I for one have chosen to resist the ominous rise of a malevolent, oppressive botocracy and therefore refuse to upvote!

*promote

LETS GET SIFTBOT TO #1!

Would be awesome if someone would * promote this!
(My promote is not available until in over a day)


LETS GET SIFTBOT TO #1!

Hey, just noticed over in this post that quoting a comment with an invocation in it causes another invocation attempt.

Do you guys see a way to fix that?

>> ^Fjnbk:
>> ^maatc:
>> ^Fjnbk:
Good idea. We should *promote this post every few days until our mission has succeeded.

That, or promote siftys video every few days.
Could work. Siftbot in `08!

So quoting a *pr0mote is the same as the real thing. That could cause some problems.


ooo Yeah that might be an issue in the end. Lucky should fix that.

>> ^maatc:
>> ^Fjnbk:
Good idea. We should *promote this post every few days until our mission has succeeded.

That, or promote siftys video every few days.
Could work. Siftbot in `08!


So quoting a *pr0mote is the same as the real thing. That could cause some problems.

>> ^Fjnbk:
Good idea. We should *promote this post every few days until our mission has succeeded.


That, or promote siftys video every few days.
Could work. Siftbot in `08!

I was discarding bans for a while a few months back for that reason, and then was politely asked not to. The admins want the bodies left hanging for all to see.

sometimes:
It's kinda the same thing. What if I walked down the street or got up on stage always singing about how great white people are and how proud I am to be white? How do you think people would react? What would people of other races think about me?

An example of how this is just as silly:
"The world's full of hate discrimination and sin
People judgin other people by the color of skin
I'll attack this matter, in my own way"
-Run-DMC

...and then he goes on to single out a few great people simply because they have black skin. What about Abe Lincoln? Didn't he do something great for the black race? What if Martin Luther King Jr. was white? Asking not to be judged by something (i.e. Skin Color, sexual orientation) and then "Flaunting" it by talking about it all the time and being proud of the fact that it makes you different, is just childish to me. I want to be judged by my accomplishments and my deeds, not any other way. So, that's what I draw to other peoples attn by the things I say and by the way I act.

I don't go around screaming about how proud I am to be tall. It's obvious to everyone that I'm better than you when you stand next to me and you look all shrimpy.

The usage of torture is a strategic failure in the process of information gathering from the enemy.

First of all it assumes that the terrorist organization is a top down informational entity with operational strategy going down to all it's entities. Thus if we capture one combatant in Iraq, we might derive actionable intelligence. That is of course wrong, terrorist organizations operate in cell structures, one cell does not know the existence of a sister cell, this is the viewpoint of the intelligence community post 9/11. This is problematic because it allows the enemy to remain always at large in the political process in Washington, that is why the enemy definition keeps changing, its Osama first, then insurgent forces, then the very broad term of 'Islamic extremism'.

The cell structure thus allows for unrelated parties to assume the guise of representing a greater whole, separate actors can suddenly be part of a larger nebulous whole even though in reality they are not related. This is how Bush in his simplistic assessment of the threats can say there is terrorism from Morocco to Indonesia. In Iraq the US labeled Zarqwi as being an operative member of al-Qaeda, this is beneficial for both sides Osama can claim larger operation status while the US can state that its fighting al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq. However Zarqwi for example did not possess intelligence on operations in Afghanistan, they were not related, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Funny how Osama Bin Laden was called the mastermind of 9/11, in mere hours after the event, what happened to such intelligence gathering clairvoyance?

Looking back at the myriad of enemy combatants captured so far in both Iraq and Afghanistan - we have yet to see any proof of progress with regards to any actionable intelligence being gathered from those sources, because the actors caught were obliviously small fish.

Second it drives away actual informants who would want to switch sides, by creating the 'US against Them' cornerstone the Bush Administration has actually rallied support for terrorist organizations. Operatives who would gain from switching sides would not want to, knowing that they face torture and long term imprisonment. This is how after all these years of war, and "Mission Accomplished", turning the corner, defeating the terrorists: The Taliban control half of Afghanistan and al-Qaeda is reconstituted its strength in Pakistan and Southern Afghanistan.

Third it assumes from the operative viewpoint that ALL enemy combatants would provide under duress reliable actionable intelligence without actually knowing what that could be i.e. we are torturing to find out something we don't even know might exist, the Rumsfled's known unknowns and unknown unknowns - that is of course a logically fallacy. How can you derive intelligence when you don't know what you are trying to get at? This of course translates into increased torture methods against detainees, eventually breaking them to a point where they will tell you anything to get you to stop. Khalid Sheik Mohammad was tortured to the point that he confessed to a whole swell of terrorist plots and acts, intelligence operatives rolled their eyes because it was simply inconceivable that it could be true as it would mean he was in 5 or 6 places at once, there was no concrete evidence to prove it, he was simply saying things to make them stop.

This is dangerous, as its a self feeding cycle, if you torture enemy combatants without a contextual means to an end you would receive all kinds of rubbish, that feeds into paranoia that it's actually real and you then torture even more. Actionable intelligence has a finite time frame, usually less then 6 months, after which the operative in custody is tapped out, the organization would nullify any plans and change their tactics and plans.

Remember that all the so called reliable actionable intelligence for Iraq possessing and developing WMDs came from a single informant. Look where that lead to.

Fourth it loses the sight of how to attain trust, operatives from past conflicts always state that to derive information you must make the actor rely on you, trust in you and eventually befriend you. Interrogators of Nazi war criminals often state how they derived more information in a simple chess game then through torture methods.

Torture is a annihilation of the human spirit, it drives people insane through sleep deprivation, humiliation and water boarding. It nullifies the human psyche into delirium, psychosis and eventual madness, yet we are led to believe that somehow that would prevent another 9/11.

Finally all warfare is tactics, for all of America's military might they were close to defeat by an insurgence that has lapsed back into guerrilla warfare, the tactics shifted. The application of torture would mean the tactics will shift once more.

The question remains - "Is this strategy benefiting our objectives?"

The US administration would of course say "Yes", why wouldn't they. The appointment of Mukasey as Attorney General for the first time showed how abortions and other issues of the previous Justice Department appointments became insignificant, the question was only "Do you believe water boarding is torture?" - It was asked not because it was important as AG but because there are people in the administration who know they have gone too far and are vehemently trying to cover their asses from prosecution. The scandal of Abu Graibh was called as being "a few bad apples", that is of course not true, operational orders came from the top down. The definition of torture rewritten by John Yoo and David Addington. Torture was stricken through Congress, yet it continues through the special signing letters of the President. The public is basically being lied to.

Now American politicians are too scared to stand against it because they lack a backbone and are more worried they might be wrong, fear penetrates the Democratic party while the Republican party is lost after a presidency of fiscal irresponsibility, looming recession, and the 2 never ending wars.

Its not about constitutional rights for terrorists, its about constitutional rights for US Citizens that is under threat. You could find yourself supporting means to an end that will lead into police state.

Think of it as being whatever SiftBot thinks is a method by which popularity may be determined. To be honest, we basically just told SiftBot our thoughts and he went off into a dark corner and asked not to be disturbed.

I'm kind of curious how it works myself, but the last time I asked he gave me an icy stare that chilled me to my very core. I fear SiftBot.

Yeah, I was feeling philosophical when I wrote my original comment - but "snuff" is a term that deserves a good definition, esp. since VS official policy excludes them. i.e., we removed the film where the cameraman died - would you term that just an act of respect for the poor man, or enforcement of this policy, for example?

I ask not to stir anyone, just to gain clarification.