Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around...
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #128358] |
Wed, 22 December 2004 08:44   |
 |
Jecht
Messages: 3156
Registered: September 2004
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
i have stayed up for 4 days straight several times. Im an insomniac, why do you think i am able to post so often on these forums? cuz i have no life? And yes, they are just sissies, and y do i think they have terrorist ties? BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE NO REASON FOR THE MILITARY TO DETAIN THEM OTHERWISE. And i never said that just because you dont agree with me that your not a patriot, its the fact that you never ever show any amount of pride or appreciation for this country. All you do is complain and that makes you a Whiney little Bitch. Fact is, I can admit to some great things Democrats have done WHEN THEY DO THEM. You for your life would never admit anything good about the Republican party, or conservatives for that matter. The Fact is, u think methods everyone else uses is wrong u fucking hypocrite. The Military gets answers the way they do things, they dont pamper the detained because every moment they spend ATTEMPING to get answers is a moment of time that an American Soldiers life could be lost because we didnt have that information. But then when that soldier dies, you wouldve bitched about that too and said it was Bush's fault for not getting intelligence fast enough. There is no winning with liberals if your not one.
|
|
|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #128367] |
Wed, 22 December 2004 09:48 |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7427
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
You have seen pictures from Abu Gharib of people being attacked by dogs, haven't you?
|
No, I haven't. I've seen pictures of people being SCARED by dogs. Typical. :rolleyes:
| SFE |
Why, yes, Crimson, that's why the Vietnam war was a bad war as well and we should never have sent our troops into it.
|
Well then don't say that we have "NEVER" tortured/abused anyone. :rolleyes: Geneva Convention doesn't even apply to non-uniformed enemies anyway.
| SFE |
We really need a new thread to contest the 2000 Florida election, of which could not have been a very clean election, since they never counted all the ballots. And this year, just a couple days ago some anarchist hacker guy testified on the floor of Congress that a Representative [R] from Florida had paid him to back into the electronic voting machines.
|
Oh PLEASE... this is so straightforward. You think "hmm it wasn't a legit election" in 2000, well, Bush managed to convince enough people he could do the job and being a Republican rules to WIN, completely, even with over 50% of the popular vote which Clinton couldn't accomplish. LET IT GO ALREADY.
| SFE |
Gbull, are you really saying that playing music incredibly loudly 24/7 doesn't amount to torture and that Iraqis are just sissies? Also, how do you know the people we are questioning have terrorist ties? You went 4 days in a row without sleeping? Somehow I feel to believe that. At all. And why do you bet the "people in question" didn't have to go that long? Why? WHYYYYYYYYYYYY?! Alright, it's time for you all to shut up about the "He-Doesn't-Agree-With-Us-So-He's-Bad" There will always be a place for the questioner in American politics, and it will never, NEVER, be a wrong one. And I must continue with the most obvious shard of all for my beliefs, the one which you apparently are bluntly ignorant of, that Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
I'm gonna go with T.J. before you. Sorry, that's the way the cookie crumbles.
|
Awwwww poor detainees were kept awake. My god, the ramifications will last for YEARS :rolleyes:.... you really lay it on thick, don't you. I should take a magnifiying glass to all Clinton's little wars and usage of military. But Patron Saint Clinton never did ANYTHING wrong except lie to the world about getting his weiner sucked off, right? I mean, someone who is willing to not only cheat on their wife and not even have the balls to confess when he was caught never did anything wrong in his entire life except for that. :rolleyes:
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #128368] |
Wed, 22 December 2004 09:55 |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Whoa, you need to stop watching FOX news if you believe Iraqis are sissies. Until you can prove that these people were detained because they had reasonable terrorist ties, you can't go around trumpeting that they did. I love this country, you fool. George Bush is just the worst "President" certainly since Hoover. And yes, I do make a point of stating my opinions on something if I believe it to be wrong, because that's what people do in this democracy. Quite frankly, I would be much happier if Nixon weren't a puppet, Reagan hadn't gone senile in office, Bush Sr. hadn't barfed in the lap of the Japanese ambassador, and if Bush Jr. hadn't gotten our soldiers into this war and created an economic situation where the U.S. in a couple years is going to be slaughtered by inflation. Out of the whole bunch, Bush Sr. was probably the best. Oh, and if I may, what is hypocritical about believing the actions of others are incorrect? No, the military is in fact not supposed to subject people to torture, either physical or mental, since we signed the Geneva Convention. The Constitution defines all signed treaties as the Law of the Land, and Geneva is no exception. No, I would not be disgruntled if a soldier died because we did not torture people enough. I would be disgruntled if a soldier died in a war started with lies, lies lies. [Clue for the clueless: Weapons of Mass Destruction] Also, what substantial proof do you have to determine that we are really getting good information out of these people?
Finally, cursing doesn't make you seem any smarter.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #128372] |
Wed, 22 December 2004 10:02 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Crimson |
No, I haven't. I've seen pictures of people being SCARED by dogs. Typical. :rolleyes:
|
The one picture from Abu Gharib I've seen with a dog in it is where the dog is practically leaping on the guy and snapping at him.
| Crimson |
Well then don't say that we have "NEVER" tortured/abused anyone. :rolleyes: Geneva Convention doesn't even apply to non-uniformed enemies anyway.
|
Could you show me the section where the convention says that?
| Crimson |
Oh PLEASE... this is so straightforward. You think "hmm it wasn't a legit election" in 2000, well, Bush managed to convince enough people he could do the job and being a Republican rules to WIN, completely, even with over 50% of the popular vote which Clinton couldn't accomplish. LET IT GO ALREADY.
|
But Gore had more of a popular vote in 2000... And it can't be proven that he convinved enough people because he got the conservative Supreme Court to not recount the ballots. But, please, let's stop this now and save it for another thread.
| Crimson |
Awwwww poor detainees were kept awake. My god, the ramifications will last for YEARS :rolleyes:.... you really lay it on thick, don't you. I should take a magnifiying glass to all Clinton's little wars and usage of military. But Patron Saint Clinton never did ANYTHING wrong except lie to the world about getting his weiner sucked off, right? I mean, someone who is willing to not only cheat on their wife and not even have the balls to confess when he was caught never did anything wrong in his entire life except for that. :rolleyes:
|
It amounts to mental torture. That's how you mentally torture people.
Please, take a magnifying glass to all of Clinton's wars. Reagan too. Like how he MINED Nicaragua's harbor and sold weapons to al Qaeda and trained Osama. All those stinger missiles and stuff in Afghanistan right now? Reagan put them there.
Well, he more or less didn't do much wrong except have an affair with some lady which had no reflection WHATSOEVER on his performance in the office of president, but was merely something the press, desperate for some news to attack him on, picked up like crazy animals. And the Republicans in Congress were no better. And now we get news that George Bush may well have lied about TORTURING PEOPLE, and the media is dead silent. Yes, very liberal of them.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #128385] |
Wed, 22 December 2004 11:29 |
 |
NeoSaber
Messages: 336
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
You have seen pictures from Abu Gharib of people being attacked by dogs, haven't you? That's what I would be led to believe is the most likely avenue. And torture is not just limited to being hit with a real big stick. Dictionary.com defines it as Excruciating physical or mental pain. That's what we were subjecting people at Abu Gharib to, and that wasn't the only incident, apparently.
|
Dictionary.com says torture includes excrutiating mental pain. How is sleep deprivation excrutiating? I've been deprived of sleep for a couple days before. It was annoying, not excrutiating. Stress positions? Being hand cuffed to the floor doesn't count as excruciating in my book. Growling dogs? (Note: I've changed from barking to growling based on the news reports on this that I saw yesterday). I've had plenty of dogs bark at me. It can be scary, not excrutiating. Then there's the hood wearing. I can't see (pun intended) how being blindfolded for a while counts as excrutiating.
| SuperFlyingEngi |
How do you know what's in the executive order if you haven't seen it? That's the whole point of this article, some people in the FBI leaked documents to the ACLU, and the ACLU went to court suing under the Free Information Act or whatever to ascertain whether or not there was an executive order, because all the evidence seems to point to there being one. And that's where we are right now.
|
They say in the article they know what's in the executive order. I'll admit, I mis-read that originally. I thought they meant they already had it when they were just saying they know what's in it, despite not having it. That lack of evidence is what they are citing when they say Bush authorized sleep deprivation, stress positions, etc. Citing evidence they didn't have confused me at first into thinking they had the evidence, I should have known better though.
It never says they are after the executive order. At the end, the article says:| Quote: |
The ACLU and its allies are scheduled to go to court again this afternoon, where they will seek an order compelling the CIA to turn over records related to an internal investigation into detainee abuse.
|
They don't say they are after the executive order. They want records they claim exist about internal investigations into abuse.
| SuperFlyingEngi |
These documents weren't intended to come out. They were leaked by federal employees. That's not the same thing as freely distributing them, FYI.
|
I didn't see anything about them being leaked to the ACLU. I'm just going by the article you posted about. In that article it says the documents came from a lawsuit the ACLU filed:
| Quote: |
The documents were obtained after the ACLU and other public interest organizations filed a lawsuit against the government for failing to respond to a Freedom of Information Act request.
|
By the way, you said:
| SuperFlyingEngi |
And guess what? This story will NEVER make the media outlets unless it snowballs, because they are not news. Don't feign yourselves into thinking they are.
|
Like I said above, I have seen a few stories on this already. The first story I saw was basically saying what the ACLU said verbatim. The only exception being, the story said "growling dogs" instead of "use of dogs". It was Fox News that ran these stories, I haven't watched the other channels enough to know if they are talking about it.
I don't think the story will go much further unless the media gets bored, as there isn't really a story here. Most of what the ACLU said is already known information. I'd even heard of that executive order months ago. I think I saw it being were debated on O'Reilly. Regardless of what some may think about him, he has some of the highest rating of the news channels. If he was talking about it, then people know.
If you want to get into big stories the media missed, I know of one where there's video of John Kerry, at a democratic fundraiser, taking money from known terrorists. 
NeoSaber
Renegade Map Maker at CnC Source
Animator/Compiler/Level Editor/Object Rigger/Programmer for Red Alert: A Path Beyond
|
|
|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #128428] |
Wed, 22 December 2004 15:15 |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
| Crimson |
No, I haven't. I've seen pictures of people being SCARED by dogs. Typical. :rolleyes:
|
The one picture from Abu Gharib I've seen with a dog in it is where the dog is practically leaping on the guy and snapping at him.
| Crimson |
Well then don't say that we have "NEVER" tortured/abused anyone. :rolleyes: Geneva Convention doesn't even apply to non-uniformed enemies anyway.
|
Could you show me the section where the convention says that?
| Crimson |
Oh PLEASE... this is so straightforward. You think "hmm it wasn't a legit election" in 2000, well, Bush managed to convince enough people he could do the job and being a Republican rules to WIN, completely, even with over 50% of the popular vote which Clinton couldn't accomplish. LET IT GO ALREADY.
|
But Gore had more of a popular vote in 2000... And it can't be proven that he convinved enough people because he got the conservative Supreme Court to not recount the ballots. But, please, let's stop this now and save it for another thread.
| Crimson |
Awwwww poor detainees were kept awake. My god, the ramifications will last for YEARS :rolleyes:.... you really lay it on thick, don't you. I should take a magnifiying glass to all Clinton's little wars and usage of military. But Patron Saint Clinton never did ANYTHING wrong except lie to the world about getting his weiner sucked off, right? I mean, someone who is willing to not only cheat on their wife and not even have the balls to confess when he was caught never did anything wrong in his entire life except for that. :rolleyes:
|
It amounts to mental torture. That's how you mentally torture people.
Please, take a magnifying glass to all of Clinton's wars. Reagan too. Like how he MINED Nicaragua's harbor and sold weapons to al Qaeda and trained Osama. All those stinger missiles and stuff in Afghanistan right now? Reagan put them there.
Well, he more or less didn't do much wrong except have an affair with some lady which had no reflection WHATSOEVER on his performance in the office of president, but was merely something the press, desperate for some news to attack him on, picked up like crazy animals. And the Republicans in Congress were no better. And now we get news that George Bush may well have lied about TORTURING PEOPLE, and the media is dead silent. Yes, very liberal of them.
|
You know what? YOU CAN TAKE A FUCKING 10 FOOT POLE AND SHOVE IT ALL THE WAY UP YOUR FUCKING ASS UNTIL IT COMES OUT OF YOUR MOUTH.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #128512] |
Thu, 23 December 2004 01:37 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7427
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
I have told you like 493 times that I don't watch FOX news... I read CNN.com for my news and nothing more.
I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX...
get it yet?
If Clinton wasn't doing anything wrong then why were the Republicans all over him?
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #128515] |
Thu, 23 December 2004 02:00 |
 |
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
SuperFlyingLiberalTool, I honestly don't know why you continue to post anything political anymore.
You are a hypocritical tool of the Democratic Party. You always have been a hypocritical tool of the Democratic Party, and you always will be a hypocritical tool of the Democratic Party.
Here, let me go through every post you have made thus far in this pathetic excuse for a thread you created so it's made plainly clear to you....
| Quote: |
Yes, that's right. Seems as if "President" Bush authorized torture and this wasn't just a small isolated thing. But anyone who reads news already knew that.
And guess what? This story will NEVER make the media outlets unless it snowballs, because they are not news. Don't feign yourselves into thinking they are.
|
Why do you have "President" in quotation marks? Oh, wait, that's right, since Michael Moore told you to believe that the 2000 election wasn't legitimate, that's the honest-to-God... oh, wait, I'm sorry, I forgot I can't say "God" for fear of offending an atheist... honest-to-Clinton (because he's the closest thing to a "god" you Democrats have) truth, and there is no other way it can possibly be. Lord Moore said it, so it must be so. Bush stole the election, and that's just the way it is.
Now that Lord Moore and the Infallible Church of the ACLU have told you to believe that Bush authorized "torture" (of which, by the way, you have a very pussified definition, but I'll get to that later), it must be true, and there is no contesting it.
Moving on....
| Quote: |
Well, how about you READ the document and decide for yourself?
Oh, and the Geneva Convention CLEARLY outlines that we will not torture people and the Constitution CLEARLY outlines that all signed treaties are the law of the land. Americans are not somehow more "godly" or more deserving to live than non-Americans. We're all people. Get it through your conservative skull.
|
You obviously never read the Geneva Convention before, or you'd know that terrorists get absolutely no protection under it whatsoever.
I'm amazed how you have claimed in the past to be more "open-minded" than conservatives, then you imply that all conservatives are white-supremacists. Not very open-minded, is it?
You really showed those racist Republicans how open-minded you are! Great job in showing just how much of a hypocrite you are! :thumbsup:
| Quote: |
Cowmisfit:
I suppose you chose to go with the latter.
I don't know why I'm wasting my time on such a pathetic case, but I don't have much to do right now. First, my parents. Both got above a 1400 on their SATs, and my dad regularly works side by side with the top scientific brains in the physics textbook industry as a chief development editor. [Clue for the clueless: Important role.] You also can't declare your pretend lala belief that my parents are below the average intelligence level to rest within the level of "fact."
|
Proof, ladies and gentlemen, that you can be incredibly book-smart but at the same time have no common sense.
| Quote: |
Now, why do I hate America? Because I don't blindly follow our "leaders" like you do? No, that's why I love America. Again, I reiterate:
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" -Thomas Jefferson
|
The reason we all say you hate America is you're always willing to blame America first for its problems. Before the war ever started, you said it was America's fault for Saddam being there in the first place. You said it was America's fault for giving weapons to the terrorists to fight the Soviets twenty years ago. You said it was America's fault for pissing the terrorists off in the first place.
It's always America that's the belligerent country, isn't it, SuperFlyingLiberalTool? It's never the other side that is actually causing the problem, is it? It's America's fault that more than a thousand soldiers died in Iraq. It can't possibly be the terrorists' fault, even though they were the ones who were setting off the bombs and firing the AK-47s.
Oh, wait, Ted Kennedy says it's America's fault for the war. I forgot; Lord Kennedy of the Kennedy dynasty is always right. My apologies.
[quote]Now, I'm betting you no Arab fundamentalist fighters are reading Renegade Forums to listen to bitches like you.[quote]
:rolleyes:
That wasn't his point, and you know it.
| Quote: |
I care for our soldiers. Don't say I don't.
|
No, you don't. You care more about the well-being of the terrorists than you do our own soldiers. This thread is a perfect example.
Here you are, bitching about how we're keeping the terrorists up all night to obtain information from them that can be vital to the survival of an entire squad of soldiers (I'll delve deeper into this issue later on). If you truly cared about the well-being of our soldiers, you would step back and let the interrogators do their job and get every little bit of information out of the captured terrorists as possible.
| Quote: |
I don't want them in this war. I want every one of them out of the Middle East right now. I never wanted any of them to be there. I never did, wanted, would, want or ever will want ANY of our soldiers to be hurt.
|
Here's where you go completely off the deep-end.
In case you haven't noticed, WE'RE IN THERE ALREADY, and now that we're in there, WE CAN'T JUST UP AND LEAVE, OR THE IRAQI PEOPLE WOULD BE ROYALLY FUCKED OVER!!!
Do you want us to build a fucking time machine and prevent the Iraq war from ever happening so Saddam can go back to torturing and murdering his own people? I thought your father, being the brilliant physicist he is, already taught you that time travel is impossible....
We can't leave now that we're in, and if you actually did care about our soldiers, you'd stop being such a hypocrite and let the interrogators do their job. If they have to keep terrorists up all night listening to the fucking Barney song in order to get them to spill their guts about where a terrorist weapons cache is, well Clintondamn it, let them!
| Quote: |
j-balls430:
First topic: One of the stupidest things I've ever heard. The vast majority of the populace probably never once wrote a complaint to their officials, because they just don't care that much.
|
You're kidding, right? Did you just completely miss the multitudes of protests, both anti- and pro-war, going on around the country when the first tomahawks were landing in Baghdad? You do realize that protests are one way of letting your elected officials know where you stand on a particular issue, right?
If they're willing to go out on a weekend and protest, they're probably motivated enough to write a simple letter to their elected politicians.
See, this is that "common sense" thing I told you about. You wouldn't know what exactly common sense is, though, since Ted Kennedy never said you could have any.
| Quote: |
And those in positions of public office aren't going to vote against any more money for our troops, they're going to vote against our troops being in active combat if the populace demands it. If the citizens of the United States believe our soldiers are in an unjust war, then they can bring them out of the unjust war. Although, since a big chunk of voters on election day were voting on "moral values," your group obviously doesn't care.
|
No, you only believe that the majority of voters voted on moral values because that's what you've been told to believe.
The majority of voters actually voted because of the War on Terror. Nice try pinning the blame on those bastard Christians who still carry some amount of morals, though.
| Quote: |
Terrorists and soldiers aren't the same thing. And that still doesn't justify torture. Are you saying it does? You're wrong. Read the article.
|
You actually think we're torturing people in Iraq? Look at what Saddam did to his own people in the underground rape rooms. That's torture. You're comparing that to sleep deprivation? Where the hell is your common fucking sense?
| Quote: |
Nope, still wrong. The United States does not torture anyone. Well, until "President" Bush, we didn't.
|
Yet, you believed John Kerry when he said we were torturing civilians in Vietnam. :rolleyes:
Hypocrisy just naturally rolls right off of your fingertips onto your keyboard, doesn't it?
| Quote: |
No, I got this tidbit from a blog site independent of the ACLU.
|
And you say Fox News isn't a reliable source.... :rolleyes:
| Quote: |
Oh, so we should go to their land and then kill them before we can kill us because in your eyes it's the best thing to do? How quaint.
|
I'm assuming you meant to say, "they can kill us...."
Typos aside, this could be one of the most outrageous remarks you have ever made. Are you saying you want our troops to wait to be shot at first before they can get off the first shot? You do realize an American soldier can be killed by that first shot, right?
How far away from reality can your mind possibly be???
And you say you care about our troops....
| Quote: |
Also, this article is implying that Bush lied about whether or not he knew about torture in the Middle East.
|
The key word here is "implying." You're taking an article, published by a biased source about a ridiculous case, that makes an accusation of the Bush administration and making it into an absolute truth.
I certainly hope I don't have to point your error here; it's hopefully obvious enough for even you.
| Quote: |
If we're going to be doing to them what Saddam did to them, shouldn't we at least know about it?
|
I thought your other comments were outrageous, but this remark certainly takes the cake.
I'll post that USA Today article for you again.
For you to even think for one second that what we're doing to interrogate the captured terrorists is even comparable to the torture Saddam forced upon his own people that is plainly exemplified in that report is completely out-of-line and utterly stupid.
| Quote: |
Icedog, read this ACLU article. Then read the documents if you want to. Then think for yourself. Reading and then thinking is the recipe for success.
|
That's funny. You're telling someone to think for himself when not a single original political thought that might run counter to the goals of the Democratic Party. Most Republicans here can give an example of at least one issue on which they disagree with George W. Bush, whereas you, even when directly challenged by myself, have not ever given one single example of any issue with which you disagree with the general stance of the Democratic Party.
It is you who needs to try thinking for yourself once in a while.
| Quote: |
What situation? The situation of having an opinion? Am I stupid for holding one contrary to an "elected" offical, namely "President" Bush? Are you so pro-Republican that you can't stand to see anyone doubt their candidates?
|
The situation of not having a single independent political thought in your entire body.
See? There you go again, putting "President" in quotation marks again.
Are you so pro-Democrat that you can't stand to see anyone disagree with any holy decree Pope Al Gore makes about George W. Bush?
Thank you for proving my point for me! That makes my job so much easier! 
| Quote: |
And keep your slanderous forked tongue within the confines of your oral cavity.
|
Ah, slandering him while accusing him of slandering you, are we?
Isn't that something a hypocrite would do, generally?
| Quote: |
warranto:
Well, this is only the tip of a potential iceberg. Right now the ACLU has a big stack of documents [availible for review at the bottom of that article] that they presented to a judge to see whether or not an executive order has to be released and whether or not it must be determined if there was one.
Don't be mistaken, this story hasn't resolved yet, but there is an enormous amount of evidence to suggest what is about to come.
|
This all goes back to the ACLU's, and your, definition of "torture." Like I said earlier, you have a very pussified definition. You actually believe keeping the terrorists up all night listening to the Barney song is actually torture. What the hell do you want us to do, put lounge chairs in their jail cells and feed them fucking filet mignon for dinner each day? Do you think that will convince any one of them to talk?
If we can't make them (gasp!) uncomfortable, how the hell do you expect us to get any information out of them? Ask them nicely? Get down on our knees and beg for the information? These were fuckers who, just a day ago, were trying to kill us! How can you not understand that these terrorists could hold vital information to weapons cache locations, locations of terrorist leaders, and anything else that might prevent the loss of an American soldier's life?
Why the hell aren't you willing to make these bastards "uncomfortable" in order to get them to spill their guts with information?
You want torture? Go back two years to one of those torture rooms in Baghdad described in that USA Today article. THAT is torture. This staying up all night bullshit? Not even comparable.
Just out of curiosity, where was your outrage when Ali Kaddam Kardom was being beaten, refrigerated naked and held underground for being a Shiite?
| Quote: |
I find it quite comforting to myself that I use bigger words than most of you while being of a younger age. Also, technically, you aren't hearing me, but merely seeing the text I print.
|
Ooo, you can use big words and take what he said literally! You're so much smarter than the rest of us! All bow down to the incredible intellect of SuperFlyingLiberalTool!!!
Typical liberal elitism; coming from this guy, is anyone surprised?
| Quote: |
The ACLU's objective is to assure that the Bill of Rights is upheld
|
HA! You actually believe that bullshit??? After their assault on Christianity, protection of the "rights" of NAMBLA, and loads of other ridiculous stories, you can honestly say they're trying to uphold the Bill of Rights???
How the hell do you sleep at night???
| Quote: |
not install a new economic system into the United States. Is this about those court cases where government offices are putting on Christmas displays? Because that and banning Christianity aren't exactly the same thing, you know.
DarkDemin, I ask you, what good is it if we go into a country claiming to end the regime of a torturer, and then start torturing people while saying we're not? How much better are we than Saddam then?
|
Once again, we are not torturing people in the more logical sense the term is usually used (not the sense in which you use it, mind you, since, by your definition, the only way we have to interrogate terrorists is begging).
Look at Saddam's regime to see real torture. Abu Ghraib hardly measures up to the shit Saddam did.
| Quote: |
Not all Arabs are terrorists, you know.
|
Once again, assuming all conservatives are white-supremacists. How open-minded of you!
| Quote: |
And here we go again with your Republican "Americans are more important than other races..." talk. I can't stand it.
|
You have the most narrow-minded view of Republicans I have ever seen. For your own sake, do not ever claim you are more open-minded than Republicans, or you will only cement yourself as a hypocrite.
| Quote: |
We invaded their country, and dropped so many bombs more or less all of them know someone personal that we have killed. That's why they hate us and our soldiers and our people, not because of our "freedoms" or any stupid reason like that.
|
There are so many things wrong with those two sentences, I don't know where to begin.
Okay, in response to the first sentence: there are 26 million Iraqis living in Iraq. It's absurd to think that each and every one of them knew someone killed by U.S. forces when a.) we didn't even invade each and every square inch of the entire country and b.) civillian casualties were minimal at the start and are still minimal with the continuing operations.
I find it funny how you spout how supportive of our troops you say you are when here you're accusing them, the most well-trained soldiers in the entire world, of accidentally or deliberately killing millions of innocent Iraqi civillians.
You support our soldiers while calling them baby-killers.
Yeah, and you're not a hypocrite. :rolleyes:
In response to the second sentence: firstly, you have a grossly overstated view of just how many Iraqis are really fighting us in Iraq right now. As of now, major fighting is occurring in only four of the fourteen total provinces in Iraq. In all, about 5% of the total Iraqi population never wanted us in there to remove Saddam in the first place and are currently aiding the terrorists in their efforts to get us out of there now.
Secondly, if they hadn't hated us for our freedoms and other "stupid" reasons like that, they wouldn't have flown two jets into the World Trade Center twin towers (no, asshole, I'm not saying Saddam had anything to do with that attack) in the first place. We weren't invading any countries before 9/11. How do you explain those attacks? Oh, wait, that's right, it was caused by the U.S.'s presence on Middle Eastern sand and George W. Bush's refusal to do anything about them before they happened, so sayeth the almighty Howard Dean, the soon-to-be Chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
A Democratic politician says it, so it must be true. My mistake.
| Quote: |
When did a thesaurus come into play?
|
When you substitute short words with longer words in a failed effort to make yourself appear more intelligent as a result of your massive superiority complex.
| Quote: |
"Listening to dogs" is one way of putting being attacked by them.
|
Listening to doggies barking! *Gasp* The horror! 
| Quote: |
Those are all torture methods designed to make people lose their minds. It is still torture, don't pretend it's not.
|
We'll muzzle the dogs when the terrorists start talking. Until then, they can keep on barkin'.
To a common sensical person, that's not torture, and you're being too overprotective of the terrorists' well-being. They're fucking terrorists! They deserve to be hung up by their balls and burned with sodering irons, but you know what? We don't use interrogation tactics like those. We're better than that.
However, there are still some methods that must be employed in order to make the bastards talk, but we have never gone as far as Saddam's torture methods have gone.
| Quote: |
I'm sure you saw those pictures from Abu Gharib. Do you believe it counts as humane action?
|
Not a single person here is saying we should employ the methods used at Abu Ghraib to interrogate the captured terrorists. Though putting women's panties on the heads of captured Iraqi terrorists doesn't amount to shoving rats up the anuses of Iraqi prisoners to have them die from internal bleeding (yes, that was an actual torture method employed by Saddam's regime), it was certainly over-the-line, excessive, and completely unnecessary.
I still don't know where your outrage over those rats being shoved up people's asses is, though.
| Quote: |
We went into Iraq first under false claims of weapons of mass destruction which we now KNOW are not there
|
Stop talking before you embarass yourself more.
What, exactly, was all that, um, whatchacallit, oh yeah, sarin stuff the Polish troops found a few months ago? Isn't that sarin stuff a weapon of mass destruction? Didn't they also just recently find some more of that stuff in the trunk of a car in Fallujah?
Oh, wait, that must've been a new flavor of jell-o or something. Silly me. I should tell my mom to buy me some sarin jell-o next time she's at the grocery store.
| Quote: |
and then started pretending we went in for humanitarian reasons, which is not at all how war was justified, where we claim to be removing a torturer. But now, we're torturing people and pretending we're not. Not very humanitarian, if you ask me.
|
I warned you about embarassing yourself....
| Quote: |
Yes, it is a coverup. These documents were all leaked. Right now, the ACLU is suing to ascertain whether or not there was an executive order condoning torture, of which the administration is apparently trying to cover up.
|
Condoning your pussified version of torture, probably, yes. In the common sensical version of the word, no.
| Quote: |
Well, no, it doesn't surprise me either, because that was the reason stated by so many during the exit polls.
|
Um, no, it was actually the War on Terror/the war in Iraq.
As I said before, you're just trying to pin Bush's win on those evil Christians and their "morals" going out in droves to vote against the "rights of the sexually-challenged man."
Well, hey, that's what Ted Kennedy said, at least, and Mr. Kennedy is always right, remember?
| Quote: |
So, I should blindly follow our leaders?
|
You already do, unless you don't consider nearly half of both houses of Congress to be considered leaders.
| Quote: |
No, I'm afraid that's entirely wrong. There must always remain the question in a democracy. I'm not perverting Mr. Jefferson's statement in the least. It's exactly what he meant, and the point remains. This blind "patriotism", if you can call it that, emanating from the Republican party disgusts me.
|
Yeah, because loving one's country and willing to do whatever it takes to defend it is such a foreign concept to you.
This blind anti-everything-Bush-does-since-he-can't-do-anything-right sentiment eminating from you and the Democratic Party disgusts me.
| Quote: |
Why am I a bad American? Because I chance a look at what our President does? Should I believe in what he does because you do? ... If censorship of ideas comes, democracy leaves.
|
Who the hell is trying to censor you? He wasn't saying you couldn't disagree with the actions taken by the head-of-state, just that in your blind hatred of every little thing done by George W. Bush, you begin hating your own country, which is the opposite of patriotism.
| Quote: |
You obviously don't understand our political system in the least.
|
Don't make me laugh. The same can be said of you.
| Quote: |
You have seen pictures from Abu Gharib of people being attacked by dogs, haven't you? That's what I would be led to believe is the most likely avenue. And torture is not just limited to being hit with a real big stick. Dictionary.com defines it as Excruciating physical or mental pain. That's what we were subjecting people at Abu Gharib to, and that wasn't the only incident, apparently.
|
Geez, again with the pussified version of "torture!" Why is your definition of the word so watered down?
Once again, we'll muzzle the mutt when he spills his guts.
Going by your ridiculous definition, a parent spanking his child or putting him in time-out because he did something bad amounts to fucking torture!!!
Be sure to ask Santa for some common sense this Christmas (that is, if you celebrate Christmas; I wouldn't be surprised if you became an atheist just to make sure you don't offend anyone by celebrating the birth of your lord and saviour, Jesus Christ (well, to normal people it'd be Jesus Christ; to you, it'd be Bill Clinton)).
| Quote: |
How do you know what's in the executive order if you haven't seen it?
|
How do you know there's an executive order when there is no evidence to prove the existence of one?
| Quote: |
That's the whole point of this article, some people in the FBI leaked documents to the ACLU, and the ACLU went to court suing under the Free Information Act or whatever to ascertain whether or not there was an executive order, because all the evidence seems to point to there being one.
|
No, not really.
Did you even read the documents attached to the article? Out of the 15 I read, they make no references to any executive order whatsoever!
Don't you understand that it's all speculation in an attempt to tarnish Bush's reputation?
Oh, wait, that's right, a prominent Democratic "public interest" group says it, so it must be true. I'm sorry, I forgot to blindly accept everything the ACLU puts out.
| Quote: |
Why, yes, Crimson, that's why the Vietnam war was a bad war as well and we should never have sent our troops into it.
|
You recognize your own hypocrisy! Good job! :thumbsup:
| Quote: |
We really need a new thread to contest the 2000 Florida election, of which could not have been a very clean election, since they never counted all the ballots. And this year, just a couple days ago some anarchist hacker guy testified on the floor of Congress that a Representative [R] from Florida had paid him to back into the electronic voting machines.
|
You've embarassed yourself enough in this post. I don't really need to help you embarass yourself any further.
| Quote: |
Gbull, are you really saying that playing music incredibly loudly 24/7 doesn't amount to torture
|
You know Clintondamn well it doesn't!
| Quote: |
Also, how do you know the people we are questioning have terrorist ties?
|
...Do you HONESTLY have to ask that question?????
You're more a tool than I thought!!!
| Quote: |
You went 4 days in a row without sleeping? Somehow I feel to believe that. At all. And why do you bet the "people in question" didn't have to go that long? Why? WHYYYYYYYYYYYY?!
|
Because maybe after three days they decided to spill their guts about where to find their terror cell leader. Did it ever occur to you that sleep deprivation might actually WORK?
| Quote: |
Alright, it's time for you all to shut up about the "He-Doesn't-Agree-With-Us-So-He's-Bad" There will always be a place for the questioner in American politics, and it will never, NEVER, be a wrong one. And I must continue with the most obvious shard of all for my beliefs, the one which you apparently are bluntly ignorant of, that Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
|
No one is saying you can't question the actions of the President; you just happen to disagree with every little thing he does, and your arguments are making us believe you hate your own country since you're so quick to blame America first in any foreign conflict.
| Quote: |
Whoa, you need to stop watching FOX news if you believe Iraqis are sissies. Until you can prove that these people were detained because they had reasonable terrorist ties, you can't go around trumpeting that they did.
|
...Again, do you HONESTLY have to ask this question???
They were captured on the field of battle fighting for the terrorists!!! IS THAT NOT "REASONABLE" ENOUGH FOR YOU????????
| Quote: |
I love this country, you fool.
|
Like hell you do. Why can't you ever admit that America is in the right for once? Why does America always have to be the first one blamed to you?
| Quote: |
George Bush is just the worst "President" certainly since Hoover. And yes, I do make a point of stating my opinions on something if I believe it to be wrong, because that's what people do in this democracy. Quite frankly, I would be much happier if Nixon weren't a puppet, Reagan hadn't gone senile in office, Bush Sr. hadn't barfed in the lap of the Japanese ambassador, and if Bush Jr. hadn't gotten our soldiers into this war
|
Typical. You name four Republican presidents and point out one bad quality in each. Nevermind that Nixon negotiated the end of the Vietnam War. Nevermind that Reagan brought about the fall of the Berlin Wall. Nevermind that Bush Sr. oversaw the fall of the Soviet Union (though it began during Reagan's term).
And, of course, nevermind that Bush Jr. freed at least 50 million Iraqis and Afghanis and is leading the War on Terror in the best way possible.
Can't name a single bad thing Clinton did in office, can you? Lord Kennedy wouldn't approve!
| Quote: |
and created an economic situation where the U.S. in a couple years is going to be slaughtered by inflation.
|
You know nothing about economics. Stop acting like you do.
| Quote: |
Out of the whole bunch, Bush Sr. was probably the best. Oh, and if I may, what is hypocritical about believing the actions of others are incorrect? No, the military is in fact not supposed to subject people to torture, either physical or mental, since we signed the Geneva Convention. The Constitution defines all signed treaties as the Law of the Land, and Geneva is no exception.
|
As I said before, terrorists get no coverage under the Geneva Convention. We can technically do whatever the hell we want with them.
| Quote: |
No, I would not be disgruntled if a soldier died because we did not torture people enough.
|
Yeah, because the well-being of the terrorists is so much more important than the lives of our soldiers.
Either stop complaining about how badly we're "torturing" the FUCKING TERRORISTS to prevent the loss of troop lives or stop saying you care about our troops' well-being, you hypocrite.
| Quote: |
I would be disgruntled if a soldier died in a war started with lies, lies lies. [Clue for the clueless: Weapons of Mass Destruction]
|
Clue for the fucking blind: WE FOUND WEAPONS OF FUCKING MASS DESTRUCTION!!!
We did NOT start the war with "lies, lies, lies" like Lord Ted Kennedy will have to you believe.
Now that we're there, we cannot leave! Get that through your thick skull!!!
| Quote: |
Also, what substantial proof do you have to determine that we are really getting good information out of these people?
|
Do you honestly think civillians would have access to most likely classified information obtained from those interrogations?
You're gettin desperate, aren't you?
| Quote: |
Finally, cursing doesn't make you seem any smarter.
|
Neither does acting like you're better than everyone else.
My Clinton, I have never seen someone with a superiority complex as big as yours.
| Quote: |
The one picture from Abu Gharib I've seen with a dog in it is where the dog is practically leaping on the guy and snapping at him.
|
Your point?
| Quote: |
But Gore had more of a popular vote in 2000...
|
You say Gbull doesn't know anything about our political proces....
We use the electoral college to elect our presidents. The popular vote is literally meaningless. Crimson just mentioned the popular vote to make a point that you obviously missed.
| Quote: |
And it can't be proven that he convinved enough people because he got the conservative Supreme Court to not recount the ballots. But, please, let's stop this now and save it for another thread.
|
CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court? At THAT point in time? What reality are you living in, boy?
You are such a tool!
| Quote: |
It amounts to mental torture. That's how you mentally torture people.
|
Once... again... use the common sensical definition of "torture," not your, "Ouch! He thumped me on the head with his finger! TORTURE!!!!"
| Quote: |
Please, take a magnifying glass to all of Clinton's wars. Reagan too. Like how he MINED Nicaragua's harbor and sold weapons to al Qaeda and trained Osama. All those stinger missiles and stuff in Afghanistan right now? Reagan put them there.
Well, he more or less didn't do much wrong except have an affair with some lady which had no reflection WHATSOEVER on his performance in the office of president, but was merely something the press, desperate for some news to attack him on, picked up like crazy animals. And the Republicans in Congress were no better. And now we get news that George Bush may well have lied about TORTURING PEOPLE, and the media is dead silent. Yes, very liberal of them.
|
Yeah, you keep believing that. I wouldn't want to tarnish the image of your god, William Clinton.
It's obvious that you can't deviate away from the mainstream Democratic Party's platform at all, can you, SuperFlyingLiberalTool?
You've shown yourself to be nothing but a hypocrite and a tool of the Democratic Party.
I honestly cannot understand why you persist in posting anything political in this forum at all since it just turns out to be the same mindless hypocritical dribble we've heard time and again from you.
What's more, you profess to have this open-minded view of the world when your view of conservatives is more narrow-minded than Osama Bin Laden's view of the United States.
You're always willing to blame the United States before anyone else, even when it's in the right!
I find it funny how you call upon others to think for themselves when you yourself have not a single independent thought in your entire body.
You come in here with your superiority complex and act better than the rest of us, and you don't hesitate to point out just how much better when the opportunity presents itself, as you have done in this thread alone. Have you no class?
Every single post you have made in this single thread alone is nothing but a repeat of the same crap we hear from Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore, etc. and quite frankly, I'm tired of it all.
Learn to think for yourself, kid, or you'll only continue to embarass yourself with your hypocrisy.
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
 (<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
 (<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
|
|
|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #128521] |
Thu, 23 December 2004 03:47 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7427
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
/me applauds loudly. Bravo, hydra! I read that whole thing, it was a brilliant dissection of the stereotypical liberal. It's kinda nice to have a perfect example of a Democrat soldier right here in our own forums to play with, isn't it?
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #128551] |
Thu, 23 December 2004 08:25 |
|
Jecht
Messages: 3156
Registered: September 2004
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
The fact that you belittle the successes of the war is disgusting warranto. He makes a point that we found WMDs and you try to make that into a bad thing...bravo, take a seat next to the other Mindless Drone.
| Geneva Conventions |
ARTICLE 13
Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.
Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.
Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.
|
You fail to see that ensuring Mental Stability is in no place in this article. And lack of sleep, playing music, barking dogs, and sitting on the floor can hardly be deemed: "seriously endangering the health of the prisoner."
|
|
|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #128578] |
Thu, 23 December 2004 11:31 |
|
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| warranto |
Except, of course for this provision...
| Quote: |
PART I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Article 1
The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.
|
|
Not really.
The incredibly flawed Geneva Convention doesn't even address the proper treatment for captured terrorists. Hell, it doesn't even address terrorists in general!
They certainly don't count as prisoners of war, as you should know, because they don't meet the requirements explicitly put forth in article 4 quoted here (I highlighted key points of the article):
| Quote: |
Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
|
As you can well see, these captured terrorists hardly count for prisoners of war.
How does the almighty Geneva Convention tell use we should treat captured terrorists, then? If it has the answer to all possible circumstances, how can it be applied in this situation?
The answer is it can't since it doesn't even mention the proper treatment of terrorists.
SuperFlyingLiberalTool was saying the terrorists get coverage under the Geneva Convention, when upon examination of the actual document, they don't. Way to nitpick at a specific point of my post while completely ignoring the general point I was trying to make, though.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Clue for the fucking blind: WE FOUND WEAPONS OF FUCKING MASS DESTRUCTION!!!
We did NOT start the war with "lies, lies, lies" like Lord Ted Kennedy will have to you believe.
Now that we're there, we cannot leave! Get that through your thick skull!!!
|
WMDs were found prior to the war starting? As well, I thought the war was to free Iraq, and the "found" WMDs were simply a bonus that could be used to justify an illegal invasion.
|
Sarin-flavored jell-o, anyone? I found some over in Iraq; it's mighty tastey! It was in a box with wrapping paper around it with a card on it that says, "To Osama; Love, Saddam; Happy Ramadan!"
WMDs were found; there is no denying it, Warranto. They were found in Iraq and date back to years before Saddam's regime ever fell.
One of the reasons the war was waged was because Saddam did not freely hand over his weapons of mass destruction that we knew he had, not because we couldn't find any. It was partly in an effort to enforce the flawed international law that you so closely cling to.
| Javaxcx |
*insert smartass smiley post here*
|
Laugh all you want. It doesn't change the fact he was nitpicking at specific points of my post while seeming to ignore the general point of it.
| =[DT |
=gbull=[L]=]bravo, take a seat next to the other Mindless Drone.
|
On the contrary, Warranto is one of the liberals here that I can actually respect. Though we may differ in our views on a great many subjects, he is an independent thinker and not married to one party or the other (he's not even American, so why should he be married to an American political party?).
Unlike SuperFlyingLiberalTool, he can actually think for himself and doesn't need to be told how to think. That's why I respect his views more than SuperFlyingLiberalTool.
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
(<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
(<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #128632] |
Thu, 23 December 2004 16:09 |
 |
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
Rather than requote all that, I'll just point out the parts.
In regards to this whole terrorists and prisoners of war bit. If Iraqi insurgents aren't being held as prisoners of war, what are they being held as? Even normal prisoners have certain rights that must be upheald.
| Quote: |
WMDs were found; there is no denying it, Warranto. They were found in Iraq and date back to years before Saddam's regime ever fell.
One of the reasons the war was waged was because Saddam did not freely hand over his weapons of mass destruction that we knew he had, not because we couldn't find any. It was partly in an effort to enforce the flawed international law that you so closely cling to.
|
Not according to the UN just prior to war being delcared. And that is all that really matters, regardless of what you may happen to think about the UN.
| Quote: |
It doesn't change the fact he was nitpicking at specific points of my post while seeming to ignore the general point of it.
|
That is true, I was nitpicking. This is only because, while those in captivity have done unspeakable things (I'm assuming this as people are lableing them terrorists) and deserve what they are getting, the point is that it is still not the "right" thing to do, to which you appear to be arguing the alternative.
| Quote: |
The fact that you belittle the successes of the war is disgusting warranto.
|
I'm not belittleing the success of the war, I support the war (the timing of the war is another thing though, but that is beside the point), that doesn;t make it any less than I have stated it as such.
| Quote: |
And lack of sleep, playing music, barking dogs, and sitting on the floor can hardly be deemed: "seriously endangering the health of the prisoner."
|
Take a psychology course, and perhaps you'll think differently. These seemingly menial things can have a profound impact on a prisoners health. Both mental and physical. Over the short term, not so much, but over a period of time, most definatly. Of course, the context as to how these methods are being enacted upon them must also be taken into account.
A simple dog barking won't do a thing bad, however, a dog sounding like it will attack, while it's beeing held on a leash infront of your face, will.
Edit: | Quote: |
On the contrary, Warranto is one of the liberals here that I can actually respect. Though we may differ in our views on a great many subjects, he is an independent thinker and not married to one party or the other (he's not even American, so why should he be married to an American political party?).
Unlike SuperFlyingLiberalTool, he can actually think for himself and doesn't need to be told how to think. That's why I respect his views more than SuperFlyingLiberalTool.
|
Thanks, I think.
Though I'm not a "liberal" as is usually defined by people here. I'm more along the lines of "ensure what's right is understood prior to arguing for the wrong reasons". If "what's right" happens to be a liberal view, so be it. But if it happens to be a left or right view, well then, so be it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #128664] |
Thu, 23 December 2004 18:03 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
No, I've actually been playing with a great fluid simulator for the past two days, other people have semi-stood in for me, and quite frankly I don't have all the time that I used to have to post on these forums. Note how hydra's post up there was about 6 pages long.
Also, have you all heard about the defamation of character and libel suit that John Kerry has against the Swift Boat Hoax?
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue May 07 20:17:48 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01356 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
