hundreds of thousands demonstrated and scores were killed when a bunch of books were mistakenly burned, while nary a peep when a rogue soldier gunned down 17 civilians. That should give you a clue on the peoples' priorities in the region. If anything, Persians are generally laughing at Arabs being tortured.

 

 

remember i said we need to ask why? this is why not all terrorism is justified. i never said the afghan people were justified in their violence when the quran was burnt.