If

If a terrorist attack occurs under Obama and the culprit trained along side the Nigerian bomber in Yemen and if the Nigerian knew them and knew of their plan, i hope those who fought to give the Nigerian terrorist lawyers, and mirnada right and to not allow him to even be touched (let alone waterboarded) & allowed us to only ask him nicely for info, i hope they know they will be responcible for the death of those people b/c they felt that saving the lives of innocents was less important than not touching a Nigerian terrorist.

The Truth About Waterboarding

I. WHAT IS WATERBOARDING? WHAT DOES IT DO TO THE PERSON WHO UNDERGOES IT?

ANSWER: WATERBOARDING
1. INFLICTS NO SHORT OR LONG TERM INJURIES
2. IT DOES NOT CAUSE EXTREME OR SEVERE PAIN
3. IT MERELY MAKES DETAINEES FELL LIKE THEY ARE DROWING FOR AT MAXIMUM AROUND 3-5 SECONDS AND RESULTS IN USUALLY 1-3 SECONDS OF UNPLEASENTNESS AT THE FIRST MOMENT ONE FEELS THEY CAN'T BREATHE THEY EITHER YELL THE AGREED UPON CODE WORD OR DROP AND/OR THROW THE "DEAD MANS GRIP" WHICH ARE TWO TINTY BARS THAT ONE GRIPS IN BOTH HANDS TO THE FLOOR AT EITHER OF WHICH POINTS THE WATERBOARDING IMMEDIATELY ENDS.

Here is a video of the shockingly un gruesome method of extracting life saving information: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7u-Wk1aU-E

II. HOW MANY TERORRIST DETAINEES AT GAUNTANMO BAY WHERE WATERBOARDED?

ANSWER: All of 3 terrorist murderers we're waterboarded the entire time at Gitmo in 7 years.

III. WHO WHERE THE TERORRIST DETAINEES THAT WHERE WATERBOARDED?

ANSWER: The first ever detainee to be waterboarded at Gitmo was the number 3 guy in Al-Quada the terrorist organization which had just attacked the United States and killed thousands of innocent civilians. In fact, all 3 where high up in Al-quada. Another detainee who was waterboarded was Khalid Sheik Muhommad, the confessed mastermind of the murder of 3 thousand plus civilians on 9/11/2001. (QUESTION: Does a unprovoked, delibrate murderer of 3,000 innocent civilians not deserve to be hung let alone to exsperience 3 seconds of temporary unpleasentness in order to not punish him but to extract information about future attacks that would save lives?)

IIII. IS IT TRUE THAT WATERBOARDING IS TRUE THAT WATERBOARDING IS A VIOLATION OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION OF WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS PRINCIPAL SIGNATORY?

ANSWER: Absolutely not. The Geneva Convention, which came about after WW2 in order to prevent the toture of soliders of nation states held capitive in a war does not apply to Khalid Sheik Muhhomad or any one ever detained at Gitmo for Al-Quada terrorists are not solidiers of a nation state being held behind enemy lines in a war between two nation states. (And even If they where it's debated where waterboarding would count as toture under the Conventions but thats irrelevent because they aren't. By the way, the conventions did not apply to spies of a nation state behind enemy lines or solidiers who didn't play by the rules of war. For instance, German solidiers who put on US solidiers uniforms during WW2 when caught behind the enemy lines trying to collect information where immediatly executed and no one thought that a violation of the Geneva Convention because the German officers had broken basic rules of war. In the same way, the Geneva Convention didn't apply to any solidier who broke the basic rules of war (of which it was apart), if you delibratly slughter civilians or solidiers waving a white flag or a group of red cross medics, you weren't going to receive the benefits of the basic rules of war that you defied. The Conventions applied to solidiers of a nation at war who where simply captured the usual way not captured along killing a child in the other nations uniform, etc.. Bin Laden broke the basic rules by delibratly targeting civilians.)

WHY DID THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS ONLY APPLY ITSELF TO SOLDIERS OF A NATION CAPTURED IN A WAR RATHER THAN SOMEONE LIKE OSAMA BIN LADEN IF HE WHERE CAPTURED?

Because it really would be cruel and unjust to waterboard, or even just make stand for 24 hours a, say, captured 18 year old German solidier who A. Didn't nesscarily go to war by choice for they would be jailed or executed for treason if they evaded the draft or deserted and B. They didn't kill civilians, they where commanded to, shoot at other solidiers in a war they didn't start of choose to fight quite often and 3. they were solidiers of a nation state at war and finally 4. A rank and file officer or private captured behind enemy lines has almost never any life saving, war winning information that would be at all worth waterboarding them for while OSAMA BIN LADEN and KHALID SHEIK MUHOMMAD and MUHOMMAD ATTA and all 3 of those terrorists the United States waterboarded to try to get life saving information that did save thousands of lives and prevented attacks, all 1. weren't forced to slaughter 3,000 innocent civilians, which they did delibratly, on September 11th, 2001 and 2. They where not the solidiers of any nation state (and weren't in a official war between two or more nations) 3. They weren't Americans and weren't entitled to Meridanda rights or a lawyer present and all the rest inturn 4. They, such as the number 3 man in Al-Quada or the mastermind of 9-11, had valuable if not life saving information that they weren''t going to give up by asking nicely and didn't give up when not coarsed by waterboarding and other techniques.

HOW DOES ONE DEFINE TOTURE?

One common sense of definition of toture is that if your willing to undergo a interrogation techinque voluntarily just to see what its like, or just so you can be a US Marine or Navy SEAL or just to write a article on a technique for your monthly column: it isn't toture.

If I ask you would if you'd like to try getting your finger nails pulled or your hand bashed with a being slamming hammer would you try it? Ofcourse not.
If I said that you could only become Navy Seal if you let your arm be cut off without anistetic would you do it anyways? Not a Chance
If I said that if you had your teech pulled out with out novacaine your could write about the exsperience in Vanity Fair, would you do it? No.

Now, then consider the following information:

1. The famous Anglo-American writer, Christopher Hitchens, last year, decided voluntarily to be waterboarded and write his monthly Vanity Fair column about it. Graydon Carter even had the whole waterboarding session photographed and filmed. Not only did Hitchens do this without receiving any short or long term injurys but feeling he could have held out longer than he did he, at his own insistance was waterboarded again-twice in one hour.

Now If you can possibly imagine a free man voluntarily getting his hand smashed by a huge metal hamme, I ask you, can you imagine any man after having their teeth pulled without novacaine coming back within the hour for more teeth pulling of this kind for any reason? Again, ofcourse not.

2.Talk about conviction those who render waterboarding to be not just toture but a procedure that would be completly unjust and cruel if employed even in order to extract potentially life saving information on, for instance, the mastermind of 9/11 and de facto murderer of 3,000. However, these same people raise no objections, and do not accuse our arm services of toture when they force every Navy SEAL to undergo waterboarding in their training for combat in order to prepare Navy Seals for potential interrogation tactics emplyed in the case of their capture. Why when a Navy Seal, a law abiding citizen of the US who has never murdered any innocent civilians (delibratly atleast) not being totured when they are waterboarded but the mastermind of 9/11, KSM being totured when he is waterboarded? Why is it unacceptable and unhumane and barbaric to put the number 3 man in Al-Quada through waterboarding but just fine for a Navy Seal. Isn't toture toture whenever its imposed on someone or carried out. If the Navy Seals where being made to have their teeth pulled with no antistect just like terrorist detainees at Gitmo would leftists be saying that only the detainees where being totured further more would America ever stand for that? No.
Usually at adolscent boys schools freshman hazing traditions don't inovolve 14 year olds and 16 year olds regularly toturing boys of 13 or 14 or 12 year olds, right? They usually lock kids in lockers or make kids pay for the tables food or beat up once for hazing rather than, say, pull their finger nails off their fingers with plyers right? Well according to those who say waterboarding is toture boys military academy cadeats have been toturing one another (committing war crimes that many on the left believe warrant decades mininiumum in jail) as part of school hazing rituals with younger cadeats for centurys in America because for centurys, junior cadeats would waterboard each other.

Finally, doesn't the mastermind of 9/11, the confessed mastermind, KSM deserve to die for their actions? It's almost certain that all 3 of those who where waterboarded will be setenced to death and If by some amazing miscarriage of justice they aren't, America will erupt in rage. Assuming they will all get death, why is it ok for us to kill them but not to put them through temporary distress for 2-3 seconds via waterboarding in order to extract information from them while their still alive that can save lives? Why would it be moral to put KSM to death or Osama to death after not even trying to extract life saving info out of them because they said no when asked for information and refused to go further? Isn't it moral to save lives when lives can be saved by possibly just putting a terrorist murderer through temporary discomfort?

Considering all this, I think it should be obvious to any honest person that waterboarding KSM or any of the 3 we waterboarded wasn't toture and that it is absolutely wrong that the left think that being against waterboarding the likes of Osama Bin Laden is humantarian since we know that if such people had been listened during the Bush years, many innocent civilians would be dead today as a result of terrorist attacks that were foiled as result of forced interrogation techinques. Ofcourse the stopping of these attacks such as the blowing up of the Brooklyn Bridge by the CIA and the FBI just like all the other incredible facts mentioned above like tha fact that only 3 detainees have ever been waterboarded at Gitmo are suppressed and ignored and/or hardly covered by the leftist media.

Let me leave you with another one of those facts you'll feel outraged that you weren't told about years ago. This one is from Mark Thissens excellent recent book, "Courting Diaster":

The first terrorist detainee to be waterboarded, Abu Zabada, thanked the CIA interogators for waterboarding him, he said "you must do this for all the brothers" and he said this because the Jihadi philosphy is that allah will prevail no matter what they do so there moral responcibility is to resist as much they can and once they've resisted there free to spill their guts.

Case closed.

Liberal Morality: protecting murderers & arresting protectors of the innocent

Its a funny thing liberal morality. They (some of them) say it is fine for a doctor to break the skull of a new born child with scissors in order to kill it after it has come out of the womb, but when someone kills 3 thousand innocent souls (as Khalid Sheik Muhommad did), and they know where Bin Laden is, these same people say that it is "morally wrong" to put that murderer through temporary distress in order to extract life saving info from them. Bin Ladin deserves to die, not to be treated like a hotel guest. It is completly moral to make a mass murderer feel pain if thats what it takes to save him and his friends from taking more innocent lives.

Sex and Terrorism: a love affair

Sometimes the truth is right under are noses. Today it is more than ever. The truth about what motivates islamic terrorism (and terrorism in general) is as everyday and familiar and, indeed, unviersal as catching a cold and yet most are oblivious to it entirely.

If you want to know this sad truth that is the ultimate driving force behind acts of Islamic terror take a look at the following courtesy of John Dernyshire,

"Pittsburgh computer techie George Sodini shooting up an aerobics class at his local gym. Three women died and at least ten others were wounded. Then Sodini shot himself. He left behind web diaries in which he wailed about his utter lack of success with women. He hadn't had a proper relationship since 1984, and hadn't had any sex at all since 1990. This is pretty baffling stuff. I think most of us assume that no matter how unsightly you are or how quirky your personality, there is someone out there to suit you. Sodini was not in fact unsightly. He was good-looking and kept himself in shape. His personality was a bit peculiar, but well within the range of everyday oddity for all anyone could see, and to judge from the video tour of his house you can see on the internet. He really tried to connect with women, even attending a dating course."

Yes, indeed, as with so many other issues, sex and the lack of it, is at the heart of islamic terrorism. I've suspected this for a while and known it to be true far longer. Perhaps women won't get this point as quickly as men will for lack of testrone. But ladies, you must understand, as many of you do understand i'm sure, how easily a man, these days, can come to hate women to such a degree that they feel compelled to shot up a arobics class full of innocent members of your gentle sex to death.
You see out of need springs hate. Men hate women, to varying degrees, cause they need women and they hate that they need creatures they find while attractive, to be at the same time so often, so dumb, so shallow, and so annoying (to them not me ofcourse). Ofcourse this level of irratation with the more, let us say, garish charcterstics of the modern liberated American women is usually a product of a man who finds his desire for women woefully unrescpricated. Mr. Sodini certainly found his own desire for the fairer sex unrecipocrated to a excruciating extent.


But this is just one type of male/muslim male susciptible to the siren song of Bin Ladenism and terrorism. It is always, the lonely sexually frustrated muslim alone in America that goes loco and shoots up a arobics class of middle aged women. That kind of jihadist is home grown in western societys like Major Hasan and the English 7/7 bombers, but the type of muslim that comes from the mid-east to do there deed like the 9/11 hijackers are a different breed of enraged muslim. This other breed is inspired by sex in another less immediately direct way. This lot of foreign born islamic terrorists quite have a content family life. They often have a wife and might have not just one but 7 wives as in the case of Osama Bin Laden and usually have quite a few children too. While like most muslims who've grown up in middle eastern nations, they may not have had that much interaction let alone sexual intimacy with women before marriage and maybe not much after they usally aren't in most cases, very sexually frustrated persons. There rage at the west derives from a fear of female liberation (which however moral is a somewhat rational fear). If the Sodini home-grown terrorists are motivated by pessmism and depression. Anti-Americanism in the middle-east is not so much hatred as it is simple fear or atleast animosity fueled by fear.

Muslim fathers in the middle east, quite understandably, can develope a keen hatred for the west in fear of there daughters becoming slutty, amoral, Paris Hilton's through the corrupt influence of MTV and the rest of feminized, decadent western media. They hate and fear the image of the Paris Hilton females of the west, strutting around in there slutty lust-inducing clothes, shopping on there fathers tab and dominanting weak-chinned, feminized males who they've have tied around there feminine fingers.

If there is one person muslims scorn and fear, it is not evangelical Christian, George W. Bush, or othodox jewish neo-con's like Norman Podhoretz, but the liberal Paris Hilton and the even more liberal, Betty Friedan-the twin symbols of "female liberation" and modern female sluttery. I've long been pointing out (as a critic of both the Afgan and Iraqi war) that muslims do turn to anti-western jihadism because of American tanks rolling into Bagdad but because of television Sattelite beeming MTV into there daughters bedroom. Even if America, as i hope, would withdrawl all it's tentacles from the world jihadism would keep on apace for the American 5th infantry division of the US army but is supported by MTV.
The United States has never intervened in Yemen, so why are so many major radical Imams coming out of Yemen? Because they do not fear American bombs falling on there heads but they do American hedonism and feminism entering there culture, there daily lives, there customs, there family lives and destroying it all for them. They don't fear there daughters being bombed by an American jet aircraft, the fear there daughter becoming a rebellious, atheist, "western slut" after she gets a taste of American culture.

This is why i laugh when i hear liberals going on talking about how the existence of Gauntnamo Bay is causing Muslims to turn to anti-American jihadism. Look, our wars in Afganistan and Iraq i won't deny have added to anomsity towards America (though i think that won't be true once we leave) but Gitmo, Iraq, Afganistan, even the Abu Grahib scandal all in the long run add neglibly to the likelihood of another Fort Hood shooting.

Our occupation of Iraq, the waterboarding of KSM, all these things are all low hanging fruit for a jihadist terrorist looking for excuses/justfications for why they shot up a arobics class or blew up a building. Take Mr. Sodini, the shooter of innocent women in a arobics class, is he going to say or write in the note he leaves for the police when they raid his apartment that he did what he did because he couldn't get laid? or because he hates uppity wetsern "liberated" womenhood in there corrupty clothes? No, that would be too embarsing. He would be laughed at by the whole country the one time he gets his face on the front page of the New York Times. So these terrorists leave sucide notes mentioning Israel and Gauntanmo Bay and all the rest instead.

This is pretty basic human nature and yet, seemingly, no one mentions sexual frustration as a driving cause of jihadist terrorism (or terrorism altogether) out of embarsment or cowardice or lack of creative anylatical skills to be sure.

As i said earlier, sex is at the bottom of issues outside terrorism. In fact, with many issues, true understanding of the issue at hand is, incomplete, without understanding the sex factor. What if you were wondering why Japan (like China), for instance, is so homegenous and takes in hardly any immigrants? Most people would come up with some boiler plate exsplanation about "Japanese tradition". Surely, a large part of the exsplanation is rather unsayable, which i would adduce to be Japanese fears of sexual inadquecy. Japanese men and asian males, in agreggate, have surely noticed to there discomfort, the trend in America, for example, for asian women to defect from the race, and marry and date non-asian typically white males. This fact about female Asian preferences has created a great many bitter asian guys hence the name of the popular blog BitterAsianGuy.com. Thus the Japanese, not wanting there women to stray, have logically decided not to, say, import tens of millions of non-asian men into there country who may potentially "steal" a gross number of "there women". Why take the risk of new sexual compietors? Makes sence right? But as is obvious to say this in public would be completly out of the question and would probably offend or atleast make any asian males present extremly uncomfartable. Yet another akward though nonetheless truth point about matters related to race.

But even this point about asian and sex is not at all seperate from the discussion of terrorism. One of the most famous home grown American terrorist was 23-years old, Cho Seung-Hui the Virginia Tech student who murdered 33 and injured 50 on his rampage on the Virgina Tech campus back in 2007.

What was the motivating cause of the korean immigrant, Seung-Hui's massacre? Sex-once again.

As came out after the Virgina Tech massacre ,Cho Seung-Hui, was isolated, alien to his surroundings and his non-Korean piers and most of all, chronically sexually or atleast "romantically" frustrated. He had gotten in trouble earlier at Virgina Tech for stalking a girl he was infutiated with, following her around, calling her until she went to the campus faclulty for help getting the creepy Seung-Hui of her back. And then months later Cho Seung-Hui loses it, but loses it with gun aimed at his fellow students.

Lest you not see the obvious implications, this says something about the problematic nature of diversity. Young men and men will always be insecure and at times, sexually discontent anyplace, anytime-no matter what. It's merely human nature. But to be a stranger in a strange and/or foreign land can compound the fatalism of young man down on his with the ladies to a terrible even, as we see, dangerous degree. It must be tough on asians, for instance, in America to watch TV when almost all the faces on the screen don't look like theres. To be, at times, looked in a different way. To be, wheather perceived or truelly, treated in a different way. To be a ethnic "outsider". In case one ascribes these things that can make one feel like an outsider to "racism", note that these things are all naturely part of the exsperiences of any person who finds themselves living in a nation where they belong to a very small minority of the population.

If Cho Seung-Hui had grown up in his native Korea rather than come to America the chance are that he would not have become a school shooter. Chances are that Cho Seung-Hui might well have felt the same social alienation and sexual dissapointment that meet him in America but chances are that those ubiqtous adlocents annoyances wouldn't have blommosed into murdeous rage. But his loneliness was obvilously compunded by being a Korean in America as was true Mr. Sodini and is was true with Major Hasan the most recent domestic terrorist to kill innocent people in America.

The reason you don't have white Americans committing as much acts of terror is among other reasons, mainly the result of them being in "there own" society vacinatted against the variety of rage and alienation that so easily plagues non-white foreigners and immigrants in America like Hasan and Cho Seung-Hui.

I'll guess i'll just put this down as no. 76 in my endlessly ong-going list of reasons why diversity is nothing to be desired(and don't need more mass immigration). But then again, nothing outside "increasing threats posed to our national security by our open borders" seems to be allowed to be mention as to what the downsides of mass immgration are.

I can happily and honestly say for the first time, that this post here at my up n' coming blog America Departed is something you really really won't get anywhere else.

Allow to end this incredibly insightful lesson in the causes of jihadist terrorism by proscribing a policy solution. It's quite simply:

The way to decrease the risk of producing the next home grown Major. Hasan or Cho Seung-Hui is not to invade the world or "engage" with the middle east there gasy Obama-esque rhetoric about Islam as a religoun of "peace", but to legalize prostitution. If hookers where more readily available to the next would-be domestic terrorist he might put down the 44. magnum and pick a magnum condom.