thirdworld19

I will be in Jordan for a few days and was hoping to stop by a DZ while I'm there. Has anyone ever jumped there? I went on-line and found a club called "The Royal Aero Sports Club of Jordan." Is anyone familiar with this place? Thanks.

I am a newbie, so take this for what it is. But, I am very thankful that my tandem INSTRUCTOR took the time to teach me the basics versus treating me as cargo - which would be very easy to do. I think it takes a lot more effort and desire to teach the student/cargo. Due to the efforts of my TI, after the first 2 tandems, I was familiar with the idea of arching, 360 turns during freefall, forward movement in tracking position, altitude awareness, waving off, learning the 3 S's when the chute first opens (square, stable, steering), some basics of canopy control (gliding, breaking, and turns), landing patterns at the airport, and flaring. If you want to just give people a ride and be done with it, that's your prerogative - or that of your DZO. However, when you involve a student in the basics, you can create a skydiver for life.

So why are you arguing so vehemently with those who also claim the opposite? Actually, if you reread the previous posts and links, particularly those posted by nerdgirl, you will find at least to sources claiming or logically implying that torture has yielded no useful information. The statistical evidence favors humane treatment. Some with experience claim no useful information has been obtained via torture. In lieu of a laboratory test in controlled conditions, we have to rely on the statistics. Why would we go from the more effective method to a lesser effective method, especially when the lesser effective method is illegal? I am not arguing so vehemently against all those... What I am saying is that the experts who claim torture is ineffective may have other reasons to state that it is ineffective. I noticed that your post is slipping from torture being ineffective to torture being either less effective or that statistical evidence favors more humane methods. Torture has been effective and continues to be so - search the internet just like you did to support its ineffectiveness. It is one of the tools in the toolbox available to those who need it. Personally, I believe it should be a last resort in certain cases (not all). Other methods fail as well, but we continue to use them. How many times has simple questioning failed to provide any confessions or useful information? If it's as easy as "statistical evidence favors humane treatment," please give me a reference to something that shows the statistics of how much we get from simple questioning versus torture.

Wouldn't the morality of something take the front seat over it's effectiveness? Does the end justify the means?

I have three, that I know of. (This is supposed to be funny because I am a woman last I checked). 14, 11, and 9 They saw my first tandem and wanted to go right away. If any of you are old enough to remember the movie Breakfast Club, the nerd has a fake ID - why? Well to vote of course. My kids all want fake ID so they can jump.

I haven't heard that denied in this thread. That 1st paragraph was background - no need to reply. Please read entire post first and reply to the point of the post, not each individual word. So you really believe it bolsters our image to torture despite claiming ing that torture is not effective? That doesn't make any sense. It hurts our image. Again, re-read the post. I never said that nor even implied that - in fact, quite the opposite. The information we have indicates that the latter is not the case. Again, no evidence citing that it is ineffective which was one of the main points of the OP - onus is not on me, I didn't make the unsupported claim (and the ISB does not support the claim either). And to back up the OP with Colin Powell's letter to McCain was ridiculous. Don't people read those!?! Powell wrote: "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts." The letter did not say he was against it because torture was ineffective. And saying that he did is a fallacious argument. The US continues to do it, because it is effective in some situations. Good luck finding volunteers for that experiment. Would you like to be one of the subjects that gets tortured? I bet they can get you to confess to killing Kennedy. Or Lincoln. Never suggested anything of the sort. In fact, why not use all of the evidence/experience already gathered that supports the proposition that torture is ineffective - and take a better look at that. Obviously there must be some evidence out there that these experts are relying on. Including those with actual interrogation experience. Of course, did I state otherwise? Why would they when experience has shown humane treatment works better? Precisely, if the nice way works, cool. If not, go to the bad stuff. True, but there is no indication that torture will work for the hypothetical ten percent of people who offer no information when treated humanely, either. Please support this statement. Are you saying that we have NEVER gotten any usable information through torture? Naive statement if that's the case.

What was the context in which that quote you cited was culled? It was 'culled' from the summary of the entire report. This was the bottom line of the report. Now to take other excerpts from the report that don't represent the spirit of the report and twist them to fit your argument would be culling - IMHO.

Anything by Blondie.

Sure, I've seen lots of government reports that have turned out to be propaganda. The War On Drugs is one such area such propaganda is extensively used. However, there is also a lot of credible information available countering the claims of such propaganda. So, thirdworld19, would you be so kind as to provide for us a few examples of credible information indicating that torture is an effective way of getting reliable information from detainees/POWs? What would be the purpose of all these people who have hands on interrogation experience to lie about how much better humane treatment of detainees works for getting information compared to torture? I don't think anyone believes that the US doesn't engage in torture, but based upon the available evidence, very few people consider torture to be a viable way to maximize intelligence obtained from detainees. Let me try to make this understandable. The US has a policy of no torturing. They (the infamous 'they') must live a public life as if this is true - no torture. However, 'everyone knows' that we do torture - or send people to countries to do this for them. So we are saying one thing and doing another. Now, to try to bolster our public image of 'no torture' (because everyone knows we do it) we have various experts state that it is ineffective. (As a side note, have these experts actually tortured people - is this first hand experience that they are basing their opinions on?) If torture is ineffective, why would we do it? Of course we don't. It's bad and it doesn't work anyway. (Kind of sad that this is the reason for not doing it.) The information that is put out there to support this policy of no torture is propaganda. Again, did Condi lie when she spoke of rendition flights, or did she just have no clue that we do that? Why do we torture people? Why has it been done over hundreds of years - and why do we continue to do it? Good question. Maybe the government hires, as interrogators, a bunch of sick fucks who get their kicks on hurting people. Or, maybe because it is effective in some circumstances. As the Intelligence Science Board report states, maybe we just need some empirical evidence to prove it one way or the other. I don't doubt that many think that being humane works better than torture. I would think that those people didn't start off the interrogation with torture though. They probably started nice and got what they wanted - so no need to revert to torture. It's the stubborn enemy, when the humane way didn't work, who ends up with torture. Just because the humane way works better for some, or most, doesn't make torture ineffective.

I don't know if I would use the term conspiracy either. But the US has certain policies that they want to uphold, if not in actual fact, at least in appearance. Torture is one of those things that 'civilized' people find distasteful (although most would find that the outright killing of the enemy in war to be OK). The Intelligence Science Board report that was referenced in a previous post stated that there has been no research on the effectiveness of any interrogation techniques (and not as previously stated that torture is ineffective). The experts cannot say that torture is ineffective - as much as they want to. So which experts are you going to listen to - the ones that say it is ineffective or the ones who say that we just don't know. Having multiple agencies following one mandate is not new or unheard of. And I am surprised that you don't see how the US benefits from the world believing that we don't torture people. I think it was a quote in one of your posts about how torturing prisoners has detrimental effects on US soldiers, etc.

Especially the ones that predate the war on terror, such as this one: …despite the complexities and difficulties of dealing with an enemy from such a hostile and alien culture, some American interrogators consistently managed to extract useful information from prisoners. The successful interrogators all had one thing in common in the way they approached their subject. They were nice to them. Maj Sherwood Moran, USMCR - Guadalcanal 1942 I'm sure General Moran had propaganda for the War On Terror in mind when he made that statement. Rice became the Secretary of State in 2005, right? So it had to be after that. Obviously what Rice said is propaganda - either that or she is completely clueless, right? Which is it? And to think that others (General Moran) don't engage in propaganda is absurd. Of course it wasn't for the war on terror - who said that it was? Propaganda has always been around. It is extremely naive to think that it is a stretch for government reports to be propaganda.

I must not have read the same report as you. I don't think they were "damn sure" at all. After glancing through the report (I did not read the entire report) it seems that the experts are not convinced one way or the other as to the effectiveness of torture. "although there is no valid scientific research to back the conclusion, most professionals believe that pain, coercion, and threats are counterproductive to the elicitation of good information. The authors cite a number of psychological and behavioral studies to buttress the argument, but are forced to return to the statement: 'more research is necessary.'"

What? No! You obviously haven't read a single piece of information that's been presented here, otherwise you could not possibly misunderstand things so badly. Are you joking? Please, enlighten me. What exactly were all of the reports saying... Or are you referring only to other posters opinions?

That would be a very good point, if it was in any way connected with reality. The reports that have been linked to in this thread are at odds with official policy. The president publicly vetoed a bill that would stop the CIA using torture. It is common knowledge the US carries out rendition flights to let our allies torture suspects for us. In short, everyone knows that that the US uses torture and as such (in your scenario) the propoganda value of the reports that have been linked to would be nil. I guess I'll have to repeat my earlier statement - for some of us, morality has value beyond "Stuff we do to make other people like us". Some of us think that being moral has an intrinsic value of its own. At least you've recognized that what the other countries do is immoral and we can't rely upon our sense of morality to be universal. With regard to rendition flights and official policy, I would say Condi represents official policy: "The United States has not transported anyone, and will not transport anyone, to a country when we believe he will be tortured. The United States does not use the airspace or the airports of any country for the purpose of transporting a detainee to a country where he or she will be tortured." — US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice They have to keep up the charade. And reports that state that torture doesn't work is just another part of that.

You are still ignoring the point that experts in the field say that torture is ineffective. If it doesn't work it doesn't work. I think you missed my point - maybe I wasn't very clear. The experts may say one thing, but that doesn't make them true. Maybe these experts have other reasons for saying what they're saying. And maybe they're saying that torture doesn't work because in fact, it really doesn't work. Who knows? But if you want to disregard the opinions of people who have real-world experience in interrogation, then who should we turn to instead as an expert? Rush Limbaugh, perhaps? Think about it: You hold a bunsen burner to an insurgent's testicles & yeah he will say 'YES YES I CONFESS! I WAS GOING TO PERSONALLY BLOW UP THE WHITEHOUSE!! WHATEVER!!" I think most of the experts were saying that torture doesn't work in most cases - but I don't believe that torture is used in most cases, only in those when the nicer ways haven't worked. So if more humane ways work on 9 out of 10 prisoners, that is most likely what gets used. Torture would then be used in that 1 time when being nice failed. Therefore, it is not the most effective method. Who should we turn to? Who can we turn to? There probably aren't many experts who will say that torture works because that would go against America's stated policies. Experts (people with real world experience) saying that torture does in fact work would be confirming the fact that America does engage in torture - when it does not (according to policy). So of course you won't get credible experts to admit this. You would think that someone would cop to anything given enough pain/discomfort. But, there are many out there who are willing to and happy to suffer or die for what they believe. And typically, when interrogating in the scenarios involving terrorists, you aren't seeking to get a confession, you are seeking information on their friends and other events. (Things that can be corroborated) I also think that it is important to define torture. Taking pictures of naked men stacked in a pyramid doesn't equate to a car battery to the genitals in my book.

Perhaps it is important for America and certain groups of intellectuals to put forth these arguments against torture so we will have that deniability factor. Appearance is very important. "No, we don't torture prisoners. Of course many prisoners might claim to be tortured, but we know it doesn't work (look at these studies), so why would we." One other point, other countries torture their own in local police stations and on the street corner, they won't "not torture" ours because we are so nice to theirs. You are still ignoring the point that experts in the field say that torture is ineffective. If it doesn't work it doesn't work. Who cares what our enemies do. That's not the criterion. The criterion is whether or not it actually works in the real world. I think you missed my point - maybe I wasn't very clear. The experts may say one thing, but that doesn't make them true. Maybe these experts have other reasons for saying what they're saying.

I have read the passages and much of each of the entire books they were in and I stand by what I believe them to say. I don't believe the Bible states anywhere that it is wrong to have multiple spouses. I wasn't putting forth my opinion about polygamy at all - still not. Just whether or not the Bible condemns it. If God did not want people to have multiple spouses, it would have said so - kinda like the 10 commandments. There are many clear don'ts in the Bible, I just don't think this is one of them. Perhaps you are agreeing with me - it's a bit difficult from your posting. Re: the last quote about content, I would say that content has to come from inside you - it is a state of mind - an attitude you choose to have in life.

Faygo Red Pop Leaves changing color Convenience stores (they are very convenient) Being able to sit in and watch the Congress inaction - I meant in action Being able to say those things Mountains, Ocean, Desert, Forest, Lakes Driving for hours with the radio blasting and going nowhere (Usually) Not having to worry about getting sick from eating a salad at a restaurant Drive thru fast food at 2AM Comparatively fresh air Indoor/Outdoor gun ranges Estate auctions Garage sales in the summer Drive-in movie theatres Carnivals in the summer Amusement parks - huge rollercoasters Good bar burgers Double stuff Oreos

Perhaps it is important for America and certain groups of intellectuals to put forth these arguments against torture so we will have that deniability factor. Appearance is very important. "No, we don't torture prisoners. Of course many prisoners might claim to be tortured, but we know it doesn't work (look at these studies), so why would we." One other point, other countries torture their own in local police stations and on the street corner, they won't "not torture" ours because we are so nice to theirs.

Reading the passages, here's what I got out of it: The first two (Jesus) refer to divorce. When two people marry, they become one and therefore cannot be separated. Nothing that says a third can't join the original union. Just no divorce. The next group refers to becoming a bishop/deacon. And if polygamy was frowned upon, why would there be a stipulation that a bishop/deacon could only have one wife (as opposed to what?). Seems to mean that having more than one wife was accepted, but that a bishop had other rules to follow. (Eph 5:33 is the same passage as the first 2). And the last quote seems to me to be the opposite of what you are saying. I believe it is telling people that if you can accept marriage, go ahead and do so. But for those eunuchs, sorry you can't accept it - too bad for you. But everyone else who can, should. There are many references to polygamy throughout the Bible - none of them outlawing the practice. Here are a couple: Judges 8:30 (Gideon had 70 sons...for he had many wives) 1 Kings 3:1-2 (Solomon married the Pharaoh's daughter to ensure safety of the kingdom - not his 1st wife) 2 Chronicles 11:23 (Sought many wives for them) 1 Chronicles 14:3 (David took more wives)

Yes, would you please supply the references for the above. Thanks. Would there also be a passage for polygamy being "against the spirit?"

Just curious, as far as I know, the Bible does not outlaw polygamy. And looking at the old testament, there were several men who had more than one wife. Do you have a passage that says that polygamy is not allowed?

The fact that they made "irregardless" a word. It's regardless. But so many people said it incorrectly, that they made it a word.

I have a question, why does the world NOT hate Britain anymore? They used to. What has changed?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." People is a collective term. Had they wanted to say it is an individual's right, it would say "individual." The purpose of the individuals keeping the weapons was for the purpose of being able to maintain a 'State' militia when needed - individuals keeping the arms for the collective purpose. This was a right for each State - as opposed to the federal government. The idea was to limit the power of the federal government. (Constitution gave the federal government power, the Bill of Rights limited the federal government's power) In England, they gave the individuals guns in order to fight, but then at the end of the battle/war, collected those weapons and put them into the armory. The king didn't want the people to have the weapons any other time. So, in the new world, it was important for the individual to have the weapons and not send them back to the armory. But, it was for the purpose of each State to be able to defend itself against the federal government if necessary. The founding fathers didn't want the federal government to maintain the weapons, because that would be just like the king's armory. That was what they were trying to prevent.