Adam Corolla's view on waterboarding

[DC Tom]

small segment of an interview with noam chomsky on this whole issue of 911 and war on terror...

Q: The media have been noticeably lacking in providing a context and a background for the attacks on New York and Washington. What might be some useful information that you could provide?

 

A: "There are two categories of information that are particularly useful because there are two distinct, though related, sources for the attack. Let’s assume that the attack was rooted somehow in the bin Laden network. That sounds plausible, at least, so letsay it’s right. If that’s right, there are two categories of information and of populations that we should be concerned with, linked but not identical. One is the bin Laden network. That’s a category by itself. Another is the population of the region. They’re not the same thing, although there are links. What ought to be in the forefront is discussion of both of those. The bin Laden network, I doubt if anybody knows it better than the CIA, since they were instrumental in helping construct it. This is a network whose development started in 1979, if you can believe President Carter’s National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. He claimed, maybe he was just bragging, that in mid–1979 he had instigated secret support for Mujahedin fighting against the government of Afghanistan in an effort to draw the Russians into what he called an “Afghan trap,” a phrase worth remembering. He’s very proud of the fact that they did fall into the Afghan trap by sending military forces to support the government six months later, with consequences that we know. The U.S., along with Egypt, Pakistan, French intelligence, Saudi Arabian funding, and Israeli involvement, assembled a major army, a huge mercenary army, maybe 100,000 or more, and they drew from the most militant sectors they could find, which happened to be radical Islamists, what are called here Islamic fundamentalists, from all over, most of them not from Afghanistan. They’re called Afghanis, but like bin Laden, they come from elsewhere.

 

Bin Laden joined very quickly. He was involved in the funding networks, which probably are the ones which still exist. They were trained, armed, organized by the CIA, Pakistan, Egypt, and others to fight a holy war against the Russians. And they did. They fought a holy war against the Russians. They carried terror into Russian territory. They may have delayed the Russian withdrawal, a number of analysts believe, but they did win the war and the Russian invaders withdrew. The war was not their only activity. In 1981, groups based in that same network assassinated President Sadat of Egypt, who had been instrumental in setting it up. In 1983, one suicide bomber, maybe with connections to the same networks, essentially drove the U.S. military out of Lebanon. And it continued.

 

By 1989, they had succeeded in their holy war in Afghanistan. As soon as the U.S. established a permanent military presence in Saudi Arabia, bin Laden and the rest announced that from their point of view this was comparable to the Russian occupation of Afghanistan and they turned their guns on the Americans, as had already happened in 1983 when the U.S. had military forces in Lebanon. Saudi Arabia is a major enemy of the bin Laden network, just as Egypt is. That’s what they want to overthrow, what they call the un–Islamic governments of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, other states of the Middle East and North Africa. And it continued.

 

In 1997, they murdered roughly sixty tourists in Egypt and destroyed the Egyptian tourist industry. And they’ve been carrying out activities all over the region, North Africa, East Africa, the Middle East, for years. That’s one group. And that is an outgrowth of the U.S. wars of the 1980s and, if you can believe Brzezinski, even before, when they set the “Afghan trap.” There’s a lot more to say about them, but that’s one part.

 

Another is the people of the region. They’re connected, of course. The bin Laden network and others like them draw a lot of their support from the desperation and anger and resentment of the people of the region, which ranges from rich to poor, secular to radical Islamist. The Wall Street Journal, to its credit, has run a couple of articles on attitudes of wealthy Muslims, the people who most interest them: businessmen, bankers, professionals, and others through the Middle East region who are very frank about their grievances. They put it more politely than the poor people in the slums and the streets, but it’s clear. Everybody knows what they are. For one thing, they’re very angry about U.S. support for undemocratic, repressive regimes in the region and U.S. insistence on blocking any efforts towards democratic openings. You just heard on the news, it sounded like the BBC, a report that the Algerian government is now interested in getting involved in this war. The announcer said that there had been plenty of Islamic terrorism in Algeria, which is true, but he didn’t tell the other part of the story, which is that a lot of the terrorism is apparently state terrorism. There’s pretty strong evidence for that. The government of course is interested in enhancing its repression, and will welcome U.S. assistance in this.

 

In fact, that government is in office because it blocked the democratic election in which it would have lost to mainly Islamic–based groups. That set off the current fighting. Similar things go on throughout the region.

 

The “moneyed Muslims” interviewed by the Journal also complained that the U.S. has blocked independent economic development by “propping up oppressive regimes,” that’s the phrase they used. But the prime concern stressed in the Wall Street Journal articles and by everybody who knows anything about the region, the prime concern of the “moneyed Muslims”—basically pro–American, incidentally—is the dual U.S. policies, which contrast very sharply in their eyes, towards Iraq and Israel. In the case of Iraq, for the last ten years the U.S. and Britain have been devastating the civilian society. Madeleine Albright’s infamous statement about how maybe half a million children have died, and it’s a high price but we’re willing to pay it, doesn’t sound too good among people who think that maybe it matters if a half a million children are killed by the U.S. and Britain. And meanwhile they’re strengthening Saddam Hussein. So that’s one aspect of the dual policy. The other aspect is that the U.S. is the prime supporter of the Israeli military occupation of Palestinian territory, now in its thirty–fifth year. It’s been harsh and brutal from the beginning, extremely repressive. Most of this hasn’t been discussed here, and the U.S. role has been virtually suppressed. It goes back twenty–five years of blocking diplomatic initiatives.

 

Even simple facts are not reported. For example, as soon as the current fighting began last September 30, Israel immediately, the next day, began using U.S. helicopters (they can’t produce helicopters) to attack civilian targets. In the next couple of days they killed several dozen people in apartment complexes and elsewhere. The fighting was all in the occupied territories, and there was no Palestinian fire. The Palestinians were using stones. So this is people throwing stones against occupiers in a military occupation, legitimate resistance by world standards, insofar as the targets are military.

 

On October 3, Clinton made the biggest deal in a decade to send new military helicopters to Israel. That continued the next couple of months. That wasn’t even reported, still isn’t reported, as far as I’m aware. But the people there know it, even if they don’t read the Israeli press (where it was immediately reported). They look in the sky and see attack helicopters coming and they know they’re U.S. attack helicopters sent with the understanding that that is how they will be used. From the very start U.S. officials made it clear that there were no conditions on their use, which was by then already well known. A couple of weeks later Israel started using them for assassinations. The U.S. issued some reprimands but sent more helicopters, the most advanced in the U.S. arsenal. Meanwhile the settlement policies, which have taken over substantial parts of the territories and are designed to make it virtually impossible for a viable independent state to develop, are supported by the U.S. The U.S. provides the funding, the diplomatic support. It’s the only country that’s blocked the overwhelming international consensus on condemning all this under the Geneva conventions. The victims, and others in the region, know all of this. All along this has been an extremely harsh military occupation.

 

Q: Is there anything else you want to add?

 

A: There’s a lot more. There is the fact that the U.S. has supported oppressive, authoritarian, harsh regimes, and blocked democratic initiatives. For example, the one I mentioned in Algeria. Or in Turkey. Or throughout the Arabian Peninsula. Many of the harsh, brutal, oppressive regimes are backed by the U.S. That was true of Saddam Hussein, right through the period of his worst atrocities, including the gassing of the Kurds. U.S. and British support for the monster continued. He was treated as a friend and ally, and people there know it. When bin Laden makes that charge, as he did again in an interview rebroadcast by the BBC, people know what he is talking about.

 

Let’s take a striking example. In March 1991, right after the Gulf War, with the U.S. in total command of the air, there was a rebellion in the southern part of Iraq, including Iraqi generals. They wanted to overthrow Saddam Hussein. They didn’t ask for U.S. support, just access to captured Iraqi arms, which the U.S. refused. The U.S. tacitly authorized Saddam Hussein to use air power to crush the rebellion. The reasons were not hidden. New York Times Middle East correspondent Alan Cowell described the “strikingly unanimous view” of the U.S. and its regional coalition partners: “whatever the sins of the Iraqi leader, he offered the West and the region a better hope for stability than did those who have suffered his repression.” Times diplomatic correspondent Thomas Friedman observed, not critically, that for Washington and its allies, an “iron–fisted Iraqi junta” that would hold Iraq together just as Saddam’s “iron fist” had done was preferable to a popular rebellion, which was drowned in blood, probably killing more people than the U.S. bombing. Maybe people here don’t want to look, but that was all over the front pages of the newspapers. Well, again, it is known in the region. That’s just one example. These are among the reasons why pro-American bankers and businessmen in the region are condemning the U.S. for supporting antidemocratic regimes and stopping economic development."

 

I'm guessing this is copyrighted, and you posted it it without so much as a link?

[GG]

And what exactly makes Chomsky an authority on the topic?

[Jauronimo]

And what exactly makes Chomsky an authority on the topic?

Because Chomsky is an intellectual.

 

Noam knows his history for sure, and he can certainly provide endless examples of questionable US foreign policy. I have no problem with his criticism of the US except that he doesn't seem to provide any feasible solutions and he fails to acknowledge the costs of serving as the supreme moral example by which he judges US actions. I can't recall him ever framing any U.S. interventions within the context of the Cold War. Failing to include the Soviet's role in most if not all of these foreign interventions is dishonest, in my opinion. When pressed on the issue, Chomsky will admit that despite our "imperialistic aspirations" the U.S. is still the "greatest country in the world".

 

In a perfect world, there would be no violence, poverty, or personal ambition and we would all be content to share the wealth. No arguments there, Noam, but what's your plan for the world we actually live in?

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

Because Chomsky is an intellectual.

 

Noam knows his history for sure, and he can certainly provide endless examples of questionable US foreign policy. I have no problem with his criticism of the US except that he doesn't seem to provide any feasible solutions and he fails to acknowledge the costs of serving as the supreme moral example by which he judges US actions. I can't recall him ever framing any U.S. interventions within the context of the Cold War. Failing to include the Soviet's role in most if not all of these foreign interventions is dishonest, in my opinion. When pressed on the issue, Chomsky will admit that despite our "imperialistic aspirations" the U.S. is still the "greatest country in the world".

 

In a perfect world, there would be no violence, poverty, or personal ambition and we would all be content to share the wealth. No arguments there, Noam, but what's your plan for the world we actually live in?

 

i can agree with this. noam is more of a critic than a person offering great solutions. but thats his gig. hes great at pointing the mirror right back at the US. and i used his intellect to crush the notion that the arab world " hates us for who we are". that is utter nonsense and propaganda from the state dept...

Edited May 8, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER

[Doc]

You've obviously never been waterboarded.

No I haven't. Have you?

 

I know what happens during it. Again, it's not physical torture in the sense that a person isn't being mutilated. Water gets into a person's mouth or nose and produces the unpleasant feeling of drowning. Which as I said, is psychological torture. But since the person is strapped-down on a board in a decline position, water doesn't have a chance to enter his/her lungs.

[bbb]

As Adam would say - Good times!

[DC Tom]

No I haven't. Have you?

 

I know what happens during it. Again, it's not physical torture in the sense that a person isn't being mutilated. Water gets into a person's mouth or nose and produces the unpleasant feeling of drowning. Which as I said, is psychological torture. But since the person is strapped-down on a board in a decline position, water doesn't have a chance to enter his/her lungs.

 

All torture is psychological. It's designed to break people down. Without the psychological aspect, it's just mutilation.

[Alaska Darin]

No I haven't. Have you?

Yes. And if I waterboard you, you'll change your tune.

 

I'm not saying I have a problem with it but this cavalier attitude that so many people have on the subject is appalling.

[Adam]

As Adam would say - Good times!

?????

[DC Tom]

?????

 

Yeah, actually Adam would say "Good times...or bad. I don't feel strongly either way."

[Doc]

All torture is psychological. It's designed to break people down. Without the psychological aspect, it's just mutilation.

Obviously all torture is psychological. My point was that waterboarding is purely psychological, not mutilatory.

Yes. And if I waterboard you, you'll change your tune.I'm not saying I have a problem with it but this cavalier attitude that so many people have on the subject is appalling.

My attitude is hardly cavalier. If waterboarding involved mutilation, I'd have a harder time defending it. Making someone believe he is drowning when he is not doesn't bother me, either as a human being or a physician. If you choose to engage in criminal activity, you don't get treated with kid gloves, in my book.

[bbb]

?????

 

Adam Carolla - you know the person in the subject line........It's not all about you!

[DC Tom]

Adam Carolla - you know the person in the subject line........It's not all about you!

 

I meant you, Adam.

[LeviF]

Adam Carolla - you know the person in the subject line........It's not all about you!

At least he doesn't share a name with a certain Playgirl cover boy that a certain leftist lemming has an obsession with.

[Adam]

Adam Carolla - you know the person in the subject line........It's not all about you!

LOL, at my age, I tend to get confused.

[Alaska Darin]

My attitude is hardly cavalier. If waterboarding involved mutilation, I'd have a harder time defending it. Making someone believe he is drowning when he is not doesn't bother me, either as a human being or a physician. If you choose to engage in criminal activity, you don't get treated with kid gloves, in my book.

Waterboarding, and virtually every form of "enhanced interrogation" have long term effects on the subject. Physical and mental. To say nothing of the blowback we're going to get for how we continue doing things we B word at everyone else for.

 

And there's nothing saying that each person who is taken into custody and subject to enhanced interrogation is guilty of or even has engaged in criminal activity. We've been known to make numerous mistakes at every level in that regard. To say nothing of the supposed conservatives who want to reign in government power in virtually any turn, well, unless we're talking about waterboarding potential terrorists. Not hypocritical at all. Is that because the people are brown?

 

Watch out how much power you're willing to cede because at some point it may actually have an affect on you.

[DC Tom]

Waterboarding, and virtually every form of "enhanced interrogation" have long term effects on the subject. Physical and mental. To say nothing of the blowback we're going to get for how we continue doing things we B word at everyone else for.

 

And there's nothing saying that each person who is taken into custody and subject to enhanced interrogation is guilty of or even has engaged in criminal activity. We've been known to make numerous mistakes at every level in that regard. To say nothing of the supposed conservatives who want to reign in government power in virtually any turn, well, unless we're talking about waterboarding potential terrorists. Not hypocritical at all. Is that because the people are brown?

 

Watch out how much power you're willing to cede because at some point it may actually have an affect on you.

 

"effect".

[RkFast]

Waterboarding, and virtually every form of "enhanced interrogation" have long term effects on the subject. Physical and mental. To say nothing of the blowback we're going to get for how we continue doing things we B word at everyone else for.

 

And there's nothing saying that each person who is taken into custody and subject to enhanced interrogation is guilty of or even has engaged in criminal activity. We've been known to make numerous mistakes at every level in that regard. To say nothing of the supposed conservatives who want to reign in government power in virtually any turn, well, unless we're talking about waterboarding potential terrorists. Not hypocritical at all. Is that because the people are brown?

 

Watch out how much power you're willing to cede because at some point it may actually have an affect on you.

 

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

 

So spare me the lecture.

 

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

Edited May 8, 2012 by RkFast

[Dante]

Waterboarding, and virtually every form of "enhanced interrogation" have long term effects on the subject. Physical and mental. To say nothing of the blowback we're going to get for how we continue doing things we B word at everyone else for.

 

And there's nothing saying that each person who is taken into custody and subject to enhanced interrogation is guilty of or even has engaged in criminal activity. We've been known to make numerous mistakes at every level in that regard. To say nothing of the supposed conservatives who want to reign in government power in virtually any turn, well, unless we're talking about waterboarding potential terrorists. Not hypocritical at all. Is that because the people are brown?

 

Watch out how much power you're willing to cede because at some point it may actually have an affect on you.

I think interrogating suspected terrorists or even terrorist sympathizers is more of a military operation isn't it? Being conservative myself I'm worried about centralized power in our government domestically. As far as I'm concerned stuff like this is a military intelligence issue and pretty much anything goes. I don't give a **** what they do to them as long as they get info that saves American (and allies) lives. Pull fugging finger nails, teeth, hair whatever it takes.

[GG]

i can agree with this. noam is more of a critic than a person offering great solutions. but thats his gig. hes great at pointing the mirror right back at the US. and i used his intellect to crush the notion that the arab world " hates us for who we are". that is utter nonsense and propaganda from the state dept...

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.