[Jill]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Actually, Jill, what such of the record as we without clearances and accesses know is that it did work and we did bust up some impending attacks from what we choked out of those three men.

With all due respect, that is the complete opposite of what we know. I have provided links to first-hand accounts, stating that the timelines alleged don't work, that the information that led to "bust[ing] up some impending attacks" came from other detainees, and said information was provided with standard interrogation methods. You've provided no evidence to dispute the sources I provided. You appear to be buying what you're being told by the right-wing media, without questioning the veracity of their claims.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Apparently in amongst whatever else they might have said, they also told us some things that were accurate. And we determine this by following up on the leads; some leads no doubt didn't pan out, and certain others evidently did.

Pure speculation without any support.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Despite their manifest desire to repeat their successes of 9/11, no repetitions have occurred. That isn't an accident, I feel sure. Don't you, on consideration?

Of course it's not an accident. But you provide no evidence that torturing detainees is the reason there have been no repetitions. There weren't any repetitions of the 1993 WTC bombings for 9 years, and we weren't torturing anyone in the aftermath of that attack.

And yet we knew that Bin Laden was "Determined to Strike in the U.S.", and we even knew that the plans included hijacking airliners, and we knew all of this through traditional intelligence gathering techniques.

Originally Posted by August 6, 2001 presidential daily briefing

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."

After U.S. missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a -- -- service.

An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told - - service at the same time that bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative's access to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike.

The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of bin Laden's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the U.S.

Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that in ---, Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own U.S. attack.

Ressam says bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation. Although Bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Laden associates surveyed our embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.

Al Qaeda members -- including some who are U.S. citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.

Two al-Qaeda members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were U.S. citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.

A clandestine source said in 1998 that a bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.

Which President got this briefing? Which President ignored it, to all of our detriment and peril?

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

It looks like the truth of the matter is more subtle than you're conceiving it to be.

It looks like the truth is entirely different from what you're conceiving it to be.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

This rather reinforces my argument:

From here.

My contention is that there is no fundamental difference between fighting against the anti-freedom hegemonists this time or then -- that it is the same regardless of time or place. You claim to find some kind of difference, without actually outlining what you conceive this alleged difference to be.

No, you did not claim that it is the same regardless of time or place. That is why you believe you can accuse me of not outlining what the difference is. Let me show you our exchange again so you don't have to go back and look for it, highlighting the relevant portions.

Originally Posted by Jill

You conflate two entirely different sets of circumstances and attempt to draw parallels that don't exist. I have no problem "outfighting" the enemy on the battlefield. Especially since I'm a Jew, you can be damn sure I have no complaints about beating the crap out of Hitler in the war he started.

. . .

Battlefield /= Prison cell

War /= Interrogations

I hope this "outline" is clear now.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

What are details of date or language next to the essential question of "Who's for a liberal social order, and who's against?" Thus, I support Israelis against Arabs, America against the Jihadists, and so on.

Huh? I have no idea what "details of date or language next to the essential question, etc." even means. This is just gobbledeegook.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

There are people on this board who have the colossal stupidity and fascistic sympathies -- conscious, as in tw's case, or not, as in Redux's (or the average leftwinger's, to be blunt) -- to object to my approach, and vehemently.

This sentence doesn't make any sense as written, either. What I think you're trying to say is that other members of this board are too stupid and fascist, whether consciously or unconsciously, to -- what, challenge your approach or vehemence? Again, Huh?

Not to mention, as I explained to classicman, I don't really give a hoot about what you think of tw or Redux or anyone else, personally. I'm having this conversation with you, and if you'd like to continue it, I'd respectfully ask that you refrain from ad hominem and stick to debating the facts, not other posters.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

I get this sort of half-thought-through argument all the time from the opposition. It is tedious. They seem to avoid knowledge, preferring the shibboleths they've been spoon-fed.

Again, argumentum ad hominem.